The Crucial BX200 (480GB & 960GB) SSD Review: Crucial's First TLC NAND SSD
by Billy Tallis on November 3, 2015 9:00 AM ESTWrapping things up, we knew going into the review that Crucial would face some performance challenges with the move to TLC, and that matching the BX100's good all-around performance would be tricky. A significant drop in random read speeds was listed in the specs, but Crucial advertises modest improvements to other performance metrics. Unfortunately, the BX200 was harder hit than we initially expected.
Random and sequential write speeds both suffer, and sequential writes were hurt relatively more as compared with the BX100. Sequential read speeds were fine, and elsewhere things aren't quite bad enough to make it a one-legged stool. The most acute weaknesses are in areas that are less important to typical desktop usage. Peak performance is much better than sustained performance and reads speeds are much better than write speeds, so for interactive use the BX200 will be much more responsive than most of our tests indicate.
Given our earlier discussion on TLC NAND and consumer pressure to bring down drive prices, it's easy to understand why Crucial wanted to release a TLC drive in the BX series. But it's hard to understand why they're releasing it in what seems to be such a poor performing state. The drive clearly needs at least a firmware overhaul, and it's a horrible way to introduce Micron's 16nm TLC to the world. The BX100 doesn't need a successor yet, as it's still the best all around value you can get from a SSD.
Crucial plans to rapidly retire the BX100, so the BX200 will soon be standing alone as Crucial's budget offering. If the BX100 is being retired for having poor profit margins, then it seems like it could tolerate a bit of a price increase and still have a place in the market. If the switch is motivated by Micron diverting large amounts of production capacity from MLC to TLC, then we have to question the viability of their plans for roling out TLC. Micron needs to introduce a good TLC product as soon as possible to demonstrate that the 16nm TLC has a reason for existing in the first place. From what we've seen so far, Micron may have been better off sticking with MLC until after switching to 3D NAND.
| Amazon Price Comparison (11/3/2015) | |||
| Drive | 240/250/256GB | 480/500/512GB | 960GB/1TB |
| Crucial BX200 (MSRP) | $84.99 | $149.99 | $299.99 |
| ADATA Premier SP550 | $72.99 | $154.99 | - |
| SanDisk Ultra II | $83.99 | $153.99 | $299.00 |
| Crucial BX100 | $79.99 | $159.99 | $360.00 |
| Crucial MX200 | $94.99 | $169.99 | $329.99 |
| Plextor M6V | $99.99 | $189.99 | - |
| OCZ Trion 100 | $93.99 | $175.36 | $349.99 |
| OCZ Arc 100 | $91.99 | $149.99 | - |
| Samsung 850 EVO | $87.99 | $163.88 | $346.00 |
In the end the MSRP for the BX200 is around or below where retail prices for the BX100 have been—$85 for 240GB and $150 for 480GB—so it likely will be cheaper than its predecessor and push SSD prices at or below $0.30/GB. But even being the cheapest SSD on the market wouldn't be sufficient to earn a recommendation; almost anything else would be worth paying extra for. We have a saying around here that "there's no such thing as a bad product, only a bad price" and even for the BX200 this is true. But at MSRP, the BX200 won't be putting much price pressure on the rest of the market, and there are other drives with similar prices and better performance. The best thing for consumers right now would be for the BX200 to further push down costs, at which point it can survive as a true low-budget SSD.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
85 Comments
View All Comments
paulgj - Monday, November 9, 2015 - link
I just ordered a couple more BX100's 250GBdoggface - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
The MX100 was just brilliant, an easy recommendation.The BX100 has been my go to value SSD, that l I recommended to many friends. The bx200 is garbage which costs more? And is about as bad as a HDD. What the hell crucial. What the hell.Luke212 - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
BX100 and MX100 were great.... how can they go backward so badly?JDG1980 - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
It's looking more and more as though TLC is a big flop. It doesn't seem to provide substantial price savings, and it comes at a considerable cost in performance, durability, and reliability.For a TLC drive to be worth it, it would need to be 1/2 to 1/4 the cost per gigabyte of a MLC solution on the largest drives. It then might be acceptable for people who want moderately priced bulk storage that's cheaper than standard SSDs. But that's not close to being the case now, and it may never be.
CiccioB - Wednesday, November 4, 2015 - link
Yeah, I still wonder if TLC is really reliable as producers advertise them.Samsung needed a "hack" to their 840 TLC series to solve data retention problems reducing life time.
We do not know if others have done the same without (obviously) telling publicly. And if 850 series has it under the hood.
I would go to MLC drives for few $ more. I feel them as more reliable and durable. And "feeling" is an important thing for me, as I put my data on them and saving few bucks may not really be an advantage when a TLC drive lives less then a MLC one.
For performance, I bet anyone to be able to discern differences in real life form an SSD to another. This are "synthetic" tests, where source of data is faster than SSD speed (RAM). For whatever real usage, anything comes from sources that are slower (HDD, network, optical disks). Load times into RAM is limited, as you don't usually load GB and GB into it but during a benchmark.
What it really matters is reliability, durability and price. TLC fails to make me comfortable with the first two criteria. Which, for me, are the most important ones.
CiccioB - Wednesday, November 4, 2015 - link
"This are "synthetic" tests"These are synthetic tests.
Edit button, please!
extide - Thursday, November 5, 2015 - link
Yeah it seems like you really need to go to 3D NAND to get decent TLC -- the 850 EVO's have so far been pretty much great. That significantly larger feature size really helps the TLC out.Beaver M. - Wednesday, November 4, 2015 - link
No wonder I have been skipping reviews of new SATA SSDs for a few years now. Nothing can touch the Samsung ones, and thats sad.ghanz - Wednesday, November 4, 2015 - link
Review request: Please do a review of Sandisk Plus, their current lowest tier SSDs available in 120gb and 240gb capacities.Will be interesting to see how those compares to the BX100 and BX200 in similar capacities.
Mugur - Wednesday, November 4, 2015 - link
I must buy another BX100 until the stocks will dry...