Crucial BX100 (120GB, 250GB, 500GB & 1TB) SSD Review
by Kristian Vättö on April 10, 2015 1:20 PM EST- Posted in
- Storage
- SSDs
- Crucial
- Micron
- Silicon Motion
- BX100
- SM2246EN
- Micron 16nm
AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer
The Destroyer has been an essential part of our SSD test suite for nearly two years now. It was crafted to provide a benchmark for very IO intensive workloads, which is where you most often notice the difference between drives. It's not necessarily the most relevant test to an average user, but for anyone with a heavier IO workload The Destroyer should do a good job at characterizing performance. For full details of this test, please refer to this article.
Despite the lack of IO consistency, the BX100 does very well in our heaviest The Destroyer trace. It's easily faster than the MX100 and quite close to the higher-end SSDs as well in both data rate and latency.
The share of high latency IOs is very reasonable too, suggesting that the consistency is fine under real-world workloads.
And finally the power consumption where the BX100 shines in. Even though it's not the fastest drive on the market, it's by far the most power efficient and the difference to the MX100 is nearly twofold.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
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 managementi 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 optionjaegerschnitzel - 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)