AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer

The Destroyer is an extremely long test replicating the access patterns of heavy desktop usage. A detailed breakdown can be found in this review. Like real-world usage and unlike our Iometer tests, 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.

We quantify performance on this test by reporting the drive's average data throughput, a few data points about its latency, and the total energy used by the drive over the course of the test.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The BX100's performance on The Destroyer isn't dead last, but it underperforms for its capacity.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

Average service time is startlingly high and is close to a hard drive's seek time.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

The frequency of performance outliers is in line with the other two low performers on this test, indicating that the BX200's performance doesn't stutter any more often, but it pauses for longer periods of time when it does stutter.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Power)

Higher power consumption is to be expected from a drive using TLC NAND, but the BX200 consumed more than twice the energy over the duration of The Destroyer than any of the other drives, and more than five times as much as the BX100. The BX200 didn't take vastly more time to complete The Destroyer, so it was clearly not making good use of idle time.

Performance Consistency AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
POST A COMMENT

85 Comments

View All Comments

  • extide - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link

    So, apparently the first "bad" crucial SSD. Oh wait, no, the second one, remember that V4 or whatever it was, heh. Reply
  • hojnikb - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link

    This is miles ahead V4, because this is usable, while V4 was not. Reply
  • iLovefloss - Sunday, November 8, 2015 - link

    Nah, Crucial still had their M4 which quite a few issues for many people. Reply
  • Glock24 - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link

    Wow, didn't expect such a product from Crucial. The only other SSD that performs worse than a mechanical disk is the Kingston SSD V300 that is still being sold. Reply
  • hojnikb - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link

    V300, despite its hate, is still *much* faster than any HDD out there. Reply
  • Glock24 - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link

    Maybe you got lucky, but I bought one after reading some good reviews (before the nand change fiasco hit the news) and after a while I noticed something was wrong because of the painfully slow performance. It was giving me reads close to 100MB/s and writes on the 20MB/s range, and that's sequential performance. I usually do not notice any difference in tel world performance between different SSD models, but with the V300 was very notorious. Even the HDD I had in use at the time felt faster (Spinpoint F1 1TB). So no, the V300 is not faster than any HDD. Reply
  • hojnikb - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link

    that was a faulty model or issue on your end. eve the crappiest models were good for atleast 75mbs of write.... Reply
  • Gigaplex - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link

    And most hard drives these days can beat 75MB/s sequential write. Reply
  • hojnikb - Wednesday, November 4, 2015 - link

    sequential speeds matter very little, its the random performace that makes ssds fast. and those are orders of magnitude better, even with v300 Reply
  • jabber - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link

    Yeah I use V300's exclusively in SATA II based PCs and laptops as they will push 270MBps+ all day long. No point buying 850 EVOs there. Must have bought 50+ and all of them are still going strong. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now