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
POST A COMMENT

62 Comments

View All Comments

  • busky2k - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    Thanks for the honest review. Its a shame the MX200 doesn't excel like its brethren. Reply
  • romrunning - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    Agreed. That's why I appreciate seeing independent tests of manufacturers' claims. Crucial/Micron just showed me why I'll still buy Samsung over their drives. It's a shame; I used to recommend the MX100 as the best value drive. Now it's the 850 EVO all the way for value drives. Reply
  • sabot00 - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    I feel the BX100 at the very least deserves consideration. The 850 Evo is not a blanket recommendation, especially for laptops where power consumption is important. The BX100 is probably the best mix of price / performance / power right now. Reply
  • Stoatie - Friday, February 12, 2016 - link

    Then what you really want to look at is energy use for a given IO task. Consider the 512GB EVO and BX:
    EVO: ~350MB/s @ 1.6W. = 218.75 MB/J =
    BX100: 300MB/s @ 1.4W = 200 MB/J

    For a given task the EVO will finish faster and do it with less total energy use.
    Reply
  • leexgx - Tuesday, May 24, 2016 - link

    but overall BX100 uses less power (i norm aim to buy BX100 for laptops unless SED drive is required then its norm intel 1000 or 2000 drive) Reply
  • Samus - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    Considering the price of the M500's (960GB model <$300) I still use those almost exclusively unless the MX\BX100's happen to be cheaper. Been very happy with Crucial drives since the C300, very few issues and decent performance for the price. Support is now excellent with their "storage executive" software making firmware updates relatively painless. Reply
  • emn13 - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    Given the fact that most workloads won't cause noticable differences between high end and low end drives, the price, and the power loss protection mean that the ancient m500 is probably a better choice both featurewise and pricewise than its newer, faster competitors for most PCs. Reply
  • leexgx - Saturday, May 23, 2015 - link

    Don't like the idea of DWA drives twice the amount of writes and silly more power draw (the bx100 is a good way on power just lacks FDE witch is unfortunate) mx200 is not on my list of drives to get Reply
  • edlee - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    i am not sure why crucial stopped producing m550, it performs better than mx100 and mx200 series, and was true successor to the legendary m4 drive Reply
  • DanNeely - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    Are the flash chips and controller it uses still available? If either has been discontinued they wouldn't have a choice. Even if the flash was available, but just significantly more expensive; keeping a competitive price would likely force their hand. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now