The Crucial BX300 (480GB) SSD Review: Back To MLC
by Billy Tallis on August 29, 2017 9:00 AM ESTMixed Random Performance
Our test of mixed random reads and writes covers mixes varying from pure reads to pure writes at 10% increments. Each mix is tested for up to 1 minute or 32GB of data transferred. The test is conducted with a queue depth of 4, and is limited to a 64GB span of the drive. In between each mix, the drive is given idle time of up to one minute so that the overall duty cycle is 50%.
The mixed random I/O performance if the Crucial BX300 puts it in the second tier of SATA SSDs, with Samsung's 850s forming the top tier. The Crucial MX300 is a bit slower than the BX300.
With the exception of the Crucial MX200, all of the drives that outperformed the BX300 are also more efficient. The MX300 is also significantly more efficient despite being slightly slower.
 |
|||||||||
The Crucial BX300's performance on the mixed random I/O test increases slowly as the proportion of writes grows, and it accelerates near the end of the test. The power consumption is flat across almost all of the test, but ticks up as the workload shifts to pure writes.
Samsung's drives are faster than the BX300 across the entire test, while the Intel 545s and Crucial MX200 managed higher average performance scores by performing better on the read-heavy portions of the test and a bit worse during the write-heavy phases.
Mixed Sequential Performance
Our test of mixed sequential reads and writes differs from the mixed random I/O test by performing 128kB sequential accesses rather than 4kB accesses at random locations, and the sequential test is conducted at queue depth 1. The range of mixes tested is the same, and the timing and limits on data transfers are also the same as above.
The Crucial BX300 performs very well on the mixed sequential I/O test, slightly ahead of the Samsung 850 EVO and only 5% slower than the 850 PRO. The MX300 scores closer to the middle of the pack, while the BX200 and MX200 are near the bottom.
The Crucial BX300's power efficiency score isn't quite as close to the top score, but only because Toshiba's OCZ VX500 really stands out from the crowd. The BX300 is ahead of the Samsung 850 PRO and close to the 850 EVO, MX300, and Intel 545s.
 |
|||||||||
The BX300's performance doesn't change much over the course of the mixed sequental test, but it does speed up a bit near the end. Power consumption starts out high but drops dramatically across the first half of the test, and then follows the shape of the performance curve.
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.