Crucial MX100 speed

S

smesx

n00b
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
54
I recently purchased a 512gb Crucial MX100. I'm getting some strange results in HD tune. Wanted to know if anyone had any advice.

Before: fresh drive
SwTkxaB.png


After imaging from 128gb Crucial M4 to the MX100
UKwJvW6.png


After loading a bunch of steam games on to the MX100
AfRP4c0.png


A few days later (today) even slower.
EIps4eL.png


Not sure whats going on, the M4 never behaved this way, or my two 840 evo's (firmware issue aside). I've considered a fresh install of Windows 7 as the next step. Any help would be appreciated.
 
It is not that unusual that written areas are slower than unallocated blocks. The still empty drive can basically be simply referenced as unwritten and the controller does not have to actually access any NAND to get its "contents".

What is a bit unusual is that in the last benchmark the drive was overall slower (even maximum speed). Is there something running in parallel?

After the imaging I generally would TRIM the free space, Windows 8 has the build-in drive optimizer, Samsung and Intel have something comparable in their toolbox, for Crucial on Windows 7 you have to rely on some third-party tools. I think I used something called ForceTrim a while ago.
 
This is why I'm always afraid to buy a cheap SSD. Samsung Pros all the way for me I guess.
 
Sxd9pzD.jpg


mmmm. same over here, thats my steam ssd. I hope its not the EVO crap again, at least this one is not going down to 40mb/s.....

iXppQrd.jpg


my 840 pro has no problem and that one has been beaten to death by constant video encodes,

Both are on the intel sata 3 ports on a R4BE.
 
Last edited:
Anyone else thinking this may be fixed with a firmware update (ie. the Samsung EVO issue) I may be returning this. That 840 pro looks nice, although $80+ more.
 
Just used ForceTrim, same results as that last picture :(

What is everyone's experience with the m550 and the 840 pro? The 850 pro is a bit out of my price range.
 
What program did you image with?

I don't believe the problem lies with the SSD
 
My 840 Pro does not show any signs like this, it works 100% like it's supposed to no matter the data on it or anything.

I mean you have to realize that it costs more for a reason. It's better NAND, it's not just all a waste for the higher price.
 
SirMaster said:
My 840 Pro does not show any signs like this, it works 100% like it's supposed to no matter the data on it or anything.

I mean you have to realize that it costs more for a reason. It's better NAND, it's not just all a waste for the higher price.
Click to expand...

Good point, I figured it would be slower than a pro or even the evo, but not half the speed.

Im going to pop the drive in a different computer tonight and run this test, if that shows no improvement I'm going to do a fresh windows 7 install.... then return it.
 
For the 256 GB version of the MX100 something like this is expected, but not for the 512 GB version.

The 840 pro is an extremely consistent performer, best SSD I had along with the 830.

By the way, sequential as long speeds do not really matter that much.
 
omniscence said:
For the 256 GB version of the MX100 something like this is expected, but not for the 512 GB version.

The 840 pro is an extremely consistent performer, best SSD I had along with the 830.

By the way, sequential as long speeds do not really matter that much.
Click to expand...

True but there is no reason it shouldn't have better sequential reads than my 128gb M4 that has been abused for the past 2.5 years.

HXCcvAN.png



Thats an average of 366 MB/s vs my last run on the mx100 averaging 246 MB/s.

Still hoping I just did something wrong.
 
Well I have a fresh install... of Windows 10 technical preview (which is pretty cool btw). Realizing now that the drivers are most likely not optimized for this.

Results anyways
ITebh1A.png


Going to go install windows 7 now.
 
Fresh Windows 7 install after a SecureErase :)

a3kXpbP.png


After filling half the drive. :(

R3MSKmS.png


Leaning towards returning it. Am I being too nitpicky here?
 
Well prepare to LOL:

2x Intel 730 SSDs in Raid 0 using the X99 raid ability. About 50% of the 960gb capacity is used.

Because this is Intel I'm calling it normal:


free upload
 
ToddW2 said:
So was/is the mx100 your primary/windows drive or just a steam drve?
Click to expand...

I tried it both ways, all the screen shots are as a primary drive except the very first one. In both setups the sequential read was below 300MB/s on the filled portion of the drive.

I considered keeping it as a data drive but with the additional cost of the 840 Pro, I opted to get my money back. If it was on par with my M4 i probably would have kept it. The minimum kept dropping the more I filled it which makes me think there is something wrong with it, although Nexvid's bench showed similar results.
 
smesx said:
I tried it both ways, all the screen shots are as a primary drive except the very first one. In both setups the sequential read was below 300MB/s on the filled portion of the drive.

I considered keeping it as a data drive but with the additional cost of the 840 Pro, I opted to get my money back. If it was on par with my M4 i probably would have kept it. The minimum kept dropping the more I filled it which makes me think there is something wrong with it, although Nexvid's bench showed similar results.
Click to expand...

I'll have to keep an eye on the 2 512gb MX100s I just put in service. I've had M4s since release, and been happy with them. Nothing touches the 840P/850 though, but in day-to-day most won't notice... warranty if that's important to you is a big thing too.
 
I suggest to try the benchmark at different power-saving settings.
My results are usually dependent on that.
 
840 Pro - Disk cloned from M4 with Samsung software. Got about 200gb on the drive right now.

mPXVWVi.png
 
Want to see wacked, here is a ARC100 empty on Intel SATAIII
That does not look normal even if it was the OS drive.
Shadowcopy turned off, no indexing, nothing accessing it.

2zhp5kg.png


Reads are steady but slow, Samsung 840 beats it easily.

2q2jvkm.png
 
Well, you are not going to get amazing performance from a 120 GB drive. The only recent drives that get somewhat good performance charateristics at this sizes are the 850 Pro, S3500 and S3700.

To get meaningful write benchmark data you have to get a steady state. The drive will probably settle at the lower mark of the spikes.
 
That or HDtune does not care for the barefoot controller.
I was hitting almost 500 with ATTO, crystal was reasonable and not far behind Samsung.

Synthetics are always tricky though to get a honest snapshot.
 
You've used one benchmark? I find HDTune always gives totally different results to all the others. I tend to take its results with a pinch of salt SSD wise.

At the end of the day...does it feel fast or slow to you when you are actually doing 'real' stuff with it?
 
smesx said:
I recently purchased a 512gb Crucial MX100. I'm getting some strange results in HD tune. Wanted to know if anyone had any advice.



Not sure whats going on, the M4 never behaved this way, or my two 840 evo's (firmware issue aside). I've considered a fresh install of Windows 7 as the next step. Any help would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

try the as ssd bench program
 
CDM the numbers were certainly better.

Sequential Read : 449.598 MB/s
Sequential Write : 391.442 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 351.965 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 393.888 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 28.584 MB/s [ 6978.5 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 144.860 MB/s [ 35366.2 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 310.582 MB/s [ 75825.6 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 102.716 MB/s [ 25077.1 IOPS]

Test : 4000 MB [D: 0.2% (0.2/111.8 GB)] (x9)
Date : 2014/10/04 1:00:22
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top