Crucial MX200 SSD Review (500GB/1TB)


Crystal Disk Benchmark is used to measure read and write performance through sampling of random data which is, for the most part, incompressible. Performance is virtually identical, regardless of data sample so we have included only that using random data samples.

 Crucial MX200 500GB CDM Crucial MX200 1TB CDM

Crystal Disk Mark also shows us some impressive 4K write speeds, both SSDs reaching over 150MB/s. 4K reads average 34MB/s. Both SSDs were also able to each over 500MB/s read and write.


The toughest benchmark available for solid state drives is AS SSD as it relies solely on incompressible data samples when testing performance.  For the most part, AS SSD tests can be considered the ‘worst case scenario’ in obtaining data transfer speeds and many enthusiasts like AS SSD for their needs. Transfer speeds are displayed on the left with IOPS results on the right.


Crucial MX200 500GB AS SSD Crucial MX200 500GB AS SSD IOPS









Crucial MX200 1TB AS SSD Crucial MX200 1TB AS SSD IOPS


The 500GB and 1TB MX200 reach a total score of 1089 and 1077 respectively.  Read speeds both reach over 500MB/s and write speeds of 480MB/s. Both were unable to achieve rated IOPS in this test.  Both SSDs reach 32MB/s for 4K read and over 130MB/s for 4K write.

Crucial MX200 500GB AS SSD Copy Crucial MX200 1TB AS SSD Copy


In the Copy test both SSDs have very similar performance, both reach their fastest performance with the ISO file and lowest with the Game file.


Anvil’s Storage Utilities (ASU) are the most complete test bed available for the solid state drive today.  The benchmark displays test results for, not only throughput but also, IOPS and Disk Access Times.  Not only does it have a preset SSD benchmark, but also, it has included such things as endurance testing and threaded I/O read, write and mixed tests, all of which are very simple to understand and use in our benchmark testing.

Crucial MX200 500GB Anvil Crucial MX200 1TB Anvil

With a result of 5,427.54 points the 1TB beats out the 500GB overall which achieved 5,367.24 in this test. Looking at 4K performance again, we see that both capacities were able to hit 32MB/s read and over 140MB/s write. In this test we were able to achieve the rated write IOPS, however, read IOPS are still low. Let’s move on to our next test and see if we can hit that 100K mark!


Iometer is an I/O subsystem measurement and characterization tool for single and clustered systems. It was originally developed by the Intel Corporation however, they discontinued work on the program. In 2003 it was re-launched by an international group of individuals who are now continuously improving, porting and extend the product that is now widely used within the industry.

Crucial MX200 500GB Iometer Max Read IOPS Crucial MX200 1TB Iometer Max Read IOPS

Because we were unable to achieve the rated read IOPS with our other benchmark programs, we decided to give it a go with Iometer. Luckily for Crucial, we were able to achieve a bit over 99K IOPS. Being just a few hundred IOPS off is well within a 1% margin of error.


  1. blank

    It is obvious that you do not always need the 7mm to 9.5mm spacer. When is a spacer typically necessary? I just replaced two 9.5mm drives with 7mm drives; neither 7mm drive came with a spacer and neither needed a spacer. Micron kind of says the spacer is included so you will have it if you need it.


  2. blank

    Hey Les, long time reader (love the site). Quick question-most of my reading is done to determine which SSDs can help us most in HD video capture & transfer (raw uncompressed). We typically use the Blackmagic Speed Test to determine where a SSD stands before buying. Which of the test that you guys typically run gives me the closest indication to the Blackmagic test? (i.e. which will let me know best how the SSD performs under the test of raw uncompressed data) Thanks 🙂

  3. blank

    So if you were deciding between the M550 and the MX200 (in 500gb form), which would be the better choice? Assume prices are either exactly the same or not a factor in the decision.

  4. blank

    Finally, Crucial has released a firmware update to address the problems with the MX100 drives. I haven’t been successful yet in applying the update, as is noted by many on their forum, but I thought it would be good to post the info here (since I decided to get two MX100’s as a result of the review on this site):

  5. blank

    Sean why don’t the MX200 recover in the PCMark 8 test????
    Is this deferred GC or are we stuck with those low speeds????

    • blank

      Those are the speeds it produced going through the test. Due to the firmware it doesn’t seem that it is able to recover quick enough to perform better in the light workloads within the time frame. However, wasn’t developed to deal with constant writes such as are issued out in the PCMark 8 consistency test, thus it doesn’t do too well in it. Our run in PCMark Vantage shows that it does perform a lot better if it isn’t constantly strained. So real world you shouldn’t have much to worry about.

  6. blank

    Nice review. Here is a comparison with Crucial M552! Which is the best ?

  7. blank

    Nice Piece of information for the concerned people

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *