AnandTech Storage Bench - Light

Our Light storage test has relatively more sequential accesses and lower queue depths than The Destroyer or the Heavy test, and it's by far the shortest test overall. It's based largely on applications that aren't highly dependent on storage performance, so this is a test more of application launch times and file load times. This test can be seen as the sum of all the little delays in daily usage, but with the idle times trimmed to 25ms it takes less than half an hour to run. Details of the Light test can be found here. As with the ATSB Heavy test, this test is run with the drive both freshly erased and empty, and after filling the drive with sequential writes.

ATSB - Light (Data Rate)

The Crucial SSDs occupy the bottom half of the average data rate rankings for the Light test, as the other 3D NAND SSDs in this bunch are able to deliver higher peak performance. The BX300 is slower than the MX300 when the test is run on an empty drive, but for a full drive the BX300 is the fastest Crucial SSD and also faster than the ADATA SU800.

ATSB - Light (Average Latency)ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Latency)

The average and 99th percentile latency scores for the BX300 are worse than the other 3D NAND SSDs in this comparison, but there's enough of a gap for it to matter.

ATSB - Light (Average Read Latency)ATSB - Light (Average Write Latency)

The average read latency of the Crucial BX300 on the Light test is better than any other Crucial drive, but is unimpressive compared to the 3D NAND SSDs from other brands. The average write latency is significantly higher than most of the other SSDs (excepting the BX200), but is not enough to cause real problems for light workloads.

ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The 99th percentile read and write latencies tell pretty much the same story as the averages for the BX300: it performs fine for read operations, but is a bit slower for writes.

ATSB - Light (Power)

The Crucial BX300 turns in another second-place score for power efficiency, behind the MX300. The Light test doesn't put too much stress on the MX300's SLC caching, so it keeps its first-place efficiency even when the test is run on a full drive.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy Random Performance
Comments Locked

90 Comments

View All Comments

  • Ryan Smith - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link

    We're still finalizing that for the new testbed.
  • plopke - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link

    Quiet impressed by the improvements , nice surprise. But why would anyone still get a mx300 <525GB capacity. Am I missing something here? Crucial always confuses me with what they want the MX vs BX to be.
    Or would they discontinue MX 300 <525GB , now I am curious if they will be making a MX400 still this year.
  • wallysb01 - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link

    Why get <525? Because its still $90 or $60 less in total cost and if you don't need >120 or 240 GB, why not save the money. Plenty of use-cases don't need much more than just enough to boot a computer.
  • vladx - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link

    So MX300 is using TLC NAND while BX300 is now MLC? What the hell is going on with Micron/Crucial's marketing team?
  • MajGenRelativity - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link

    To be fair to Micron/Crucial, it seems like par for the course for marketing teams to confuse people
  • melgross - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link

    Most people don’t care. They look at capacity, price, and maybe, performance. How the company gets there isn’t important.
  • Samus - Sunday, September 3, 2017 - link

    The ideal solution to market a product is to take a draft description from the designers, engineers, etc, and condense it to a slogan and a product segment that is palatable to the general population.

    The problem seems to be the inability for marketing departments and advertising companies to adapt ideas and technology without loosing the core functions of those ideas and technology.

    As you said, a lot of them just focus on price or "what works" (as in, keeping with the previous naming conventions, even if they never worked in the first place...because changing it now would admit defeat)
  • Samus - Sunday, September 3, 2017 - link

    I've been saying this about AMD and even Intel's marketing teams for years. And who can forget NVidia's GTX 970 memory configuration flop?

    The fundamental problems seems to be nobody with any engineering mentality is on a marketing team. Which is a shame, because as an engineer, I firmly believe we are good at selling (ourselves and our ideas) to management on a daily basis. And the morons in management think just like the morons in marketing.
  • msabercr - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link

    Are we sure this is MLC? It seems an aweful lot like the intel 545s which is TLC.
  • Ian Cutress - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link

    Yes, we are sure.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now