The Crucial BX300 (480GB) SSD Review: Back To MLC
by Billy Tallis on August 29, 2017 9:00 AM ESTSequential Read Performance
Our first test of sequential read performance uses short bursts of 128MB, issued as 128kB operations with no queuing. The test averages performance across eight bursts for a total of 1GB of data transferred from a drive containing 16GB of data. Between each burst the drive is given enough idle time to keep the overall duty cycle at 20%.
The sequential read burst speed of the Crucial BX300 is faster than any previous Crucial drive, but only just barely catches up to the rest of the market.
Our test of sustained sequential reads uses queue depths from 1 to 32, with the performance and power scores computed as the average of QD1, QD2 and QD4. Each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB transferred, from a drive containing 64GB of data.
The sustained sequential read performance of the BX300 actually shows a regression from the BX200, though both drives fall in the middle of the pack and above Crucial's MX drives. The fastest SATA SSD (Samsung 850 PRO) is 45% faster than the BX300, and even the Intel 545s is 22% faster.
The power efficiency of the Crucial BX300 on the sequential read test is poor, and the other two drives that use Micron's 3D NAND (as TLC) join the BX300 at the bottom of the chart. The Intel 545s does well on this efficiency score, so Micron will probably be able to shore up this weakness in future products when they adopt their 64L 3D NAND.
 |
|||||||||
Samsung's SSDs are the best-behaved on this test, with performance saturating at QD2 and consistently staying there through the rest of the test. The MX300 is also quite consistent through this test, but with much lower performance overall.
Sequential Write Performance
Our test of sequential write burst performance is structured identically to the sequential read burst performance test save for the direction of the data transfer. Each burst writes 128MB as 128kB operations issued at QD1, for a total of 1GB of data written to a drive containing 16GB of data.
The burst sequential write speed of the BX300 is good, but not enough for it to stand out from the crowd or to beat the MX200. The MX300 stands out for being substantially slower than most SATA SSDs.
Our test of sustained sequential writes is structured identically to our sustained sequential read test, save for the direction of the data transfers. Queue depths range from 1 to 32 and each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB, followed by up to one minute of idle time for the drive to cool off and perform garbage collection. The test is confined to a 64GB span of the drive.
On the longer sequential write test, the BX300 stays in the top half of the chart and performs close to the top tier of drives, but is a bit slow given that it uses 3D MLC.
The power efficiency of the Crucial BX300 is a bit better than Samsung's SSDs, but the drives using Micron's 3D TLC are more efficient and Toshiba's OCZ VX500 is in the lead by a substantial margin.
 |
|||||||||
The Crucial BX300's sequential write speed saturates at QD4 and it performs steadily thereafter, but at QD2 it is much slower than its maximum and is outperformed by many SSDs.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
90 Comments
View All Comments
sonny73n - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link
Got my 840 Evo when it first released and it was the last Samsung product I ever bought. I have no idea why many praise Samsung products. I had a Samsung plasma TV and two horizontal black lines appeared only after 14 months, 3 more appeared 2 months after. Then it became unwatchable. Now let's not talk about Samsung phones.bug77 - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link
I guess you have a thing for picking bad products? Plasma (with its known shortcomings) over LCD? 840EVO when planar TLC is just about as bad as it gets?No, you can't blame this on Samsung. Granted, their products, with few exceptions, are definitely average, but so is their pricing.
sonny73n - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link
"No, you can't blame this on Samsung." Haha ok. Who are you to tell me not to voice my reasons? It was my money, not yours. Who would not expect a 3D Samsung plasma TV last for at least 3 years (2 hrs/day). And who would have thought a giant SSD brand like Samsung released something like the 840 Evo. Blame or not to blame, it's not important. I'd just never buy anything from a company that would up for sale half-baked products with/without knowing their shortcomings. Did they sell some phones that exploded recently? See, this is what I'm talking about.Until you get a Samsung blown up in face, everyone else's reasons for not buying Samsung are irrelevant.
chrnochime - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link
Hi Samsung fanboy. You really going to say plasma is worse in every way over LCD? Ignoring the black level and response time? Okay then.Alexvrb - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link
Bug never said plasma was worse in every way. He did say it had known shortcomings, which it does - like longevity. Plasma also has some advantages, although it's dying off in favor of OLED on the high-end. With that being said, yes in this case Samsung DID sell him a lemon. Even with a plasma you should get a good few years of service, at least.Alexvrb - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link
Way to assume things, buddy. I'm not a Samsung fanboy, FAR from it. I don't currently own any other Samsung products outside of their SSDs. The fact is that the 850 Evo is the king of affordable SATA SSDs, period. Sorry for not being biased and preferring a superior product despite being Samsung. The 850 Pro is better in some heavy workloads but is a lot more expensive. Although for the record the 840 Evo was actually OK, I've got a system with the last firmware released and it has been fine. The 830 was also solid.I don't have much personal experience with their recent TVs, and I've only used their latest model phones for a few minutes here or there. Although I don't have any strong inclination to defend them as a company, I would bet your experience is rare. TVs are a crapshoot anyway. Their phones *generally* seem solid, even if I occasionally rail against them for lack of easily replaced batteries and SD card slots for some models - aside from the most obvious butt of many jokes, the last gen Note. Again, this is coming from someone who rarely buys Samsung.
tyaty1 - Thursday, August 31, 2017 - link
Personally I am happy with their Series 6 TV from 2011, and I had no issue with their SSD-s.(Though I currently use a 256gb Crucial M550 in my notebook, which was 118 USD in 2015)
sonny73n - Monday, September 4, 2017 - link
Alexvrb, are you and bug77 the same person? If not, why are you responding to chrnochime's reply meant for bug77?It's the first I've heard (from you) that TLC is better than MLC. An TLC drive might have performance than an MLC if it has better controller. But for endurance, generally MLC is better than TLC and this is the fact. When you made a statement like "MLC or not, the TLC Evo is better...", people can only assume one thing about you. Anyway, you should have a little read about SSD tech before making such assertion.
chrnochime - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link
There are people who care a lot more about RATED endurance than performance. You obviously aren't one of them, and your opinion about the EVO being best option != the truth/fact. LOLAlexvrb - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link
They're also high endurance. 850 Evos have excellent endurance, and in real endurance torture testing they even exceed expectations. But feel free to spread FUD like a boss.