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
Samus - Sunday, September 3, 2017 - link
It's true, especially on sale, the 850 EVO is an incredible value for performance focused SATA shoppers. But if you are ok with 80-90% of the real world performance of an 850 EVO, you can get that from pretty much any modern SSD for much less. Various Sandisk drives (like the Ultra II) and even Mushkin drives are good performance, still use MLC, and are cheaper.m16 - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
It might have a "horrible" wake up time, but that is still really fast and will probably not be an issue on anything at all.The drive seems like a steal, and the only thing that it is missing is temperature throttling available in the higher end MX series. Which is also not an issue except in higher end laptops that produce a lot of heat or really small desktops with a beast of a CPU/GPU setup and not enough ventilation.
MrCommunistGen - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
I realize they're targeting the BX300 at the lower end and for lower price points, but I'd have really loved to have seen a 960GB model.Also, I'm really loving that the full-drive performance is close to the empty performance, unlike so many other recent drives on 1xnm TLC, Micron 3D TLC, and/or are DRAM-less.
damianrobertjones - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link
There's a 1tb model?Wubinator - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link
No there isn'thttp://www.crucial.com/usa/en/ssd/series--BX300?cm...
MrCommunistGen - Friday, September 8, 2017 - link
I was trying to say that I wish Crucial had decided to make a 960GB model... but they didn't. Performance, Performance/Watt, $/GB are all great. I want a bigger drive with all those attributes.creed3020 - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
Great review Billy! Consistent execution on the writing and the newer format graphs are a nice refresh for the SSD review format. Keep these coming.I still wish the MX100 was in the charts to get a better grasp on the generational changes.
jabber - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
99% of Hardware review sites always make this mistake. They always ignore the hardware that most people will have i.e. the hardware from the past 2-3 years. They just always test against the stuff they had sent them 6 months previous that most still haven't bothered to upgrade to. Most of the benches have little relevance to most users wanting to know how the new stuff compares to theirs. It's really frustrating.ComputerGuy2006 - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
I agree, I have the Bx100 and I would be interesting in a direct comparison. Even the "ssd 2015 bench" does not have the bx300 right now so I can't compare them.Samus - Sunday, September 3, 2017 - link
Lucky, the BX100 was an amazing value back in the day (hah, 2 years ago) and still holds up.