-Sequential reads/writes up to 530 / 510 MB/s and random reads/writes up to 92k / 83k on all file types
-Over 90x more energy efficient than a typical hard drive
-Dynamic Write Acceleration delivers faster saves and file transfers
-More durable than a hard drive – no small moving parts that are prone to failure
-Best-in-class hardware encryption keeps data safe and secure
.
.
.
750GB @ £110 makes it 14.6p per GB if that matters to anyone
7mm thick in case anyone was wondering.
- omgpleasespamme
Top comments
Ross87
12 Jul 163#14
I take it you don't want no scrubs? :P
scarl to Glix
12 Jul 163#3
???????????????
Latest comments (33)
golo83
14 Jul 16#33
cloned drive to SSD...and boot speed now about 1/3 of old HDD!
using win7
happy days! :sunglasses:
miaomiaobaubau
13 Jul 16#32
even the oldest ssd (connected on sata 2 or even 1) would take the same loading times and perform the same on the desktop as the most expensive sata3 ssd in the market on a sata 3 connection. Sequential power is not an issue at all for everyday use and who cares if I need to wait few extra seconds to transfer a large file.
Ashe
13 Jul 16#31
All this talk of benchmarks avoids the real question that should be asked - how much difference between an SSD is actually going to make a difference to someone using it?
It's very noticable that reviews never address this properly, but give lots of nice numbers which could mean nothing in the real world.
biuro74
13 Jul 161#30
LOL, people, just STOP thinking about SSD using HDD categories. Compare IOPS and not sequential read/writes, which are Windows swap file read/writes practically nowadays. There are thousands of small files, and not one 10 GB file in your system.
400/450 MB/s shows just ONE parameter: how close to SATA-3 saturation the drive is. Closer (better overall quality), or farer (cheaper option), that's all you can read between the lines as sequential RWs do not matter really with SATA simply because all of them are near physical limits.
Mole007
12 Jul 16#29
Was tempted, but after reading reviews and comments, not for me.
Hoping this will be a decent upgrade on my XBone HDD by using in an external USB3.0 enclosure. Any reason to think otherwise?
EDDS to saintee5876
12 Jul 16#25
I have a Samsung 840 256Gb SSD in an enclosure to use with my Xbox One and most games do get a significant improvement in speed, some load upto 2x faster and some games can see FPS improvements like Fallout 4 due to the large amount of texture streaming.
We could potentially get even better performance but as we can only connect via USB 3.0 and not SATA 3 we are limited to the speed of USB 3.0, but it's still a hell of a lot faster than the internal or external mechanical HDD.
I'm very tempted to buy one of these drives for my Xbox One as it's a pain having to keep moving things back and forth from the SSD to make room.
c-traxx
12 Jul 16#21
Crucial is owned by a different company now if im right...thats for those being scared by past reputation.
Horrorwood to c-traxx
12 Jul 16#24
Nope, they are owned by Micron.
Are you thinking of OCZ/Toshiba?
markslavin
12 Jul 16#22
I ordered this just after midnight. I was looking at the 750 Evo or even paying a little more for an 850 Evo. My laptop HDD (1TB) died on Saturday. I couldn't live with 1 500GB drive (the 1TB Samsungs weren't discounted) so went for 750GB Crucial for £100 (I had the £10 Audible voucher from the other day) was too good to pass on.
I'll buy another external HDD for backups, but I'm happy.
scarl
12 Jul 16#20
Probably only those wearing Anoraks
ianh82
12 Jul 16#19
i use the ultra 2's a lot and they are good solid drives. but no doubt others will think they are crap and fail loads etc etc but my opinion is they are a good value drive.
"One of the issues that Crucial will face is that despite being plus-one generation above the MX200, The MX300 is slightly slower and only by a small amount. It frequently straddles the dividing line between MLC performance and planar TLC performance."
bones23
12 Jul 16#17
I'm tempted / wondering too ... but can't help I'm afraid (just gonna watch this in case anyone else can!)
Glix
12 Jul 161#2
Don't be fooled by the Mx brand on this, it should be a Bx model.
scarl to Glix
12 Jul 163#3
???????????????
James_cleeve73 to Glix
12 Jul 161#12
Yes, apparently so.... Cheeky, I wonder how many people will buy this thinking it's MLC nand backed rather than the TLC garbage..
rayray333 to Glix
12 Jul 16#16
???? and what is the difference between Mx and Bx????
BigAde
12 Jul 16#15
Good point. Will skip this.
Trying to make my mind up between the 480GB Ultra II at £77
or the SSD Plus 240GB at 4pm (presumably around £40?)
Ross87
12 Jul 163#14
I take it you don't want no scrubs? :P
yoyo59
12 Jul 161#13
was thinking of getting rid of my mx200 but after some searching my mx200 is still top of the crop
but a very nice price for those looking for a SSD
spannerzone
12 Jul 161#11
Are there any issues with these when transferring larger files or any other things worth knowing about? thanks.
miaomiaobaubau
12 Jul 16#10
works out at £35 for 240gb, just to make a comparison. Very cheap and with the advantage of a large ssd all in one. In reality crucial does not make any ssd anymore so no sure about quality but still cheap
zebrum
12 Jul 162#9
Crucial, the company that took their SSDs and flushed them down the toilet
![Fresh Breakfast Meat Box (Using code) @ Campbells Meat [Haggis / Lorne Sausage / Bacon / Black Pudding & More]](/images/topics/208684_1.jpg)
![[Xbox One] Q. u. b. e: Director's Cut on Deals with Gold](/images/topics/208716_1.jpg)
Opening post
-Over 90x more energy efficient than a typical hard drive
-Dynamic Write Acceleration delivers faster saves and file transfers
-More durable than a hard drive – no small moving parts that are prone to failure
-Best-in-class hardware encryption keeps data safe and secure
.
.
.
750GB @ £110 makes it 14.6p per GB if that matters to anyone
7mm thick in case anyone was wondering.
- omgpleasespamme
Top comments
Latest comments (33)
using win7
happy days! :sunglasses:
It's very noticable that reviews never address this properly, but give lots of nice numbers which could mean nothing in the real world.
400/450 MB/s shows just ONE parameter: how close to SATA-3 saturation the drive is. Closer (better overall quality), or farer (cheaper option), that's all you can read between the lines as sequential RWs do not matter really with SATA simply because all of them are near physical limits.
This is just one review
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/crucial-mx300-750gb-ssd,review-33577-3.html
We could potentially get even better performance but as we can only connect via USB 3.0 and not SATA 3 we are limited to the speed of USB 3.0, but it's still a hell of a lot faster than the internal or external mechanical HDD.
I'm very tempted to buy one of these drives for my Xbox One as it's a pain having to keep moving things back and forth from the SSD to make room.
Are you thinking of OCZ/Toshiba?
I'll buy another external HDD for backups, but I'm happy.
"One of the issues that Crucial will face is that despite being plus-one generation above the MX200, The MX300 is slightly slower and only by a small amount. It frequently straddles the dividing line between MLC performance and planar TLC performance."
Trying to make my mind up between the 480GB Ultra II at £77
or the SSD Plus 240GB at 4pm (presumably around £40?)
but a very nice price for those looking for a SSD
Read: 400MB/s
Write: 450MB/s