The Crucial BX200 (480GB & 960GB) SSD Review: Crucial's First TLC NAND SSD
by Billy Tallis on November 3, 2015 9:00 AM ESTMixed Random Read/Write Performance
Most real-world use consists of a mix of reads and writes, and interleaving the two often poses a particular challenge to drive controllers. This mixed random access test is conducted across a 16GB span of the drive, with a queue depth of 3.
The BX200's reasonable read speeds are apparently able to compensate for the write performance enough to keep at least the 960GB BX200 out of last place for the mixed random test, but the 480GB only manages to surpass a 120GB drive.
The power draw is even more mainstream than the performance, because despite being inefficient the BX200 isn't unreasonably power hungry in an absolute sense.
Default |
Slow and steady doesn't win the race here. Most drives gain speed near the end of the test for the write-heavy portions, but the BX200 gains no performance as the power consumption climbs. It doesn't have the slight bathtub curve shape in the middle the way the Trion 100 does, which is how it keeps pace even without the boost at the end.
Mixed Sequential Read/Write Performance
At either end of this test, when the workload is heavily skewed toward either reads or writes, most drives perform well. In between, performance typically suffers greatly, and that's where the winners and losers of this test are usually determined. Anything that's duplicating or transforming a large amount of data on the drive will produce I/O patterns similar to this test. Creating a System Restore snapshot, backing up files to a different location on the same drive, and file compression can all produce interleaved reads and writes of large blocks of data, though not necessarily fast enough to be limited by the drive's performance. Heavy multitasking can add up to a mixed workload.
With average read speeds and poor write speeds, the BX200 is in last place for the overall average, since the competition didn't have any acute weaknesses.
Average power consumption is once again high, and the 960GB is a particular outlier.
Default |
The graph of performance as more writes come into the mix shows just how quickly things get bad. There's a big jump in power consumption once writes are more common than reads, and the drive is almost as overwhelmed at 40/60 as it is for the pure writes.
85 Comments
View All Comments
ilkhan - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
If a company is going to shoot for the value proposition, they really need to beat samsung by more than 10%. Paying an extra 10% to get a really solid drive like the 850EVO is just too tempting for anyone who does even the tiniest of research before buying.You either need to be the cheapest, best name brand recognition, or fastest. Crucial isn't any of those on the 250GB market.
AnnonymousCoward - Friday, November 6, 2015 - link
Crucial has better quality and is a U.S. company. You shouldn't give Samung so much credit.squngy - Thursday, November 26, 2015 - link
What does the county of the home office got to do with anything?Samus - Friday, February 19, 2016 - link
Support. Samsungs is a joke. Fortunately the 840 Evo is the only drive they've botched. Crucial has excellent support and an excellent track record to go with their products. Shows good QA. Wouldn't expect anything else from an Intel subsidiary.zeeBomb - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
What's the difference between TLC NAND to MLC or SLC NAND again?Beararam - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
http://www.tomsitpro.com/articles/flash-data-cente...dakishimesan - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6337/samsung-ssd-840...coconutboy - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
slc = premium, reliable, fast, expensive, etcmlc = middle ground
tlc = cheap, lowest reliability, but Samsung has gotten tlc quality up to a level sufficient for most non-enterprise users
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-level_cell
zeeBomb - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
Okay awesome, thanks.FalcomPSX - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link
SLC NAND stores one bit per flash cell. MLC stores two bits per cell. and TLC stores three bits per cell.