AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy

Our Heavy storage benchmark is proportionately more write-heavy than The Destroyer, but much shorter overall. The total writes in the Heavy test aren't enough to fill the drive, so performance should never drop all the way down to the steady state. This test is far more representative of a power user's day to day usage, and is heavily influenced by the drive's peak performance. The Heavy workload test details can be found here.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Data Rate)

The higher proportion of writes on the Heavy test as compared with The Destroyer sends the BX200 to the bottom of the chart. The difference in performance between running the Heavy test on a freshly-erased drive and a completely full drive is atypically small, showing that the poor performance cannot be due to a mere lack of sufficient overprovisioning.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

Until the BX200 came along, there wasn't much spread among SATA drive for average service time. The painful write performance shows up very clearly here.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

With 8.8% and 10.7% of operations taking more than 10ms to complete, the BX200 will clearly be noticeably slower than most modern SSDs under moderate and heavy load.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Power)

Power consumption is once again dismal, as the drive is apparently spending way too much of its time on its relatively ineffective garbage collection.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer AnandTech Storage Bench - Light
POST A COMMENT

85 Comments

View All Comments

  • extide - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link

    You guys made a typo on page 8, under "Mixed Sequential Read/Write Performance" -- you duplicated "duplicating" heh Reply
  • Billy Tallis - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link

    Ironic. Thanks. Reply
  • NeonFlak - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link

    1tb Mushkin Reactor for less than $300 any day over this. Reply
  • MikhailT - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link

    Is it me or is Crucial messing up lately with regressed successors? MX100 was great but MX200 was not that great and BX100/BX200 is even worse. It would've been better for them to just keep MX100 and drop prices over time.

    Crucial is basically just convincing me to switch to Samsung next time.
    Reply
  • leexgx - Wednesday, November 4, 2015 - link

    BX100 was very good for laptops, very low power use even when under load
    BX200 is slower and use crap load more power , the TLC drives are just not worth the £10 cheaper price
    Reply
  • LarsBars - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link

    I've heard AnandTech say in the past, "It doesn't matter which brand of SSD you go with- just that you go with SSD."

    It looks like the BX200 means we need to be more vigilant about which SSDs we buy.
    Reply
  • JimmiG - Wednesday, November 4, 2015 - link

    It wouldn't be terrible if it was a bit cheaper. If the price drops over the next couple of months (which usually happens with SSD's), it would be great as a "secondary SSD", especially the 960GB model. However at the current prices, you're better off paying a tiny bit more for much better performance and endurance. Reply
  • Hulk - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link

    I don't understand. Same endurance as the BX100 series using the same process size yet this is TLC vs. MLC for the BX100?

    While the performance is not great I could see this for media storage if the price is right. And by right I mean $200/TB.
    Reply
  • Billy Tallis - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link

    The endurance ratings for warranty purposes are only loosely connected to the actual P/E cycle count, and are usually pretty conservative. Plus, the BX200 does have the benefit of more sophisticated error correction. Reply
  • jabber - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link

    Time to buy up the clearance BX100s! Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now