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.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

Despite the improved IO consistency, the MX200 doesn't have any advantage over the MX100 in our heaviest The Destroyer trace. The MX200 is clearly not crafted for intensive IO workloads because there are far better drives available, which is a shame because I've been waiting for Crucial to deliver a true high-end drive, but the MX200 clearly isn't that. What's alarming is the fact that the BX100 is actually faster than the MX200, which doesn't speak too highly of Crucial-Micron's custom firmware for the Marvell controller.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

Average latency doesn't really change the story as the MX200 is still a relatively slow drive by today's high-end SSD standards. Especially the performance of the 250GB is surprisingly bad and it looks like Crucial's SLC cache implementation isn't optimal for intensive IO workloads.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

The share of high latency IOs is also pretty bad, although fortunately even the 250GB model manages to keep +100ms IOs within a reasonable limit.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

The power consumption is quite average, but the BX100 is without a doubt far more power efficient even for high intensity IO workloads despite its position as a value drive. 

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Power)

Performance Consistency AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy


View All Comments

  • RAMdiskSeeker - Sunday, May 24, 2015 - link

    Would you be able to re-run and publish the benchmarks for the MX200 250GB drive formatted as a 100GB drive so that it runs entirely in SLC mode? Reply
  • jihe - Monday, May 25, 2015 - link

    No way would I recommend Samsung to anyone. Selling TLC for the price of MLC? Massive lost of performance? Reply
  • pseudoid - Wednesday, May 27, 2015 - link

    Thank you for yet another great SSD review.
    I am from the old-skool camp when eeking out performance from drives meant the only alternative was SCSI drives spinning at 10k RPM and when SCSI cables cost more than the current 128GB SSDs. I gradually stepped up to VelociRaptor HDDs that were the only performance champs leaving behind SCSI HDDs and waiting for SSDs to get to affordable range. Yet those VelociRaptors are refusing to die in my system after all these years.
    A few years ago, I finally broke down and bought a Patriot Pyro 240GB as my current Win8.1Pro OS boot drive (all user data are directed to the older VelociRaptors to afford longevity to the Patriot Pyro).
    I use a utility called SSDLifePro ( to periodically monitor the performance of my Patriot Pyro. It currently tells me the following info:
    READs = 27TB >> WRITEs = 15TB
    Energized Time = 23,635Hours (2yrs, 8mos,14days)
    Power Cycles = 609 times
    Estimated Lifetime = 6yrs, 11mos >> End Of Life = April 2022

    No, the above info is not for neener-neener, but strictly as a pre-amble to the following question:
    Why are Patriot (Ignite series) SSDs never discussed (or reviewed) in AnandTech?
    Ditto for Intel SSDs??
  • NvidiaWins - Thursday, June 4, 2015 - link

    Crucial made the list of failing SSD's drives last week-
  • NvidiaWins - Thursday, June 4, 2015 - link

    Smart people buy Intel, Intel SSD's don't fail, ever.
    You see that Intel is considered the only reliable SSD manufacturer-
  • Arkadius - Wednesday, August 5, 2015 - link

    Can You retest MX200 250GB with new firmware MU02?

    MU02 Crucial MX200 SSD (all form factors)
    Release Date: 07/14/2015
    Improved Read Performance on small address spans
    Improved Random Write performance on transfers not aligned to 4KB address boundaries
    Improved Acceleration Capacity Recovery after TRIM and SANITIZE commands
    Added Informative SMART thresholds for Attributes 202 and 5
    Bug Fixes and Stability Improvements
  • Resental - Sunday, December 27, 2015 - link

    Quote, I just bought a MX200 250GB, I have obtained much better results then those in this article, maybe they solved with latest firmware. Reply
  • Scott.deagan - Monday, August 24, 2015 - link

    I just purchased a Crucial MX200 500GB for my Dell M3800 laptop (Ubuntu edition). I need drive encryption for work. Have only been using it for a day so far, but am loving it. I'm not that fussed about performance issues between different SSD drives, all I know is this SSD is so much faster than the spin drive that came with the M3800. It feels like a new machine.

    Thanks for the review. Very informative. I'll check out the 850 EVO for my personal laptop.
  • drSeehas - Saturday, October 17, 2015 - link

    "DRAM (DDR3-1600) 512 MB" for the 250 GB drive. Are you sure? Reply
  • Firedrops - Saturday, February 13, 2016 - link

    Please show us actual capacity on storage device reviews! These things vary too much from manufacturer to manufacturer, a drive labeled 480gb is often easily over 20gb smaller than one labeled 512gb in true capacity. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now