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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How about Intel 535, Patriot Blast, Toshiba Q300. These all seem more interesting.
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
The Q300 I know absolutely nothing about.
But if this review is accurate it’s another contender for the bottom of the pile-
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.
The sad part is, that it’s not even an intel drive. It uses SKhynix flash, sandforce controller. SO really just an intel badge.
All other TLC drives behaves similar. OCZ Trion 480GB TLC based model drops to ~100MB/s sustained writes after cca 10 sec (see: https://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: https://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 vs Bx200, OCZ Trion vs OCZ ARC, Patriot Blast vs Patriot Ignite, Adata SP550 vs Adata SP600, … ). I think that most users would be satisfied if TLC drive could sustain the high speed write for at least 10% of storage, together with some reasonable price they will be a good choice.
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.
I got a chance to test Sandisk SSD plus; it performed quite nicely for a budget drive.
I’m gonna guess this uses Marvell controller and some type of MLC flash.
Looks respectable on those no’s.
Through I always hate to see the saw-tooth………………………
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.
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..
Well, it is rated for 72TB endurance. So we can at least bank on it lasting that long.
So roughly 300 p/e…
If bx200 480gb file transfer speed is 92mbs how slow is 240gb 46mbs?
Maybe there is a reason, why reviewers didnt get the 240G version 🙂
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.
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.
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 does and it only writes at ~90MB/s completely. For the most part the seq. write speed did not matter, it wasn’t until I had multiple faster SSDs that I appreciated the higher write speed, but it really wasn’t and still isn’t really needed for day to day use. For the OS, something like this is fine, especially for the many who are on HDDs. And remember, seq read speeds are still over 500MB/s, random 4K speeds are very respectable, and access times are good as well…it is still a flash storage device after all. Again, at the current prices, however, it is best to look elsewhere. IMO, these SSDs really need to be more price competitive and if you are an enthusiast such as us, these aren’t even an option to consider. That is why there is competition and multiple options on the market… So, we can just ignore these entry-level SSDs and look to better performing mainstream and high-end SSDs for us.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And probably why Intel didn’t partner/venture with Micron on the 16nm. They stopped at 20nm and use SK Hynix for the 16nm.
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.
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 matter much more. If you need faster sequential performance, then go get a faster writing drive. If you need higher capacity, get a cheap HDD. For plain storage they still work great. If you need both, find better SSD options than this type…there are plenty out there. It is simple as that.
I agree 100% on your mention of buying something like an ARC 100 instead for cheaper. It is a much better performing drive, especially if you need faster seq write speeds for your usage. These lower performance SSDs need to be priced much lower in order to be competitive options. There is no point in buying these entry-level TLC SSDs when there are better performing options for similar or even cheaper prices.
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.
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!
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.
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…
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 about it, its the enthusiasts that count.
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.
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.
Screen shot with AS SSD copy-benchmark for 480 GB model shows results for “Samsung SSD 850″…
Ooops, thanks for that catch. I updated it with the proper screenshot!
This SSD is an insult for SSD-Fans like me..
After the SLC-Cache is full the 480GB-BX200 have a write speed of 75MB/s which is absolute awful. I´m not a fan of TLC all the time but this is crap. My good old 128GB M4 reaches ca. 190MB/s from start til end. I Have also a M500 and used some Crucials for PCs and Notebooks of colleagues and friends, but this could be over now.
I don´t see any ense to offer bigger capacities all the time and decrease the speed to the bottom.
I agree with you there, making sata ssds slower and calling them budget, entry level, just to save a few pennies or to have different tier products makes no sense to me. That’s why Samsung seems like there winning because even though they use TLC there drives get faster and faster not slower. It seems like the Phison controller ssds are the only ssds trying to compete with Samsung but they don’t seem to get the recognition that they should. There benchmarks are at the top, but why are they not recommended that much? And maybe barefoot 3.
There are many SSDs available with different controllers like Marvell, SMI, Phison, Indilinx with using MLC. But Samsung have many fanboys, using “marketing strategies” with many dollars to win reviews. And they can do it like Aplle: Pay less for produciing, getting much from consumers.
The first TLC-drives from Samsung were slower than the 830, but actually it maybe depends on the 3D-NAND, the 850 Evo have a similar level like MLC-drives
Just to clarify…the mighty dollar has nothing to do with review outcome regardless. The SSD Review community, in fact, is very tight and there are very few SSD reviewers; we all know one another. As much as we are friends, business is also competition and none would be too shy on calling the other out publicly if they floated a review based on anything but their own results and opinion. Reviews must be independent and impartial.
I don´t meant this page, you understand it wrong.
But I know some big magazines who aren´t afraid of the dollars some brands pay for big commercials in the magazine…and they say “Thank you” with good testresults
I disagree. Have a 480gb BX200 in this HP Pavilion g7 laptop for weeks, its 4 years old and was slow like molasses in winter. Now, its like a new machine faster than light compared to newer models without SSD. Windows 10 installed so fast from USB that I was not sure if it worked, and it did. Put the old spindle drive in a cheap enclosure for backup storage.
Excellent upgrade for older PCs and Laptops, as we might even have a SATA II interface and no need to pay more for what the system cannot use. Going to upgrade the other laptop with the same as its the best upgrade for them.
Is it your 1st SSD?
I think you don´t get my point. For sure, every SSD, even the old Intel X-25 beats every fast HDD in everyday-use.
But if I buy a SSD with capacity of 480GB and more I don´t use it only for Windows and some litte programs, I use it for videocut with large files, I copy recordings from external SSDs from my 3 STBs, 60GB and more in a row,
And that means after copied some GB the BX200 is slower than my 5400rpm-HDDs in my Desktop. 75MB/s ist extremly slow, Sandisk cheap Ultra II stays at over 200MB/s
I am not getting your issue, but I setup the system to trim, cache and storage executive including the longevity option. I put a 480gb in one, put 240gb on another last night. Speed is great. These laptops are older, running Window 10. No need to spend a lot more. Getting 95% of the benefit for 60% of the price. No need to buy Pratt and whittney for a VW. While I am new to SSD, I was doing solid state storage on embedded systems when 16mb was considered large. A 70s electronics electronics graduate. I used to use VMware, now use VirtualBox for other OSes to avoid partition nonsense. Sandisk is not cheap here. Run Windows optimize to trim your drive. Speed issues are from a bad config.
Ähm, how can a speed of 75MB/s great for a SSD?
I dunno the prices where you live but the 480GB BX200 costs ca. 130€ here. You can get for almost the same price a Sandisk Ultra II, Sandisk Plus, a 512GB Mushkin Reactor, a Toshiba Q300. All but the Toshiba hold the write speed over 200MB/s which is over 2,5x faster than the BX200
TRIM won´t help if you write lots of large files to the drive, tgis is not a config issue but a problem of the BX200.
Maybe nobody can feel it if he only run windows and copy less than 10GB in a row, but I repeat: I use SSDs for videocut and copy 60-80GB in a row from USB3-SSDs which allow speed over 200MB/s, the BX200 will it slow down to 75MB/s
60-80gb of video a day is far from a typical user. Again, these are older laptops, not top end. No need to buy a Samsung Pro 2T at $2000 for a $500 5+ year old laptop. But agree, if I was moving 60-80gb of video a day, and very few users do, I would be using a workstation and not a consumer or business PC.
BX200 is quite suitable in price and performance for consumer laptops. One is a 4gb i3 sata II. Could not even use the speed of drives costing more. But was impressed, was getting a lot better than 75gb same disk copy with the i5 that has sata III. I used a mix of 50gb of ISO and video files.
Sort of like one size shoe does not fit all. Same goes for ssd. And reviews I read, cannot say Q300 is worth the premium, I would choose Samsung 2Tb if money was no object.
Well, I wrote about the prices here in my country and I would prefer still all other SSDs because the slowest, OCZ TRion, is ca. twice as fast as the BX200, the cheaper Sandisk have the triple write speed of BX200.
I don´t move everyday 60-80GB, but every 2 weeks I move about 200-300GB (3 external SSDs with recordings from 3 DVBs) in a row. I fon´t need a Pro-SSD that have a stable write speed of 450MB/s because my external SSDs with ext3-filesystem and USB3.0 only deliver a speed of 160MB/s – 220MB/s, but it´s nice to use a SSD that don´t slow my external (cheap Sandisk SSDs) drives 🙂
Maybe the BX200 is OK for using in Notebooks those only used for internet and some streaming, but in all other profiles I still don´t know why I should spend more money for the BX200 as for faster SSDs from some competitors
That´s all I can say atm, except the BX200 gets cheaper in near future.
BTW, Mushkin offered a new SSD with 512GB and MLC for only 5€ more than a 480GB BX200
I would like to know how I can open this SSD (BX200) in order to let it fit inside my laptop. I would remove the metal chassis.