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 - 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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
85 Comments
View All Comments
extide - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
So, apparently the first "bad" crucial SSD. Oh wait, no, the second one, remember that V4 or whatever it was, heh.hojnikb - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
This is miles ahead V4, because this is usable, while V4 was not.iLovefloss - Sunday, November 8, 2015 - link
Nah, Crucial still had their M4 which quite a few issues for many people.Glock24 - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
Wow, didn't expect such a product from Crucial. The only other SSD that performs worse than a mechanical disk is the Kingston SSD V300 that is still being sold.hojnikb - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
V300, despite its hate, is still *much* faster than any HDD out there.Glock24 - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
Maybe you got lucky, but I bought one after reading some good reviews (before the nand change fiasco hit the news) and after a while I noticed something was wrong because of the painfully slow performance. It was giving me reads close to 100MB/s and writes on the 20MB/s range, and that's sequential performance. I usually do not notice any difference in tel world performance between different SSD models, but with the V300 was very notorious. Even the HDD I had in use at the time felt faster (Spinpoint F1 1TB). So no, the V300 is not faster than any HDD.hojnikb - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
that was a faulty model or issue on your end. eve the crappiest models were good for atleast 75mbs of write....Gigaplex - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
And most hard drives these days can beat 75MB/s sequential write.hojnikb - Wednesday, November 4, 2015 - link
sequential speeds matter very little, its the random performace that makes ssds fast. and those are orders of magnitude better, even with v300jabber - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
Yeah I use V300's exclusively in SATA II based PCs and laptops as they will push 270MBps+ all day long. No point buying 850 EVOs there. Must have bought 50+ and all of them are still going strong.