2 ms·
Something’s up with the benchmarks. MX500 should perform significantly better than it has. I’m using several of MX500 and get sustained write close to 390MB/s a
by 404mm 4y ago
Something’s up with the benchmarks. MX500 should perform significantly better than it has. I’m using several of MX500 and get sustained write close to 390MB/s and read around 440MB/s.
My purchase decision was derived from direct comparison with Samsung 870 Evo, where Curcial was nearly as good while costing much less.
I cannot speak for the other drives.
- louwrentius 4y agoMaybe you're right, I'm open to suggestions. But I ran the benchmarks multiple times. Regarding the MX500, I actually used the drive and made a backup with DD beforehand. Afterwards I wrote the backup back on the drive (entire drive write) with DD and sustained write performance fluctuated between 40MB/130 MB/s if I recall correctly. https://louwrentius.com/static/images/cheapssd06.png https://louwrentius.com/static/images/cheapssd06.png
- 404mm 4y agoJust curious, when you ran dd, did you also increase the block size? I usually do bs=1M My real world experience with MX500 is pretty well aligned with: https://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Samsung-870-Evo-250GB-vs-Crucial-MX500-250GB/4094vs3951 https://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Samsung-870-Evo-250GB-... I wonder how your other drives score on those tests.
- louwrentius 4y agoYes, just as the fio test I used bs=1M. Some people report that Crucial uses different hardware under the same MX 500 brand, maybe that explains things. How old is your drive?
- 404mm 4y agoThey are all from 2020-2022
- louwrentius 4y agoOk, mine is also new, likely from 2022. I really can't explain the difference.
- 404mm 4y agoDo you have a chance to test it on different hardware? Or have you?
- louwrentius 4y agoNo, not anymore, I've restored my backup and I'm using the SSD again.