The Crucial BX300 (480GB) SSD Review: Back To MLC
by Billy Tallis on August 29, 2017 9:00 AM ESTFinal Words
The Crucial BX200 comes in last place as often as not. The Crucial BX300 doesn't entirely reverse that, but it still provides one of the biggest generational jumps the SSD market has seen. Micron has learned from their mistakes with the BX200 and produced a worthy successor to the BX100. With the MX300 doing so well as a mainstream SSD with entry-level pricing, the focus of the BX line has shifted from simply being the cheaper option to being the drive designed specifically for the smaller capacities demanded by cost-conscious consumers.
Micron's large 384Gb 3D TLC die is ill-suited to making small SSDs, as 120-128GB SSDs end up only having 3 NAND chips on a four-channel controller, and even at larger capacities the flash is not well balanced across the controller channels. For the next generation of 3D NAND, Micron is addressing this issue by manufacturing both a large 512Gb die and a smaller 256Gb die. Since that 64-layer 3D NAND is still ramping up to full production, Micron has chosen for the BX300 to use their 256Gb 3D MLC that allows for a small SSD to be reasonably fast and free of the downsides of the TLC NAND that dominates the entry-level SSD market.
It's a bit of a puzzle how Micron can afford to sell an MLC SSD for less than their TLC SSD without making serious compromises elsewhere like using a DRAMless controller. But as long as they're willing to sell the BX300 at these prices, it's a great product.
The BX300 only has a few notable weaknesses. Micron's 32L 3D NAND is unusually power-hungry during sequential reads, despite being otherwise quite efficient. This also affects random reads to some extent. The BX300's peak performance is on average slightly below top-tier SATA drives like Samsung's 850 PRO and EVO and the Intel 545s, and it is outperformed by other 3D TLC drives like the MX300 and ADATA SU800 when they're able to make good use of their SLC caches. But this is offset by how well the BX300 retains its performance under heavier workloads and when operating with a nearly-full drive. In that respect, it has a significant advantage over the Crucial MX300.
| 120-128GB | 240-275GB | 480-525GB | 960-1050GB | 2TB | |
| Crucial BX300 | $59.99 (50¢/GB) | $89.99 (38¢/GB) | $149.99 (31¢/GB) | ||
| Crucial MX300 | $99.99 (40¢/GB) | $159.99 (32¢/GB) | $289.99 (29¢/GB) | $549.00 (27¢/GB) | |
| ADATA SU800 | $56.68 (44¢/GB) | $91.99 (36¢/GB) | $168.58 (33¢/GB) | $265.00 (26¢/GB) | |
| ADATA SU900 | $108.99 (43¢/GB) | $197.80 (39¢/GB) | |||
| ADATA XPG SX950 | $109.99 (46¢/GB) | $214.99 (45¢/GB) | |||
| Intel SSD 545s | $99.99 (39¢/GB) | $169.99 (33¢/GB) | |||
| Samsung 850 PRO | $114.99 (45¢/GB) | $212.19 (41¢/GB) | $420.99 (41¢/GB) | $897.99 (44¢/GB) | |
| Samsung 850 EVO | $89.99 (36¢/GB) | $174.75 (35¢/GB) | $299.99 (30¢/GB) | $715.00 (36¢/GB) |
The Samsung 850 EVO is available with very competitive pricing at the moment, shutting many drives using Micron 32L 3D NAND out of the market. The MSRP of the 480GB BX300 we tested is low enough to beat basically everything on a price per GB basis, and is far enough below the Samsung 850 EVO that it isn't an automatic decision to get the Samsung instead. The 240GB BX300 will debut with the same price as the 250GB Samsung 850 EVO, making the Samsung the better option for now.
The smallest capacity of the Crucial BX300 may prove to be the most popular and most competitive. There are other 120GB drives on the market that are priced a bit lower, but the BX300 has the advantage that it uses 3D MLC NAND, doesn't use a DRAMless controller and uses all four NAND channels on its controller. The 120GB BX300 will be slower than the 480GB model we tested, but it will retain the general characteristic of performing almost as well when it is full as when empty. This is far more important at such small capacities. The 120GB BX300 also benefits from lack of competition from Samsung: the planar TLC-based 750 EVO is not available at competitive prices and the 120GB 850 EVO and 128GB 850 PRO were discontinued when Samsung moved from 32L 3D NAND to 48L 3D NAND.
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.