Crucial BX200 SSD Review (480GB/960GB)

REAL WORLD FILE TRANSFER

Finally, we wanted to see how performance was in a real world use when transferring large files to the SSDs. As we know, the BX200 utilizes an SLC caching algorithm to help improve performance, especially writes. This is needed due to the inherent slowness of TLC NAND. For this test we are going to simply transfer over a 30GB folder of movies off of one SSD to this one and time how long it takes. Once complete we can calculate the average speed.

Crucial BX200 File Transfer vs BX100

In this test it is clear that the BX200 is lagging behind the many mainstream drives. Not only is it, but so are the 480GB OCZ Trion 100 and 120GB Samsung 850 EVO. Overall, we can see that the BX200 can’t even keep up with a HDD with such a large transfer. Past the buffer speeds drop down significantly. While the average of the whole transfer is displayed above, we saw as low as 80MB/s. So, this test just goes to show, if you are one who does heavy write workloads and large file transfers often, stay away from these entry-level drives.

POWER CONSUMPTION

For our power consumption testing, we have the drive connected to the system as a secondary drive. To record the wattage, we are now utilizing a Quarch Technology Programmable Power Module. It allows us to accurately measure power consumption over time and is flexible enough to allow us to test any SSD that comes our way.

Quarch Technology Power Module Angle

Our power analysis may change as time goes on, but for now we are looking at just a few metrics with the main goal of measuring our results against the manufacturer’s ratings. One, idle power consumption. Because most consumer systems are at idle for about 80% of the time, idle power consumption is an important measure to look at when understanding the efficiency of a drive. Next we look at startup consumption. This tells you how much power the device needs during startup and while it is usually more important when looking at HDDs and enterprise class storage, it is still something worth quantifying. After that we did averaged out the active power consumption from the 30GB file transfer. Finally, we went through our power logs during testing and listed the maximum power draw.

Crucial BX200 Power

In terms of power consumption, Crucial states that the BX200 is a bit more power efficient over the previous model in terms of idle (0.065W vs 0.1W) and DevSleep (0.015 vs 0.010W), however, the active max power consumption is slightly higher at 4.2W vs 4W.

In our testing we have seen slightly different results. At idle we can see that the BX200 is very good, the 480GB capacity consumes just 35mW while the 960GB consumes only a bit more at 45mW due to the extra NAND and DRAM packages. Our active power consumption when transferring the 30GB of test files averaged out to 3.9 and 4.28W per the 480GB and 960GB capacity respectively. The maximum consumption recorded throughout testing was a bit over 6W each.

Crucial BX200 idle power compared

Finally, we wanted to post up a graph of the difference between many of the current SSD options in the market. Again, idle accounts for the majority power draw of a drive, therefore we feel we should compare it. In the chart above we can see that SSDs are magnitudes more efficient than standard HDDs. The BX200 drives are among the lowest in the comparison, which is a nice plus. Also, compared to the BX100, the BX200 does indeed consume less power at idle.

46
Leave a Reply

avatar
7 Comment threads
39 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
11 Comment authors
Ettoredave777MikeScourLes@TheSSDReview Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
HERETIC
Guest
HERETIC

Definitely a race to the bottom as far as performance is concerned.

Would have been nice to have BX100 and perhaps Sandisk Ultra 2
in the charts for comparison…………

Any chance of a review on Sandisk Plus-Has been in the shops for
months as a budget drive-Can’t even find what flash or controller.
Thanks

Mike
Guest
Mike

How about Intel 535, Patriot Blast, Toshiba Q300. These all seem more interesting.

HERETIC
Guest
HERETIC

My comment on the Sandisk Ultra2 was a TLC comparison and BX100 was
to compare it’s replacement…………………..

As much as I like Intel’s reliability I could not for the life of me buy a Sandforce-2281 drive..The 535 probably much the same as 530………..
Patriot’s low end drives-Blaze and Blast-Much like the BX200 are best
forgotten……………
The Q300 I know absolutely nothing about.
But if this review is accurate it’s another contender for the bottom of the pile-
http://www.digitaltrends.com/hard-drive-reviews/toshiba-q300-hdts748xzsta-review/

Sean Webster
Guest

I agree, the only good option in that list would be the Intel 535, but you are really just paying a markup for the name imo. You can get a Samsung 850 EVO for much cheaper though.

Benjamin Hojnik
Guest
Benjamin Hojnik

The sad part is, that it’s not even an intel drive. It uses SKhynix flash, sandforce controller. SO really just an intel badge.

motix
Guest
motix

All other TLC drives behaves similar. OCZ Trion 480GB TLC based model drops to ~100MB/s sustained writes after cca 10 sec (see: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ocz-trion-100-series-ssd,4202.html ). Patriot Blast 120GB drops even lower (~50MB/s) and ADATA SP550 around 60MB/s after 5-10sec (see: http://www.overclockers.ru/lab/71280_3/obzor-i-testirovanie-ssd-120-gbajt-adata-premier-sp550-i-patriot-blast-blesk-i-nischeta-bjudzhetnyh-ssd-2015-goda.html – Russian site, but the pictures don’t need translation). For TLC drives CrystalDiskMark should use larger data pattern. Usually all tests use “only” 1GB, maybe with using 20GB we could get better feedback how drives behaves. I think the main problem with TLC drives is the price. For price difference less that 5$ you can get better MLC drive (BX100… Read more »

Sean Webster
Guest

I was looking for my Ultra II sample, but I couldn’t find it anywhere. I will try to get the BX100 in there for comparison soon, it is just in another system at the moment and I didn’t have time to clone over to a different drive yet.

Benjamin Hojnik
Guest
Benjamin Hojnik

I got a chance to test Sandisk SSD plus; it performed quite nicely for a budget drive.
comment imagecomment image

I’m gonna guess this uses Marvell controller and some type of MLC flash.

HERETIC
Guest
HERETIC

THANKS
Looks respectable on those no’s.
Through I always hate to see the saw-tooth………………………

Benjamin Hojnik
Guest
Benjamin Hojnik

Yeah, its pretty good performance for a drive, that retails for 74€ as of right now (was as low as 68€ at some point).

And it’s not crappy TLC flash, so there’s that also.

Benjamin Hojnik
Guest
Benjamin Hojnik

Looks like we have another V4 on our hands. Unless this comes down to 50€/240GB, this makes no sense, as there are better options out there.

I wonder why crucial didn’t opt for adaptive SLC caching thingy like they did on the MX200…

This would surly help with performance. But i guess they just grab reference SM firmware and tweak it a bit for their flash.

Another thing i wonder… How is endurance on 16nm TLC..

Sean Webster
Guest

Well, it is rated for 72TB endurance. So we can at least bank on it lasting that long.

Benjamin Hojnik
Guest
Benjamin Hojnik

So roughly 300 p/e…

Mike
Guest
Mike

If bx200 480gb file transfer speed is 92mbs how slow is 240gb 46mbs?

Benjamin Hojnik
Guest
Benjamin Hojnik

Maybe there is a reason, why reviewers didnt get the 240G version 🙂

Mike
Guest
Mike

Back To The Future. Maybe the top engineers at Crucial are just trying to teach the rest of the ssd industry how to make the next generation sata 3 ssds backwards compatible with sata 1? Its almost 2016, who needs sata 3 file transfer speeds anyway? Not the average Joe apparently.

Dan
Guest
Dan

Yet contrasted with the reviews from other sites the conclusion here, as usual, seems to be that the glass is half full and borders on comedic at this point.

Sean Webster
Guest

Like shown in our testing, this drive performs fine for light workloads. Light workloads are typical of consumer usage. This SSD is placed as an entry-level HDD replacement for HDDs for consumers who have HDDs. For those who need a HDD replacement, something like this would be fine, however, at the current prices for these entry-level SSDs it does not make them a competitive or worthwhile option compared to the many SSDs out there today. I remember back when the Crucial M4 was the big rage. I had a 64GB model and it suited me fine for years, it still… Read more »

Benjamin Hojnik
Guest
Benjamin Hojnik

Or Crucial should just up the game and release a tweak firmware for the drive, that uses their dynamic SLC caching (found in mx200).

I bet this would help greatly with write speeds.

Sean Webster
Guest

I think that would be a good idea too. That could change things dramatically for this drive and differentiate it much more over other options.

Mike
Guest
Mike

Maybe Crucial/Micron, Toshiba, SK Hynix, should just stick with MLC and toggle, there the best at that and let Samsung and only Samsung make TLC drives. Why try to make Michael Jordan Tom Brady or Tom Brady Michael Jordan. There both the best but in different sports. Forget TLC Why make drives slower just to keep up with Samsung do your own thing stick with MLC.

Benjamin Hojnik
Guest
Benjamin Hojnik

They should atleast wait for 3D to be ready and then come out with TLC drives.

But 16nm and TLC was a mistake. There is reason why sammy didn’t want to go with TLC on their 16nm node.

Mike
Guest
Mike

And probably why Intel didn’t partner/venture with Micron on the 16nm. They stopped at 20nm and use SK Hynix for the 16nm.

Mike
Guest
Mike

Good points but. Why buy a 240gb entry level tlc ssd drive for $84.99, when you can buy a 1tb hdd for $49.99 and the sequential write speeds are higher. And after the startup and initial opening of programs windows caches everything anyways so the next time you click on programs it’s going to be fast. The Ocz ark 240gb with mlc is $64.99 on Newegg, way better deal. If tlc is bringing the prices down it should be lower than mlc right.

Sean Webster
Guest

I don’t agree with you on the HDD. Whenever I have to work on a system with a HDD it is such an annoyance for me. (I work as a part time PC tech in my area). I have been converting clients to SSDs for years now and every time I have to work on their systems it speeds up my work significantly and they love their now much faster system. Again, seq. write speed does not matter as much as you are giving it credit for. Most of what consumers use their drives for, random speeds and access times… Read more »

Mike
Guest
Mike

You guys know more about ssds than I do. but here’s the thing I have 3 ssds in my laptop and I don’t like bottlenecks so if 1 ssds write speed is 90mbs it will slow down all my large file transfers and routine backups. I just can’t seem to accept these new >500mbs read and 90mbs write ssds, it’s such a mismatch. especially when my older ssds are able to get >500mbs read >300mbs write. And when I use cache software my benchmarks are off the charts >5000mbs read >5000mbs write.

Sean Webster
Guest

Yes, I understand that, but look at your usage. You are not the target consumer for these low performance SSDs! Therefore, you shouldn’t even be caring about how these perform. You are an enthusiast, not the average Joe!

Mike
Guest
Mike

I don’t want to irritate you guys but. I don’t think average Joes buy ssds it’s the enthusiast. Many people don’t even know what an ssd is, And enthusiasts don’t want something slower than 5 years ago.

Les@TheSSDReview
Guest

Not irritating us at all but sales and statistics remain the same; enthusiast sales are only a fraction of the overall picture. Over the past few years, I have installed over a hundred SSDs in PCs of people in my community and very few were anything more than typical PC users that wanted a PC that would start faster and be quicker…

Mike
Guest
Mike

Mr Les You are the fore most enthusiast and if you installed hundreds of ssds they were on your recommendation. So basically it was an enthusiast sale. If I recommend an ssd being an enthusiast,its going to be what I think is the best if the price is right. I’m not going to recommend some tlc drive to a friend/familly/client. So when all the enthusiasts recommend drives to there friends/relatives average Joes its really an enthusiast sale. Every ssd you installed is a enthusiast sale. If I don’t Tell my friends/family the benefits of an ssd, they wont even think… Read more »

Les@TheSSDReview
Guest

Regardless of throughput, SSDs and HDDs cannot be compared simply because of the disk access times that is so vastly different and makes SSDs what they are. Many people will never even feel out the read and write speeds as their typical activities are reliant on nothing more than the disk access times that give SSD empowered systems that massive boost. Think back for just a bit….starting a HDD computer…forever…starting a SSD computer…15 seconds.

Mike
Guest
Mike

This drive is the successor to the BX100 and it advertises faster read write speeds so one would think its a better drive wright. What’s not advertised is that its a tlc drive and it is actually slower than the BX100. if you look at Newegg and Crucial the site does not even mention tlc nand. Other manufacturers are up front with there tlc drives, Ocz trion, ADATA Premier SP550, Toshiba Q300. This doesn’t seem wright.

Cicero_68
Guest
Cicero_68

Screen shot with AS SSD copy-benchmark for 480 GB model shows results for “Samsung SSD 850″…

Sean Webster
Guest

Ooops, thanks for that catch. I updated it with the proper screenshot!