SSDBoss Review Our evaluation of 840 EVO vs MX100

read performance

How quickly data is read from the drive

840 EVO
4K Random Read, 4K Random Read Access Time and 512K Sequential Read

write performance

How quickly data is written to the drive

840 EVO
4K Random Write, 4K Random Write Access Time and 512K Sequential Write

real world benchmarks

How well the drive performs common tasks

840 EVO
Windows 7 Boot-up Time, Photoshop Lens Filter and AS SSD ISO Copy


How well the drive performs on common benchmarks

840 EVO
PCMark Vantage and AS SSD Score

No winner declared

Too close to call

Differences What are the advantages of each

Sibling view of Samsung 840 EVO

Reasons to consider the
Samsung 840 EVO

Report a correction
Significantly higher capacity 1,000 GB vs 512 GB More than 95% higher capacity
Much larger cache 1,000 MB vs 512 MB More than 95% larger cache
Faster 4k random read 318.8 MB/s vs 175.64 MB/s More than 80% faster 4k random read
Much faster windows 7 boot-up time 9.3 s vs 14 s Around 35% faster windows 7 boot-up time
Faster 4k random write 106.65 MB/s vs 72.86 MB/s More than 45% faster 4k random write
Significantly higher PCMark vantage score 25,582 pts vs 16,976 pts More than 50% higher PCMark vantage score
Significantly faster photoshop lens filter 56.6 s vs 64.2 s More than 10% faster photoshop lens filter
Slightly faster 512K sequential read 527.52 MB/s vs 450.03 MB/s More than 15% faster 512K sequential read
Lower 4k random read access time 0.78 ms vs 1.42 ms More than 45% lower 4k random read access time
Lower 4k random write access time 2.34 ms vs 3.43 ms More than 30% lower 4k random write access time
Higher AS SSD score 1,198 pts vs 1,030 pts More than 15% higher AS SSD score
Front view of Crucial MX100

Reasons to consider the
Crucial MX100

Report a correction

SSDBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the Crucial MX100 vs the Samsung 840 EVO.

Benchmarks Real world tests of 840 EVO vs MX100

4K Random Read

840 EVO
318.8 MB/s
175.64 MB/s

4K Random Write

840 EVO
106.65 MB/s
72.86 MB/s

Windows 7 Boot-up Time

840 EVO
9.3 s
14 s

Avg. Power Consumption

840 EVO
2.29 Watts
2.31 Watts

4K Random Read Access Time

840 EVO
2.34 ms
3.43 ms

4K Random Write Access Time

840 EVO
0.78 ms
1.42 ms


Showing 5 comments.
it it because they are comparing the 1TB Samsung with the 512GB Crucial. As drives get larger, their performance also increases. When comparing the 512GB Crucial with the equivalently sized Samsung, the Crucial just about manages to best it, but even in that case, it really is too close to call. With the better one depending on how you use your hard drive.
yeah i've read different reviews on the MX 100 they all contradict one another. Thats because these review sites getting payed to say something positive or negative, but they should be objective. Depends on the size of the drive 100 512GB is great, but 256GB stays behind. Under 512 GB i would pick samsung 840 evo. I like the data loss protection and the encryption on the MX 100 though, something samsung does not have. They should compare the same size. Can't really compare 512 GB drive with a 64 GB or a 1000GB with a 256 GB. But you really can't lose, the mx 100 is so cheap no matter what the size.....the lil extra performance you get for a high end ssd paying 50 dollars extra aint worth it.....
Too close to call? LOL
I am so confused. On other tests (like the ones on Techspot) the MX100 outperformed the 840 Evo on a lot of things. Why is this showing the other way around? Is this with the Rapid mode on? Because Mac users can't use this unless running Bootcamp, so it's pretty much irrelevant.
comments powered by Disqus