Crucial ExFat formatted SSD faster than another same SSD formatted APFS

Just to be sure, which X9 model do you have:

• Crucial X9 SSD
• Crucial X9 Pro, or
• Crucial X9 Pro for Mac?

Also I suggest that you try AmorphorusDiskMark instead of Black Magic to run your tests. Crucial used the Windows version (CrystalDiskMark) for their tests. Nothing wrong with Black Magic, but like to compare your results with a similar app used by Crucial.

Sorry, I ran out of time making updates to my reply. Here is what I added:

FWIW. All of these drives support USB 3.2 Gen 2x1. What used to be called USB 3.1 Gen 2. Regardless, they all support up to 10Gbps (1.25 GBps) throughput.

Also, connecting to a port that supports the Thunderbolt standard will not help as this drive does not support that standard.

digibudII wrote:

I have the model CT4000X9PROSSD902. I believe it is an X9 Pro but there is no indication it is specifically for mac.

Yes, that would be the Pro model.

On Amazon it reads as for PC and Mac but at least one of them (and I assume both) came formatted ExFat and that one was never reformatted and is substantially faster than the one that I formatted as APFS.

The only difference I can find between their PC vs. Mac offering is how they are initially formatted: ExFAT for PCs, and APFS for Macs.

Not sure why the speed discrepancy. In theory, the newer versions of macOS work "better" with APFS, but I haven't seen any "official" performance tests to see how each format (HFS+, APFS, or ExFAT) compares against each other with external drives. AFAIK, only the connection type and drive type should matter.

I was curious to compare your findings with what Crucial advertises for these drives. Thanks for confirming those numbers. I use Black Magic Speed Test as well, and use both when I'm testing drives.