AnandTech Storage Bench - Light

Our Light storage test has relatively more sequential accesses and lower queue depths than The Destroyer or the Heavy test, and it's by far the shortest test overall. It's based largely on applications that aren't highly dependent on storage performance, so this is a test more of application launch times and file load times. This test can be seen as the sum of all the little delays in daily usage, but with the idle times trimmed to 25ms it takes less than half an hour to run. Details of the Light test can be found here. As with the ATSB Heavy test, this test is run with the drive both freshly erased and empty, and after filling the drive with sequential writes.

ATSB - Light (Data Rate)

The Crucial MX300 performs very well on the Light test with an average data rate that the MX500 cannot quite match, but the MX500 doesn't lose as much performance when the test is run on a full drive.

ATSB - Light (Average Latency)ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Latency)

The average and 99th percentile latency scores of the Crucial MX500 are largely unremarkable, though the 99th percentile latency is near the high end of the normal range. The MX500 is a substantial improvement over the MX300 when it comes to full-drive performance.

ATSB - Light (Average Read Latency)ATSB - Light (Average Write Latency)

The average read latency of the Crucial MX500 on the Light test is close to the Samsung 850 PRO and EVO when the test is run on an empty drive, but is merely average when the drives are full. The average write latency is a bit below average in both cases, but the full-drive penalty is much reduced compared to the MX300.

ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Write Latency)

As with the average read and write latency scores, the 99th percentile read and write scores fall within the normal range. The 99th percentile read latency is a bit better than average while the 99th percentile write latency is worse than most drives, but the MX500 isn't an outlier in either direction.

ATSB - Light (Power)

The power consumption of the MX500 ranks a bit better on the Light test than it did on the Heavy test. The Crucial MX300 is still substantially better, and the slow but DRAMless Toshiba TR200 holds on to a comfortable lead. The Samsung 850 PRO and EVO are in last place.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy Random Performance
POST A COMMENT

90 Comments

View All Comments

  • Kristian Vättö - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link

    The BX300 is merely a vehicle to consume low yielding MLC wafers. Reply
  • oRAirwolf - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link

    Can you expand on that statement? Low yielding in what ways? Reply
  • hojnikb - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link

    Probably not as good performing (endurance, write performance) dies get used with bx300 instead of discarding them or using them elsewhere. Reply
  • jabber - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link

    But where else would Crucial be using the good MLC ones if everything else is TLC? Reply
  • cblakely - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link

    Enterprise products Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Wednesday, December 20, 2017 - link

    Most of it is going to mobile and industrial applications, of which both have very strict quality requirements. The ones that don't meet the criteria can either be sold as wafer/component or used in a retail client SSD, the latter obviously having a better profit margin.

    Memory is yielded at wafer level. Dies from a low yielding wafer statistically have a higher probability of failure in long-term, even if individual dies are OK in initial probing.
    Reply
  • sonny73n - Wednesday, December 20, 2017 - link

    WTH are you talking about? Testing endurance and write performance of every die? It's not common sense at all. Therefore, you're a bullshit. Reply
  • FunBunny2 - Wednesday, December 20, 2017 - link

    "WTH are you talking about? Testing endurance and write performance of every die? It's not common sense at all. Therefore, you're a bullshit. "

    that's not what he said. what he said was, post mortem analyses have shown that wafers with a low yield produce dies with short lifespans. those dies are then shipped out as retail SSD.
    Reply
  • emvonline - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link

    Kristian is a wise man. BX300 is a pragmatic response ... not a strategy. MX500 is very well positioned Reply
  • malventano - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link

    Low yield MLC wafers would likely not produce usable TLC dies with a higher endurance rating than Samsung's currently shipping V-NAND. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now