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, 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. These AnandTech Storage Bench (ATSB) tests do not involve running the actual applications that generated the workloads, so the scores are relatively insensitive to changes in CPU performance and RAM from our new testbed, but the jump to a newer version of Windows and the newer storage drivers can have an impact.

We quantify performance on this test by reporting the drive's average data throughput, the average latency of the I/O operations, and the total energy used by the drive over the course of the test.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The Crucial BX300 is tied for second-fastest average data rate on The Destroyer among SATA drives. The BX300's performance falls between the Samsung 850 EVO and 850 PRO, and matches the Intel 545s that uses a newer generation of 3D NAND and a newer SSD controller.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Latency)

The BX300's latency during The Destroyer is best in class, with both average and 99th percentile latencies at the top of the chart.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Read Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Write Latency)

Breaking the average latency score down by read and write operations, we find the BX300 in second place for each subscore, but with a different drive in first place each time: the 850 PRO is what beats the BX300's average read latency, and the Crucial MX200 beats the BX300's average write latency.

ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The Crucial BX300 does a great job keeping read latency low throughout the destroyer, with the lowest 99th percentile read latency out of this bunch of drives. By contrast, the 99th percentile write latency only ranks third, behind the Intel 545s and Samsung 850 PRO. The MX300's 99th percentile write latency is moderately worse than the BX300's, but its 99th percentile read latency is almost twice as high.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Power)

The BX300 further improves on the power efficiency of the MX300, but not enough to match the Intel 545s that benefits both from a newer Silicon Motion controller and from newer 64L 3D NAND.

Introduction AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
POST A COMMENT

92 Comments

View All Comments

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

    We're still finalizing that for the new testbed. Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • 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? Reply
  • 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 Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • Samus - Sunday, September 03, 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)
    Reply
  • Samus - Sunday, September 03, 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.
    Reply
  • msabercr - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link

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

    Yes, we are sure. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now