Crucial 750 GB MX300 specs leaked - 3D nand

[CommandMan7]

An early listing on Amazon.com has revealed a few specs of Crucial's upcoming MX300 SSD. 

Quote

"According to the Amazon listing the MX300 750GB should be available April 8th, 2016. The performance rates at 530 MB/s sequential read and 510 MB/s sequential write speeds. Random performance is 92,000 IOPS read and 83,000 IOPS write with Dynamic Write Acceleration (SLC layer cache) supplying the high burst speeds"

 

The MX300's predecessor, the MX200, is listed as 555 MB/s sequential reads and 500 MB/s sequential writes, with 100,000 IOPS read and 87,000 IOPS write. That makes the MX300 slower in all categories except for having marginally higher write speeds.

 

Perhaps the most interesting part was that the SSD was listed as having a 750 GB capacity - very strange, considering most product lines follow the 128, 256, 512 and 1024 GB capacities. This is due to the 384 Gbit 3D NAND packages the MX300 likely uses.

 

Perhaps the 750 GB capacity was also chosen due to it's better value, compared to 1024 GB offerings. The 750 GB MX300 appeared listed at $207, marked down from an original price of $447. This works out to about 28 cents/GB. For reference, the 500 GB 850 Evo costs around 30 cents/GB. Placed alongside the 850 Evo, the MX300 is marginally slower and marginally cheaper. The MX300 is also listed with a 3 year warranty, opposed to the 850 Evo's 5 year warranty.

 

Opinion: The MX300's main competitor, the 850 Evo, still appears to be a better buy. Although slightly more expensive, the 850 EVO is faster and also comes with a longer 5 year warranty. The MX300 seems to be without a niche in the market, and drops performance compared to its predecessor. Unless the MX300 is extremely power efficient for use in notebooks, I would not consider buying one.

 

Source:

Tom's Hardware

Amazon

 

 

 

[HPWebcamAble]

7 minutes ago, CommandMan7 said:

Perhaps the most interesting part was that the SSD was listed as having a 750 GB capacity - very strange, considering most product lines follow the 128, 256, 512 and 1024 GB capacities. 

Does that mean it uses TLC Memory? 750 divided by 3 = 250 so it might be based on 3 bit storage (TLC)

[CommandMan7]

4 hours ago, HPWebcamAble said:

Does that mean it uses TLC Memory? 750 divided by 3 = 250 so it might be based on 3 bit storage (TLC)

Yes it does, I forgot to mention that. I've edited the original post.

[Agosto]

No M.2, no party

[EChondo]

Great that 3D NAND SSD's are coming down in price pretty steadily.

 

I think I'd rather opt for a similar priced 1TB SSD though. You can get a Mushkin 1TB for around $220 USD(so around 24 cents/GB).

 

Hopefully prices continue to drop and we can get rid of hard drives soon!

[Doobeedoo]

3 hours ago, EChondo said:

Great that 3D NAND SSD's are coming down in price pretty steadily.

 

I think I'd rather opt for a similar priced 1TB SSD though. You can get a Mushkin 1TB for around $220 USD(so around 24 cents/GB).

 

Hopefully prices continue to drop and we can get rid of hard drives soon!

Indeed. Really wish to get 1TB SSD but price needs to drop. Looking forward to it!
 

[NumLock21]

Sorry man, but it's a repost.

IMO Crucial needs to give 5 years on their MX to compete with the 850 Evo and they need to rework their Storage Executive software. I hate that it has to open up in a browser and it needs "allow network access".

[Sakkura]

3 hours ago, huilun02 said:

Whats the point of yet another sata drive when what we have is already so close to the limit of the interface.?

 

Ffs bring SAS3 to consumers or something. Plug n play full duplex 12Gbit will wreck stuff if priced reasonably. 

SAS is not viable for the consumer market, there are the M.2 and U.2 interfaces for that. But they still add cost and limit compatibility, so SATA makes more sense for most people. 

[Sakkura]

6 hours ago, huilun02 said:

Explain? 

It costs more to implement than SATA, without adding that much speed or features relevant to the consumer market. SATA Express was a cheaper upgrade over SATA, but ultimately proved unappealing when the small form factor M.2 slot delivered much more performance. So M.2 became the leading PCIe storage interface for both the desktop and laptop markets. Still, M.2 has some limitations because of how small it is, so they came up with the U.2 connector. That takes the SAS connector, which is already an extension of the old SATA connector, and further extends it with PCIe lanes etc.

 

The PC Perspective article about it has this nice comparison diagram:

 

[ChineseChef]

As much as I would not turn down higher speeds, on the consumer end, do we even need faster that maxed out SATA3?  500+MBps is really fast, even for mass bulk transfers.  While IOPs can always be improved, I don't see a real need to go faster for anything not work/productivity focused.  At which point if someone actually needs crazy speeds, they will get PCI/NVMe, and will also likely understand where they need the speed and will buy an appropriate storage system. 

 

Honestly I wish they would focus on size and price/GB.  I understand why they aren't, but I can see SSD makers hitting the wall so to speak on marketing the speed front.  Consumers aren't going to care about speeds once its faster than a magnetic drive.  And even lots of prosumers/enthusiasts won't pay that much extra, since they likely also understand that faster transfer isn't really gaining them anything, though they would likely care about higher IOPs or random speeds that matched sequential.

[Sakkura]

2 hours ago, huilun02 said:

How is 12Gbit full duplex not relevant? Its only expensive to implement because the existing target market for SAS (enterprise) can afford to get ripped off.

 

I'm talking about an interface for which products have already been made, unlike silly SataE. 

 

SAS would make sense as drive manufacturers can stop bottlenecking the true potential of SSD flash, make more value out of their products instead of just another Sata SSD thats within a few percent of difference from the few bajillion that already exist because sata is a fucking bottleneck. 

It's only a maximum of 1.2 GB/s after encoding. M.2 and U.2 are capable of 3.94 GB/s. SAS would still bottleneck SSDs, M.2 and U.2 don't (yet). In addition, M.2 and U.2 support NVMe. Even SATA Express does, so where M.2 and U.2 crush SAS on performance, SATA Express roughly matches it on performance/features (for the consumer market) but at lower cost.

 

SAS is not only expensive because of the segment. It has stuff like shielding that increases the cost of implementation.