The Crucial BX200 (480GB & 960GB) SSD Review: Crucial's First TLC NAND SSD
by Billy Tallis on November 3, 2015 9:00 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - Light
Our Light storage test has relatively more sequential accesses and lower queue depths than The Destroyer or the Heavy test, and it's by far the shortest test overall. It's based largely on applications that aren't highly dependent on storage performance, so application launch times and file load times are what dominate this test. This test can be seen as the sum of all the little delays in a day's usage. Details of the Light test can be found here.
Even our Light test is enough to hit the BX200 where it hurts. The 480GB drive's average data rate is around what the first-generation SATA interface could handle.
The latency outliers are the most disturbing result so far. The Light test should not enough to bring a SSD to its knees.
Power consumption is finally getting close to normal, showing that the BX200 was able to catch a break for at least a while during this test.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
85 Comments
View All Comments
ilkhan - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
If a company is going to shoot for the value proposition, they really need to beat samsung by more than 10%. Paying an extra 10% to get a really solid drive like the 850EVO is just too tempting for anyone who does even the tiniest of research before buying.You either need to be the cheapest, best name brand recognition, or fastest. Crucial isn't any of those on the 250GB market.
AnnonymousCoward - Friday, November 6, 2015 - link
Crucial has better quality and is a U.S. company. You shouldn't give Samung so much credit.squngy - Thursday, November 26, 2015 - link
What does the county of the home office got to do with anything?Samus - Friday, February 19, 2016 - link
Support. Samsungs is a joke. Fortunately the 840 Evo is the only drive they've botched. Crucial has excellent support and an excellent track record to go with their products. Shows good QA. Wouldn't expect anything else from an Intel subsidiary.zeeBomb - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
What's the difference between TLC NAND to MLC or SLC NAND again?Beararam - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
http://www.tomsitpro.com/articles/flash-data-cente...dakishimesan - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6337/samsung-ssd-840...coconutboy - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
slc = premium, reliable, fast, expensive, etcmlc = middle ground
tlc = cheap, lowest reliability, but Samsung has gotten tlc quality up to a level sufficient for most non-enterprise users
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-level_cell
zeeBomb - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
Okay awesome, thanks.FalcomPSX - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
SLC NAND stores one bit per flash cell. MLC stores two bits per cell. and TLC stores three bits per cell.