AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy

While The Destroyer focuses on sustained and worst-case performance by hammering the drive with nearly 1TB worth of writes, the Heavy trace provides a more typical enthusiast and power user workload. By writing less to the drive, the Heavy trace doesn't drive the SSD into steady-state and thus the trace gives us a good idea of peak performance combined with some basic garbage collection routines. For full details of the test, please refer to the this article.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Data Rate)

The BX100 continues to be a strong performer in our Heavy trace. It's not able to match the Samsung drives, but overall it provides very good performance for a value drive.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

The number of high latency IOs isn't alarming either and the 120GB BX100 actually performs better than the 120GB 850 EVO, especially when the drive is full.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Power)

The power consumption is again excellent. While we have known that the SM2246EN is very power efficient, these tests further assure its efficiency and advantage over competing solutions. 

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer AnandTech Storage Bench - Light
Comments Locked

67 Comments

View All Comments

  • Kristian Vättö - Saturday, April 11, 2015 - link

    I plan on testing the SSD370 as soon as I have time, but the past two months have been full of travel and NDAs, thus I've only been able to test a limited number of drive with our new 2015 SSD suite.
  • leexgx - Sunday, April 12, 2015 - link

    i just got a SSD370 comming my way now, very annoying it lacks any power management

    i am happy you did the review on this as i was mostly ignoring the bx100, as the mx100 is generally cheaper then the BX100 in the UK , but for laptops well wow its worst case power useage is overall better then any other SSD (add a Devsleep supported laptop and the reg Tweek to expose the Lowest Option under balanced power profile for AHCI power management and you get mad power savinging)
    http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/177819-ahci-l...
    http://www.sisoftware.co.uk/?d=qa&f=apu_hsw_di...
  • leexgx - Sunday, April 12, 2015 - link

    be nice if they bring a update out for the SSD370 to turn back on DIPM as it must be the only current SSD in the last 2 years that lacks a 0.150w ish slumber state (most SSDs are stuck in idle 0.330w ish zone without DIPM or HIPM) even though i paid not much for this used ssd370 it be nice if it had the option
  • jaegerschnitzel - Sunday, April 12, 2015 - link

    Great review. But please can you explain me how to determine the Over-Provisioning?

    For example the drive with 500 GB. It has 8 flash chips with 512Gbit each, a total of 512GiB. User capacity is 465.76. 1 - 465,76/512. Am I right?
  • Kristian Vättö - Sunday, April 12, 2015 - link

    That is correct. The other way to put it would be 1 - (500*1000^3)/(512*1024^3).
  • jaegerschnitzel - Sunday, April 12, 2015 - link

    Thanks for your fast reply! Just another question to clarify, why not the other way round?
    1 - (512*1024^3) / (500*1000^3) = 9.95%?
  • Kristian Vättö - Sunday, April 12, 2015 - link

    That returns a negative number (-9.95%) because (512*1024^3) > (500*1000^3).

    (512*1024^3) = raw NAND capacity in bytes, i.e. 512GiB (GiB = 1024^3)

    (500*1000^3) = user capacity in bytes, i.e. 500GB = 465.76GiB (GB = 1000^3)
  • jaegerschnitzel - Sunday, April 12, 2015 - link

    That was my fault. But this should be right: (512*1024^3) / (500*1000^3) - 1 = 9.95%.

    I think you misunderstood my second question. Sorry for that, obviously my English is too bad ;-)
    Another try. Your percentage is relative to the real physical capacity (9.1%). Why do you not refer the percentage to the end user capacity (9.9%)?
  • Squuiid - Sunday, April 12, 2015 - link

    Given the problems I and many, many others have had with Crucial's MX100, I would not recommend anyone buy a Crucial SSD. Their firmware dev team are incompetent, no two ways about it. There have been serious power management problems with all of Crucial's SSD's since their C300 released years ago.
    http://forum.crucial.com/t5/Crucial-SSDs/Feedback-...
  • leexgx - Sunday, April 12, 2015 - link

    the current SSDs are not even related to the C300 (witch i agree was not a great SSD as latency was not very good on that drive under some loads it was slow)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now