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

89 Comments

View All Comments

  • Billy Tallis - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link

    The 545s uses 64-layer 3D TLC, while the BX300's MLC is still the first-generation 32-layer NAND. Clearly, the Intel/Micron 64L 3D NAND improves on more than just layer count. That a big part of why I suspect the BX300 may be short-lived and soon replaced by a 64L TLC product. Reply
  • Naris17 - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link

    Great review. I've always had a soft spot for Micron. Does the BX300 contain partial power loss protection capacitors like the MX300, or are those taken out? Reply
  • BrokenCrayons - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link

    There are some images at the bottom of the first page of the review that show the disassembled drive case and the PCB inside. It doesn't look like power loss protection is possible given the small size of the surface mount capacitors that are present. Reply
  • vladx - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link

    BX series always lacked PLP, that's why it was considered lower-tier while performance was not far away. Reply
  • nwarawa - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link

    Incorrect. The BX100 most definitely did. I even confirmed with Crucial themselves. Reply
  • nwarawa - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link

    In fact, you can even look at Anandtech's earlier review of the BX100 if you don't believe me:
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/9144/crucial-bx100-1...
    Reply
  • nwarawa - Tuesday, September 12, 2017 - link

    I was just in a chat with Crucial directly: they say the BX300 does indeed have partial power-loss protection. Reply
  • Glock24 - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link

    Finally something worth buying besides the 850Evo, but only of they keep the prices low. Reply
  • vladx - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link

    There are a lot of good alternatives to 850 EVO, most of the times the slightly higher performance is not worth the premium. Reply
  • Glock24 - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link

    Can you list them? All other drives are notably slower while costing as much as the 850 Evo, others are even more expensive.

    This BX300 performs very close to the 850 Evo while being slightly cheaper (although smaller capacity too).
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now