MX100 vs BX100

[GuitarBro]

So, I've recently discovered that a certain program that I want to use *cough*Unity 5*cough* insists on downloading it's temporary installation files to the primary drive despite the installer being pointed to my hard drive. I only have a 60GB SSD as my primary and despite my best efforts to remove everything not absolutely necessary, Windows has done a fine job at managing to fill it up to the point that I have <1GB left which is simply not going to work anymore, especially if I want to install said program (which I do).

 

I've been trying to put off buying a larger SSD until I can afford a full 1TB drive, but I think it's about time I throw in the towel and get an in-between size drive to hold me off for now.

 

Currently, I'm looking at the 240-256GB range of SSDs (I don't feel that anything smaller is really worth it if I plan to upgrade later anyways) and the best prices I've seen are the Crucial MX100 (256GB) and BX100 (250GB), both for $94.99 (USD).

 

From the research I've done, they seem very closely matched spec-wise though the BX is clearly newer. I was wondering if anyone here has a strong opinion one way or another, assuming I can get them both at the exact same price. Also, if you can find a different (reliable) SSD that's a better value, I'm cool with that too!

 

Tl;dr: Which SSD should I get? The MX100 (256GB) or the BX100 (250GB)?

 

As always, thanks for your time. 

[spenser_l]

Check out these benchmarks comparing the two: http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Crucial-MX100-256GB-vs-Crucial-BX100-250GB/2317vs3145

 

This article from AnandTech explains more: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8861/crucial-announces-mx200-bx100-ssds-ssd-toolbox

 

The BX series is being marketed as a more entry-level budget drive.

 

 

"Feature wise the BX100 drops all the M-class features, so there is no hardware-accelerated encryption or SLC caching. Pricing is $70 for 120GB, $110 for 250GB, $200 for 500GB and $400 for 1TB, so it's very competitively priced like the MX100, although given the lack of features I would have like to see a bit lower pricing since the MX100 currently retails for about the same prices. Availability is also Q1'15 and we will be getting samples soon."

 

I have a 512GB MX100 and have had no issues with it, they're both probably good drives.

[GuitarBro]

Check out these benchmarks comparing the two: http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Crucial-MX100-256GB-vs-Crucial-BX100-250GB/2317vs3145

 

Seems like the BX100 is the slightly better option if they're the same price.

 

I have a 512GB MX100 and have had no issues with it, they're both probably good drives.

Thanks for your response. I actually just noticed that the BX100 has $3 shipping and the MX100 has free shipping. Do you think that small amount still justified?

[spenser_l]

Thanks for your response. I actually just noticed that the BX100 has $3 shipping and the MX100 has free shipping. Do you think that small amount still justified?

 

I've actually edited my post with more accurate information; I too quickly judged the benchmarks. I recommend getting the M-class drive after reading the AnandTech article. For $94, the 256GB MX100 is a great price.

[GuitarBro]

I've actually edited my post with more accurate information, I too quickly judged the benchmarks. I recommend getting the M-class drive after reading the AnandTech article. For $94, the 256GB MX100 is a great price.

Ok, thanks! That sounds reasonable to me.

 

 

Also, if anyone else has an opinion they want to share, I''m still open to hearing it.

[Guest]

Ok, thanks! That sounds reasonable to me.

 

 

Also, if anyone else has an opinion they want to share, I''m still open to hearing it.

MX's are an EOL product, BX's are the replacement. 

[Sakkura]

MX's are an EOL product, BX's are the replacement. 

 

Not really, Crucial's just diversifying their product lineup. There's an MX200 as well now, it launched alongside the BX100.

[Guest]

Not really, Crucial's just diversifying their product lineup. There's an MX200 as well now, it launched alongside the BX100.

That's the official word from Crucial - their line up will be the BX, MX and M series drives. The BX replace the MX100 series and cover the budget market. The MX200's are their enthusiast SSD's and the M series are self encrypting high performance drives to replace the 550's.

[Sakkura]

I thought you meant MX models in general were going EOL.

[_TC_]

I can only report that I have not had any trouble out of the (4) Crucial M4 series 128 GB SSD  model# CT128M4SSD2, that I have been using since 2010/2011, outside of 1 little firmware hiccup a few years back on just one of the 4, which was basically a ID10T error ( meaning my own faught for not catching it the first time around, but I got it updated in just a few minutes time, no problems since )

 

using AIDA64 Extreme , all 4 of my SSD's are showing in the 96~98%+ efficiency area after being used extensively for 4 + years now........

 

2 are in use in an Intel i7-2600k system and the other 2 are in use in 2 different AMD systems ( 1 AMD Q975 system, he other is an AMDQ955 system )

 

for some strange reason, they still sell these, and the cost still hovers up around $190.00 US to $240 US he last time I checked a few months ago, compared to the lower cost Crucial MX models

 

building computers for customers, friends, relatives, etc... I usually offer my opinions, but will not argue when they decide to go with whatever they want to........... I have seen a few OCZ SSD's become junk, but that was back when they were having issues with the sandforce controllers ( has been awhile )

 

 

hope this is helpful

 

 

good luck

 

TC