SSDBoss Review Our evaluation of 840 vs MX500

read performance

How quickly data is read from the drive

MX500
6.6
4K Random Read, 4K Random Read Access Time and 512K Sequential Read

write performance

How quickly data is written to the drive

MX500
6.8
4K Random Write, 4K Random Write Access Time and 512K Sequential Write

real world benchmarks

How well the drive performs common tasks

MX500
8.3
Photoshop Lens Filter and AS SSD ISO Copy

Benchmarks

How well the drive performs on common benchmarks

MX500
6.9
PCMark Vantage and AS SSD Score

No winner declared

Too close to call

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Samsung 840

Reasons to consider the
Samsung 840

Report a correction
Significantly lower avg. power consumption 1.69 Watts vs 2.32 Watts More than 25% lower avg. power consumption
Default view of Crucial MX500

Reasons to consider the
Crucial MX500

Report a correction
Higher capacity 500 GB vs 250 GB 2x higher capacity
Significantly faster 512K sequential write 464.3 MB/s vs 248.62 MB/s More than 85% faster 512K sequential write
Significantly larger cache 512 MB vs 256 MB 2x larger cache
Faster 4k random write 105.31 MB/s vs 76.07 MB/s Around 40% faster 4k random write
Significantly higher PCMark vantage score 30,067 pts vs 23,328 pts Around 30% higher PCMark vantage score
Significantly faster photoshop lens filter 49.4 s vs 56.1 s More than 10% faster photoshop lens filter
Faster AS SSD ISO copy 443.98 MB/s vs 188.99 MB/s More than 2.2x faster AS SSD ISO copy
Lower 4k random write access time 2.37 ms vs 3.29 ms Around 30% lower 4k random write access time
Slightly higher AS SSD score 1,147 pts vs 1,010 pts Around 15% higher AS SSD score

Benchmarks Real world tests of Samsung 840 vs MX500

4K Random Read

Samsung 840
303.68 MB/s
MX500
317.44 MB/s

4K Random Write

Samsung 840
76.07 MB/s
MX500
105.31 MB/s

Avg. Power Consumption

Samsung 840
1.69 Watts
MX500
2.32 Watts

4K Random Read Access Time

Samsung 840
3.29 ms
MX500
2.37 ms

4K Random Write Access Time

Samsung 840
0.82 ms
MX500
0.79 ms

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus