SSDBoss Review Our evaluation of 840 EVO vs MX200

read performance

How quickly data is read from the drive

840 EVO
6.6
MX200
6.1
4K Random Read, 4K Random Read Access Time and 512K Sequential Read

write performance

How quickly data is written to the drive

840 EVO
6.9
MX200
6.5
4K Random Write, 4K Random Write Access Time and 512K Sequential Write

real world benchmarks

How well the drive performs common tasks

840 EVO
7.9
MX200
8.1
Photoshop Lens Filter and AS SSD ISO Copy

Benchmarks

How well the drive performs on common benchmarks

840 EVO
6.7
MX200
6.8
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 500 GB 2x higher capacity
Faster 4k random read 318.8 MB/s vs 169.96 MB/s Around 90% faster 4k random read
Faster 4k random write 106.65 MB/s vs 71.58 MB/s Around 50% faster 4k random write
Lower 4k random read access time 0.78 ms vs 1.47 ms More than 45% lower 4k random read access time
Lower 4k random write access time 2.34 ms vs 3.49 ms Around 35% lower 4k random write access time
Slightly higher AS SSD score 1,198 pts vs 1,060 pts Around 15% higher AS SSD score
Front view of Crucial MX200

Reasons to consider the
Crucial MX200

Report a correction
Higher PCMark vantage score 30,457 pts vs 25,582 pts Around 20% higher PCMark vantage score
Faster photoshop lens filter 53.9 s vs 56.6 s Around 5% faster photoshop lens filter
Lower avg. power consumption 2.03 Watts vs 2.29 Watts More than 10% lower avg. power consumption

Benchmarks Real world tests of 840 EVO vs MX200

4K Random Read

840 EVO
318.8 MB/s
MX200
169.96 MB/s

4K Random Write

840 EVO
106.65 MB/s
MX200
71.58 MB/s

Avg. Power Consumption

840 EVO
2.29 Watts
MX200
2.03 Watts

4K Random Read Access Time

840 EVO
2.34 ms
MX200
3.49 ms

4K Random Write Access Time

840 EVO
0.78 ms
MX200
1.47 ms

Comments

comments powered by Disqus