Crucial M4 SSD 256GB review
With an updated Marvell memory controller on-board, Crucial’s M4 looks to be the fastest SSD the company has ever produced. Tom Morgan takes a look to see how it compares to the competition.
Although it's not radically different from last year’s model, the M4 is significantly faster than the disk it replaces. Intel’s 510 Series SSDs are still dominant in our performance benchmarks, but both have the potential to be blown away by SandForce. Stick with Intel if you need the best performance now, or wait to see what other manufacturers can squeeze from their memory controllers in the next month or two.
If you were in the market for an SSD last year, there's a good chance you would have considered a Crucial RealSSD C300; it produced incredibly fast transfer rates thanks to a competent Marvell memory controller and thrashed most of the competition with its fast SATA III connection. The company lost ground to other manufacturers that used the impressively fast SandForce controller, but is hoping to reverse this trend with the M4.
Our file transfer tests proved that the updated memory controller has made a big difference.
The M4 includes some much-needed optimisations that should help boost performance. The all-important memory controller might be the same one that Intel uses in its 510-series SSDs, but a newer revision and custom firmware should set the two disks apart. The real change has been the shift to 25nm NAND flash memory. This should not only bring a slight performance boost, but lower manufacturing costs too which will helpfully lead to lower prices.
We weren't expecting a huge performance gap between the older C300 and newer M4, but our file transfer tests proved that the updated memory controller has made a big difference. In our SATA III-equipped test system, the M4 managed an impressive 252.8MB/s write and huge 319MB/s read when handling large files, which is significantly faster than its predecessor. Small file writes were equally fast at 171.9MB/s, but as we've come to expect from SSDs the small file read test was a struggle. A low 48.3MB/s score dragged down the overall result, but performance was still significantly better than the equivalent C300. In everyday use, we could load Windows in 13 seconds, a whole 43 seconds faster than we could using a mechanical hard disk.
Sign up today and you will receive a free copy of our Future Focus 2026 report - the leading resource for IT decision-maker insight on priorities and investment areas in AI, security and more.
-
CISA urges federal agencies to patch after PHP exploits observedNews The PHP vulnerabilities sent the web into a frenzy last week as organizations rushed to apply patches
By Ross Kelly Published
-
‘Businesses are being steered to Azure by financial penalties rather than by merit’: US IT leaders hit out at Microsoft licensing practices in call to action for regulatorsNews Technology leaders across the US say they're choosing Azure mainly to avoid fees, and are calling for regulators to step in
By Emma Woollacott Published
-
Information overload is harming enterprise productivity – here’s how IT leaders can solve thatNews Workers are tired of switching between different platforms to keep up to date with company activities
By Ross Kelly Published