AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer

The Destroyer is an extremely long test replicating the access patterns of very IO-intensive desktop usage. A detailed breakdown can be found in this article. Like real-world usage and unlike our Iometer tests, the drives do get the occasional break that allows for some background garbage collection and flushing caches, but those idle times are limited to 25ms so that it doesn't take all week to run the test.

We quantify performance on this test by reporting the drive's average data throughput, a few data points about its latency, and the total energy used by the drive over the course of the test.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The average data rate for the MX300 is between the scores of the 1TB and 500GB MX200 but a little closer to the latter. This is acceptable performance but not really an upgrade over the MX200.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

The average service time of the MX300 is slow enough to put it among the budget planar TLC drives and well behind the SanDisk X400.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

The MX300 has a higher frequency of both moderate and severe latency outliers than the MX200, but it isn't a huge discrepancy. The performance relative to the SanDisk X400 shows that there is room for improvement.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Power)

The MX300's power consumption comes in a distant second place behind the BX100, but this is still remarkable efficiency for a TLC drive.

Performance Consistency AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
Comments Locked

85 Comments

View All Comments

  • PVG - Sunday, July 3, 2016 - link

    Does anyone know the cell size of Micron's 3D TLC?
  • Jimster480 - Tuesday, July 5, 2016 - link

    Haha the performance is horrible for the price.
    Seriously MX200 kills it which means Transcend SSD370s kill it too.
    Even the crappy X400 kills it.... where is the Ultra II on the list? I'm sure it kills it also.

    3D nand sucks.
  • Weasle - Monday, August 15, 2016 - link

    These comments show that people don't understand the durability of this drive. Since it's using the 3D-Nand technology that Samsung first adopted, this drive has a better durability rating than a Samsung 850 Pro. Like holy shit.. It uses TLC memory too! It's a TLC drive that's more durable than a MLC drive. It's also a very good priced drive. from $0.26 to $0.24.. That's amazing pricing lol. I don't fucking know why people are complaining.
  • ZapNZs - Monday, September 12, 2016 - link

    3D-NAND for the lulz'ers?...I can coat a turd with 24k gold, but at the end of the day it's still crap. And this sure is crap...shame on you Crucial! Given this is [by design] an inferior product to the MX-200, they should have named it something other than the MX-300. TLC has inferior endurance, inferior real-world write performance, and inferior error correction capability. So here we have another TLC drive that is priced almost as high as Transcend's 370, but the 370 uses MLC...MADE FROM MICON'S OWN PREMIUM NAND SUPPLY. Don't count on this drive to give anywhere near the reliability or longevity of the venerable MX-200. This is like changing movie night up from The Godfather to Freddy Got Fingered. Yay Micron!
  • TimAhKin - Friday, November 25, 2016 - link

    Got this just now for £100. I think that for this price it's a really good deal.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now