Mushkin Reactor 512GB SSD Review

Mushkin's 1TB Reactor is among our Best Picks in SSDs. Today we look at the low-cost 512GB drive powered by Silicon Motion's four-channel SM2246EN.

By Chris Ramseyer
published

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

Technical Specifications
Mushkin Reactor 1TB
Mushkin Reactor 512GB
Mushkin Reactor 256GB


MORE: Best SSDs For The Money
MORE: Latest Storage News
MORE: Storage in the Forums

After introducing its 1TB Reactor, Mushkin decided to release two additional capacities: 256 and 512GB. Today we're testing the 512GB model.

All three are rated for the same generic performance specifications, though we suspect that the 256GB version is a little slower due to less interleaving. The 512GB model uses the same number of flash packages as the 1TB drive, with half as many dies per package. Still, performance should be nearly identical.

Silicon Motion controllers deliver very high sequential read performance. In fact, in many of our tests over the last year, they delivered the best sequential reads of any platform we compared. Sequential writes land about 80 MB/s lower than premium SSDs like SanDisk's Extreme Pro and Samsung's 850 Pro. With modern SSDs, you pay more for write speed and performance consistency.

Chris Ramseyer
Chris Ramseyer
Chris Ramseyer is a Contributing Editor for Tom's Hardware US. He tests and reviews consumer storage.
20 Comments Comment from the forums
  • SuperVeloce
    Those 512 and 1TB are made perfectly for my steam folder, cheap and large. Now we need to wait for someone to launch it to EU market
    Reply
  • jessterman21
    Been eying this drive and the BX100 500GB for a few months now - waiting to pull the trigger on whichever's cheaper. The extra latency worries me, but in a gaming/media rig should it really matter? Those two drives are literally the same in all other tests.
    Reply
  • Eggz
    Cool. This seems like a pretty good option for a gaming computer. I wouldn't use it for a photo editing rig, or any other media-based computer (especially not database oriental computing), but games are pretty easy on drives, and these come in at a decent price while offering plenty of storage space.
    Reply
  • agentbb007
    Tough sell considering the 500GB Samsung 850 Evo is $178 on Amazon with free prime shipping and seems to give better performance, unless I'm missing something?
    Reply
  • Saberus
    Granted it's not the absolute best, but it's not bad, especially at the price. I think the edge connector is a brilliant idea, and wonder why there aren't more companies using it, it eliminates a point of failure where the solder joints were.
    Reply
  • geopirate
    agentbb007 this drive is $88 for 500gb vs your $178 (less than half the cost) that won't be noticeably slower in a typical usage environment. Is that what you're missing?
    Reply
  • geopirate
    agentbb007 this drive is $88 for 500gb vs your $178 (less than half the cost) that won't be noticeably slower in a typical usage environment. Is that what you're missing?
    Reply
  • SuperVeloce
    nope, $88 is for 256gb
    Reply
  • zodiacfml
    I checked, the 850 EVO is cheaper.
    Reply
  • shrapnel_indie
    16122495 said:
    I think the edge connector is a brilliant idea, and wonder why there aren't more companies using it, it eliminates a point of failure where the solder joints were.

    I guess because in some ways its so old school. (It saved money back then too.) Back in the "Home Computer" days card-edge connectors were used for expansion connections (on one side of the connection.) Retro consoles used it too with game carts. The PC used it then, and even still today, for expansion AND adding graphics. Back in the day Floppy drives, primarily 5.25" and larger used such a connection for data (and a molex for power.)

    If that patent ever gets challenged, I dunno if it will hold-up because of all of that. In Modern storage though, the connector is, currently, unique though.
    Reply