SSDBoss Review Our evaluation of MX200 vs BX200

read performance

How quickly data is read from the drive

MX200
6.1
BX200
6.0
4K Random Read, 4K Random Read Access Time and 512K Sequential Read

write performance

How quickly data is written to the drive

MX200
6.5
BX200
6.3
4K Random Write, 4K Random Write Access Time and 512K Sequential Write

real world benchmarks

How well the drive performs common tasks

MX200
8.1
BX200
8.1
Photoshop Lens Filter and AS SSD ISO Copy

Benchmarks

How well the drive performs on common benchmarks

MX200
6.8
BX200
6.8
PCMark Vantage and AS SSD Score

No winner declared

Too close to call

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Crucial MX200

Reasons to consider the
Crucial MX200

Report a correction
Higher capacity 500 GB vs 240 GB More than 2x higher capacity
Faster 512K sequential read 532.68 MB/s vs 363.24 MB/s More than 45% faster 512K sequential read
Faster 512K sequential write 482.13 MB/s vs 400.17 MB/s More than 20% faster 512K sequential write
Lower avg. power consumption 2.03 Watts vs 2.49 Watts Around 20% lower avg. power consumption
Lower 4k random write access time 3.49 ms vs 3.93 ms More than 10% lower 4k random write access time
Front view of Crucial BX200

Reasons to consider the
Crucial BX200

Report a correction
Slightly faster 4k random read 194.99 MB/s vs 169.96 MB/s Around 15% faster 4k random read
Slightly lower 4k random read access time 1.27 ms vs 1.47 ms Around 15% lower 4k random read access time

Benchmarks Real world tests of MX200 vs BX200

4K Random Read

MX200
169.96 MB/s
BX200
194.99 MB/s

4K Random Write

MX200
71.58 MB/s
BX200
63.61 MB/s

Avg. Power Consumption

MX200
2.03 Watts
BX200
2.49 Watts

4K Random Read Access Time

MX200
3.49 ms
BX200
3.93 ms

4K Random Write Access Time

MX200
1.47 ms
BX200
1.27 ms

Comments

comments powered by Disqus