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
You guys made a typo on page 8, under "Mixed Sequential Read/Write Performance" -- you duplicated "duplicating" hehBilly Tallis - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
Ironic. Thanks.NeonFlak - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
1tb Mushkin Reactor for less than $300 any day over this.MikhailT - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
Is it me or is Crucial messing up lately with regressed successors? MX100 was great but MX200 was not that great and BX100/BX200 is even worse. It would've been better for them to just keep MX100 and drop prices over time.Crucial is basically just convincing me to switch to Samsung next time.
leexgx - Wednesday, November 4, 2015 - link
BX100 was very good for laptops, very low power use even when under loadBX200 is slower and use crap load more power , the TLC drives are just not worth the £10 cheaper price
LarsBars - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
I've heard AnandTech say in the past, "It doesn't matter which brand of SSD you go with- just that you go with SSD."It looks like the BX200 means we need to be more vigilant about which SSDs we buy.
JimmiG - Wednesday, November 4, 2015 - link
It wouldn't be terrible if it was a bit cheaper. If the price drops over the next couple of months (which usually happens with SSD's), it would be great as a "secondary SSD", especially the 960GB model. However at the current prices, you're better off paying a tiny bit more for much better performance and endurance.Hulk - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
I don't understand. Same endurance as the BX100 series using the same process size yet this is TLC vs. MLC for the BX100?While the performance is not great I could see this for media storage if the price is right. And by right I mean $200/TB.
Billy Tallis - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
The endurance ratings for warranty purposes are only loosely connected to the actual P/E cycle count, and are usually pretty conservative. Plus, the BX200 does have the benefit of more sophisticated error correction.jabber - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
Time to buy up the clearance BX100s!