The Crucial BX200 (480GB & 960GB) SSD Review: Crucial's First TLC NAND SSDby Billy Tallis on November 3, 2015 9:00 AM EST
AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
Our Heavy storage benchmark is proportionately more write-heavy than The Destroyer, but much shorter overall. The total writes in the Heavy test aren't enough to fill the drive, so performance should never drop all the way down to the steady state. This test is far more representative of a power user's day to day usage, and is heavily influenced by the drive's peak performance. The Heavy workload test details can be found here.
The higher proportion of writes on the Heavy test as compared with The Destroyer sends the BX200 to the bottom of the chart. The difference in performance between running the Heavy test on a freshly-erased drive and a completely full drive is atypically small, showing that the poor performance cannot be due to a mere lack of sufficient overprovisioning.
Until the BX200 came along, there wasn't much spread among SATA drive for average service time. The painful write performance shows up very clearly here.
With 8.8% and 10.7% of operations taking more than 10ms to complete, the BX200 will clearly be noticeably slower than most modern SSDs under moderate and heavy load.
Power consumption is once again dismal, as the drive is apparently spending way too much of its time on its relatively ineffective garbage collection.
Post Your CommentPlease log in or sign up to comment.
View All Comments
Shadow7037932 - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - linkThat's kind of disappointing, esp. the 250GB version as it's only a little cheaper than the 850 EVO. However, the 960GB assuming sales/deals, go down to $230-250 in the coming months, I can see people buying it to replace HDDs for say storing games.
eek2121 - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - linkThat's MSRP for the BX200. The street prices will probably be much cheaper.
Samus - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - linkFor the price your still better off with the OCZ ARC100 with toshiba MLC and. Barefoot3 controller.
LB-ID - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - linkToshiba's still selling things under the OCZ name? It long since needed to die and go away.
Lazlo Panaflex - Friday, November 6, 2015 - link+1 to that. Lots of people got burned by bad OCZ drives. Pretty dumb of Toshiba to keep calling them that.
tamalero - Thursday, November 12, 2015 - linkReminds me of Hitachi when they bough the IBM dextar drives.
anyone remembers the horrible failures of the 10k and 15k rpm drives under IBM?
even their consumer disks were dying like mad.
They sold their business to Hitachi who fixed the mess.
did this happen to Toshiba and the OCZ drives?
leexgx - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - linkthe poor power use on that drive is very bad (why i got the BX100 as it has overall best lowest power usage under almost all loads) BX100 is not the fastest SSD drive around but BX200 for £10 more is not good, same with the MX200 as well
coconutboy - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - linkFor several months now, on a near-weekly basis, Samsung Evo drives are hitting sale prices of ~$150 for 500GB and $75 for 250GB. Except for customers not paying attention, Crucial is gonna have a tough time moving these bx200 when there's unproven reliability, almost no price advantage, and a huge performance deficit.
Crucial needs to drop their msrp or cut retailers a deal to lower street prices.
eek2121 - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - linkYou are comparing MSRP to street prices. Most of the SSDs in that list are running at least $20 (and sometimes much more) below MSRP. I'm betting $0.25-$0.27 per gig once these things see widespread availability. Don't be surprised if this drive causes price brackets to move again. 480/512 where the 256 was, 960/1tb where the 512 was, etc.
The_Assimilator - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - linkIt bloody well *better* move price brackets, since it's apparently not good for much else.