The Crucial BX300 (480GB) SSD Review: Back To MLC

Mixed 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.

Crucial BX300 480GBIntel SSD 545s 512GBSamsung 850 EVO 500GBSamsung 850 PRO 512GBCrucial BX200 480GBPNY CS1311 480GBPNY CS2211 480GBSanDisk Extreme Pro 480GBCrucial MX200 500GBCrucial MX300 525GBPlextor S2C 512GBADATA Premier SP550 480GBADATA Ultimate SU800 512GBOCZ Trion 150 480GBOCZ VX500 512GB

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.

Crucial BX300 480GBIntel SSD 545s 512GBSamsung 850 EVO 500GBSamsung 850 PRO 512GBCrucial BX200 480GBPNY CS1311 480GBPNY CS2211 480GBSanDisk Extreme Pro 480GBCrucial MX200 500GBCrucial MX300 525GBPlextor S2C 512GBADATA Premier SP550 480GBADATA Ultimate SU800 512GBOCZ Trion 150 480GBOCZ VX500 512GB

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.