SSDBoss Review Our evaluation of MX300 vs BX200

read performance

How quickly data is read from the drive

MX300
6.3
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

MX300
6.3
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

MX300
8.2
BX200
8.1
Photoshop Lens Filter and AS SSD ISO Copy

Benchmarks

How well the drive performs on common benchmarks

MX300
6.9
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 MX300

Reasons to consider the
Crucial MX300

Report a correction
Significantly higher capacity 750 GB vs 240 GB Around 3.2x higher capacity
Faster 4k random read 244.23 MB/s vs 194.99 MB/s More than 25% faster 4k random read
Faster 512K sequential write 477.46 MB/s vs 400.17 MB/s Around 20% faster 512K sequential write
Faster 512K sequential read 482.27 MB/s vs 363.24 MB/s Around 35% faster 512K sequential read
Lower avg. power consumption 1.92 Watts vs 2.49 Watts Around 25% lower avg. power consumption
Faster photoshop lens filter 51.6 s vs 54.2 s Around 5% faster photoshop lens filter
Lower 4k random read access time 1.02 ms vs 1.27 ms Around 20% lower 4k random read access time
Front view of Crucial BX200

Reasons to consider the
Crucial BX200

Report a correction
Faster 4k random write 63.61 MB/s vs 44.94 MB/s More than 40% faster 4k random write
Lower 4k random write access time 3.93 ms vs 5.56 ms Around 30% lower 4k random write access time

Benchmarks Real world tests of MX300 vs BX200

4K Random Read

MX300
244.23 MB/s
BX200
194.99 MB/s

4K Random Write

MX300
44.94 MB/s
BX200
63.61 MB/s

Avg. Power Consumption

MX300
1.92 Watts
BX200
2.49 Watts

4K Random Read Access Time

MX300
5.56 ms
BX200
3.93 ms

4K Random Write Access Time

MX300
1.02 ms
BX200
1.27 ms

Comments

comments powered by Disqus