Crucial BX300 480GB SSD Review

[AkG]

Product Name: BX300 480GB
Part Number: CT480BX300SSD1
Warranty: 3 years


Forum Comment Thread


So here we are, in one of the slowest evolutionary years for the storage market and a few distinctive trends are beginning to emerge. NVMe devices continue to take over the high end price segment, SATA Express is dead as a doornail and mainstream SATA-based drives have become better and better. This last point is a particularly important one since the price of entry into the SSD marketplace continues to decline while the quality of the drives themselves has increased drastically. There’s no better example of this than the new BX300 series from Crucial.

It may seem like only yesterday that Crucial sent a shockwave through the storage industry when they introduced to the world their 3D CuA (CMOS under Array) 3D NAND and the potent MX300 series. However, we first saw the MX300 over a year ago. In the intervening months, more and more people have started to wonder aloud where the BX200's successor was; and yet even with all these whispers becoming a dull roar Crucial stayed silent. That was until this year's Computex IT Tradeshow in Taipei when they announced the soon to be released BX300 series. This review will focus in on the 'flagship' BX model: the $149(USD) BX300 480GB solid state drive.

<div align="center"><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/BX300/intro.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></div>

With prices that range from $59.99 to $149.99 and capacities of 120GB to 480GB the new BX300 series may not be the most inexpensive series released by Crucial but it certainly is rather unique in many ways. For the first time the once clear and distinct line distinguishing the MX models and their BX counterparts is significantly blurred. While Crucial has taken steps to protect their MX line against an aggressively encroaching BX300 we do suspect that their steps will not be entirely successful. The new BX300 is truly different and arguably best described as a 'BX+' model rather than just another entry-level SSD.

Later in this review we will go over in greater detail exactly how Crucial was able to make such a bold change and the ramifications it has on not only future BX and MX models but the competition as well. For time being let’s just say that the BX300 is unlike any BX model before it due to the NAND being used. Much like the MX300 750GB Limited Edition was the showcase model for Micron's TLC 3D CuA NAND, the BX300 is the showcase model for their <i>MLC</i> 3D CuA NAND.

This seemingly minor change from previous BX models' reliance on TLC to cutting edge MLC cannot be overstated. It is significant and the dramatically improved performance the BX300 series offers reflects this change. The chart above highlights this is a pretty stark way, particularly when you take a look at the IOPS and NAND endurance numbers.

<div align="center">
<img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/BX300/2.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></div>

On first blush the BX300 looks almost exactly like its predecessor the BX200. The label may have changed but the BX300 once again makes use of a low profile (7mm z-height) 2.5" form factor and comes with a free 2.5mm adapter for use in older systems that do not properly support this newer standard.

The chassis also is very similar in that it is an all metal 2-piece affair that does double duty as a large if somewhat inefficient heatsink as well as providing excellent protection for the relatively delicate internals.

<div align="center">
<img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/BX300/1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></div>

However, if you look closely you will see that this new generation makes use of screws and is not simply press fit together. This change will not matter to the average user but it does make for a much more secure chassis. It also makes disassembly a lot easier – but once again this will not matter to anyone other than reviewers as doing so will void your warranty.

<div align="center">
<img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/BX300/4.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></div>

Internally the BX300's layout also has not changed all that much. Contrary to rumors, it makes use of a half-length PCB that houses 8 NAND ICs (four per side, though the smaller 120GB only has NAND ICs on one side), the SATA controller, <i>and</i> a DDR3 RAM cache chip. It certainly is reassuring that Crucial did not go down the RAM-less road to artificially handicap performance like some suggested. This RAM buffer (128MB to 512MB depending on capacity) really is critical for performance and if it was 'missing' would have severely handicapped this nifty new SSD series.

While the NAND technology Crucial opted for has radically changed, the controller has not. Once again Crucial has tapped Silicon Motion for this important role, though it is now the latest SMI SM2258 instead of the SM2256 that the BX200 made use of. This controller is basically just a slight upgrade to the SM2256 and brings only modest improvements – its largest claim to fame is native support for 3D NAND. Furthermore, this controller will be the weakest link of the BX300 series as it is best described as an entry level orientated 4-channel unit.

The last thing of note is the lack of hardware based data loss protection. Of course, this drive does offer data loss protection but as with previous BX generations those interested in MX levels of protection will have to pay MX prices. Though considering this drive costs <i>more</i> than its comparatively sized MX sibling, we doubt many will find that as hard to justify as in previous generations. The pricing part of this equation is in and of itself quite important since many will wonder why these new so-called “mainstream” SSDs are suddenly more expensive. Well this new BX300 really is a game changer and flips the usual BX-MX relationship – which is sure to cause a certain level of uncertainty within the market. But will the performance and longevity points allow the BX300 to shine and somewhat nullify its price premium? Let’s find out.

 

[AkG]

BX vs. MX: New Similarities & Differences

BX vs. MX: New Similarities & Differences

<div align="center">
<img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/BX300/int.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></div>

Due to the rather unique nature of the BX300 it is almost assured that potential buyers are going to draw comparisons between it and the MX300 it replaces, or eclipses or resides alongside in Crucial's line up. As such we are going to go over these differences so that you can make an informed decision on which option is best for you. These differences and similarities do run the gamut from minor to major but coalesce into a virtual reversal of fortune for the plucky underdog BX series.

The most obvious change in just one generation is the asking price of the BX series. Crucial has always prided themselves on having some of best price per Gigabyte models available on the market. In the past it was the BX leading the way on how little buyers had to spend, and the MX following closely behind offering slightly higher prices but noticeably better performance. This one-two combination is why we have referred to them as the juggernaut of the industry. Few could match this pair and fewer still could beat its value.

This time around the BX300 is actually more expensive than a similar capacity MX300. The MX300 series costs about 25 to 30 cents (USD) per Gigabyte and while some pundits were wondering how low the BX series would go the opposite is true. The new BX series ranges from a whopping <i>fifty cents</i> per gigabyte (BX300 120GB) to a more reasonable but still – slightly - higher <i>thirty one cents</i> per gigabyte (BX300 480GB). What this means to buyers is that the BX300 really is not going to offer much – if any – savings compared to a comparatively sized MX300. Talk about bucking industry trends.

<div align="center">
<img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/BX300/7.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></div>

This situation is certainly a first for the BX line but not all that unexpected as Crucial has also flipped the status quo on the NAND being used. BX models were always the lower priced models which relied upon more value oriented NAND, while the MX series may have cost a few cents per Gigabyte more but made up for it with superior NAND – and thus performance. This time the BX300 is actually on the bleeding edge of technology as it is the first Crucial SSD to make use of their long promised <i>MLC</i> 3D CuA NAND. As such the new BX actually uses superior NAND compared to the MX series. That too is a first for the Crucial BX series which was previously never used as a showcase model.

<div align="center">
<img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/BX300/5.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></div>

This new NAND is how Crucial is easily able to justify the asking price of the BX300 series. In addition, this new BX model may indeed use a pseudo-SLC 'Dynamic Write Acceleration' buffer (4GB to 16GB depending on the capacity) but, unlike the MX300 series whose performance dips noticeably when this buffer is exhausted, this MLC NAND based drive's performance will not go in the toilet when it has to write directly to the NAND. This is because TLC has to be written to slower than MLC so as to ensure this relatively fragile NAND is not harmed by a simple write. As we will show later in the review this does translate to dramatically increased real world performance.

The NAND being used here is not only capable of higher throughput but also happens to be more durable – as MLC is just more robust than TLC. Then to confuse consumers even more on why Crucial decided call this new creation a 'BX' instead of a 'MX', or even add another brand to their lineup, the BX300 models come equipped with more over-provisioning than similarly sized MX300 models.

There is no comparison to be made with the BX300 120GB's 8GB of over-provisioning as the MX300 simply does not go down that low. However even excluding the 120GB model from the equation the BX300 240GB comes with 16GB of over-provisioning. This is more than all but the EOL'ed MX300 750GB that had 18GB set aside. Meanwhile the 32GB of over-provisioning the BX300 480GB comes with is more than any sized MX300 – including the cavernous 2TB MX300 model. This level of over-provisioning means that not only is the NAND more durable but there is more of it in reserve to replace dead cells, and help boost performance when the drive is in a 'dirty' state.

This increase over-provisioning is all due to the NAND technology Crucial opted for. As already pointed out the BX300 makes use of MLC 3D CuA NAND instead of TLC 3D CuA NAND. The TLC version has 48GB per layer NAND and a big reason why the MX300 has such oddball capacities. The MLC version is 'only' 32GB per layer and as such industry standard capacities allow for more streamlined levels of over-provisioning. This is why the MX300 is 120GB (128GB real capacity), 240GB (248GB real capacity), and 480GB (512GB real capacity).

The side-effect of using different NAND also translates into noticeably better performance at similar capacity points. This is because both the MX and BX 300 generation have quad channel controllers and it simply takes more NAND layers to hit a given capacity using 2bit MLC instead of 3bits per cell TLC. For example, the MX300 275GB (really a 288GB drive) only has six layers of NAND to spread across the four channels. This results is all four channels have only a single layer of NAND on each channel with two of the four channels having a second layer (i.e. 1/2/1/2 configuration). The BX300 240GB on the other hand has two layers on each and every channel. This difference only gets larger as the BX300 scales up. Right now Crucial is artificially limiting capacities to 480GB, whereas the BX200 topped out at 960GB, but even here the difference is already noticeable with 4 layers vs less than 3 layers (MX300 525GB – with a 2/3/3/3 configuration) on each channel.

<div align="center">
<img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/BX300/6.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></div>

In order to keep the BX300 from entirely eating the MX300's smaller capacity versions' market share Crucial is using a lower power controller for the BX300 series. The SM2258 certainly is powerful enough for the entry level marketplace but it is a somewhat unfortunate design choice by Crucial. Consumers and critics alike will not be able to see the true potential of this NAND until it is paired with either a high performance 8 channel SATA controller, or more optimally a NVMe based one.

<div align="center">
<img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/BX300/int2.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></div>

Further helping to distinguish the BX300 from the MX300 in the hearts and minds of buyers is the method in which each series protects data in the event of an unexpected loss of power. As we have outlined in previous MX300 reviews, the MX300 series uses a hardware based design to insure data loss protection. Literally the onboard capacitors allow the MX300 controller to – mostly - finish what it is doing before doing a controlled shutdown.

The BX300 does things differently. Instead of using onboard capacitors the it – just like the BX200 – relies upon firmware algorithms for data safety. What this means is the controller is nearly constantly doing backups of master boot record changes so that data corruption is minimized. What it does not do however is cover off any data that has been marked as written by the OS but is in fact still in the RAM cache buffer. This data is a near total write off and can cause data corruption to occur. Its coverage is still adequate for the home user and non-mission critical data, but certainly not in the same class as the MX300s.

As you can see buyers do indeed face a difficult choice. Buyers can either get more durable NAND with better NAND interleaving <i>and</i> better levels of over-provisioning; or they can spend a bit less and get a MX300 that has better data loss protection, a better controller, but less robust and slower NAND. That is indeed a difficult decision, but only one you can make based upon your specific requirements and preferences. 

 

[AkG]

Testing Methodology

Testing Methodology

Testing a drive is not as simple as putting together a bunch of files, dragging them onto folder on the drive in Windows and using a stopwatch to time how long the transfer takes. Rather, there are factors such as read / write speed and data burst speed to take into account. There is also the SATA controller on your motherboard and how well it works with SSDs & HDDs to think about as well. For best results you really need a dedicated hardware RAID controller w/ dedicated RAM for drives to shine. Unfortunately, most people do not have the time, inclination or monetary funds to do this. For this reason, our testbed will be a more standard motherboard with no mods or high-end gear added to it. This is to help replicate what the end-user’s experience will be like.

Even when the hardware issues are taken care of, the software itself will have a negative or positive impact on the results. As with the hardware end of things, to obtain the absolute best results you do need to tweak your OS setup. However, just like with the hardware aspect, most people are not going to do this. For this reason, a standard OS setup is used. The exception to this is for the Windows 7 load test times, where we have done our best to eliminate this issue by having the drive tested as a secondary drive, with the main drive being an Intel DC S3700 800GB Solid State Drive.

For synthetic tests, we used a combination of the ATTO Disk Benchmark, HDTach, HD Tune, Crystal Disk Benchmark, IOMeter, AS-SSD, Anvil Storage Utilities and PCMark 7.

For real world benchmarks, we timed how long a single 10GB rar file took to copy to and then from the devices. We also used 10gb of small files (from 100kb to 200MB) with a total 12,000 files in 400 subfolders.

For all testing a Asus Sabretooth TUF X99 LGA 2011-v3 motherboard was used, running Windows 7 64bit Ultimate edition. All drives were tested using either AHCI mode using Intel RST 10 drivers, or NVMHCI using Intel NVMe drivers.

All tests were run 4 times and average results are represented.

In between each test suite runs (with the exception being IOMeter which was done after every run) the drives are cleaned with either HDDerase, SaniErase or a manufacturers 'Toolbox', and then quick formatted to make sure that they were in optimum condition for the next test suite.


SSD FIRMWARE (unless otherwise noted):

OCZ Vertex 2 100GB: 1.33
Vertex 460 240GB: 1.0
Intel 7230 240GB: L2010400
Crucial MX200: MU01
Intel 750: 8EV10135
Kingston HyperX Predator 480GB: 0C34L5TA
PNY CS2211: CS221016
ZOTAC Premium Edition: SAFM01.6
Crucial MX300 series: M0CR011
AData SU800: P0801A
PNY CS2030: CS203020
Crucial BX300 series: MU01

SMI SM2258:
Crucial BX300 - IMFT 3D MLC CuA


Phison PS5007:
PNY CS2030 - 15nm MLC Planar NAND

Samsung MDX controller:
Samsung 840 Pro 256GB- Custom firmware w/ 21nm Toggle Mode NAND

Marvell 1074 controller:
Crucial MX300 - Custom firmware w/ IMFT 384Gbit TLC 3D NAND

Marvell 9293 controller:
Kingston HyperX Predator - Custom firmware w/ 19nm Toggle Mode NAND

Intel X25 G3 controller:
Intel 730 - Custom firmware w/ ONFi 2 NAND

Intel NVMe G1 Controller:
Intel 750 - Customer firmware w/ MLC 20nm NAND

Phison PS3110 Controller:
ZOTAC Premium Edition: 19nm MLC

SMI SM2256 Controller:
AData SP550 240GB - TLC NAND

 

[AkG]

Read Bandwidth / Write Performance

Read Bandwidth

<i>For this benchmark, HDTach was used. It shows the potential read speed which you are likely to experience with these hard drives. The long test was run to give a slightly more accurate picture. We don’t put much stock in Burst speed readings and thus we no longer included it. The most important number is the Average Speed number. This number will tell you what to expect from a given drive in normal, day to day operations. The higher the average the faster your entire system will seem.</i>
<div align="center"><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/BX300/read.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></div>

Write Performance

<i>For this benchmark HD Tune Pro was used. To run the write benchmark on a drive, you must first remove all partitions from that drive and then and only then will it allow you to run this test. Unlike some other benchmarking utilities the HD Tune Pro writes across the full area of the drive, thus it easily shows any weakness a drive may have.</i>
<div align="center"><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/BX300/write.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></div>


The NAND within the BX300 transforms what would have otherwise been nothing but a boring refresh into a new and interesting drive. Put simply no TLC based model in this price range can match it. Now if only the controller was able to fully harness it – which as we will show in the next pages it cannot. In addition in some tests we are also smashing into the limits of what the SATA interface can provide. Prepare to be slightly disappointed and make your decision on BX vs MX even more confusing. We will however try to clarify things as best as possible given Crucial purposely muddying the waters.
 

 

[AkG]

ATTO Disk Benchmark

ATTO Disk Benchmark

<i>The ATTO disk benchmark tests the drives read and write speeds using gradually larger size files. For these tests, the ATTO program was set to run from its smallest to largest value (.5KB to 8192KB) and the total length was set to 256MB. The test program then spits out an extrapolated performance figure in megabytes per second. </i>

<div align="center"><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/BX300/atto_w.jpg" border="0" alt="" />
<img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/BX300/atto_r.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></div>

We put very little faith in ATTO as it is the storage orientated test equivalent of an old favorite in-game benchmark. What we mean is storage manufacturers have been gaming these results for generations now. With that said we are seeing a dramatic improvement in performance in one generation here. Since the SM2258 is nothing more than a slightly cheaper version of the SM2256 that can handle 3D NAND theses results do speak to the performance <i>potential</i> of this new – and very exciting – MLC CuA NAND. Now if Crucial had only paired it with an actually potent controller.
 

 

[AkG]

Crystal DiskMark / PCMark 7

Crystal DiskMark

<i>Crystal DiskMark is designed to quickly test the performance of your drives. Currently, the program allows to measure sequential and random read/write speeds; and allows you to set the number of tests iterations to run. We left the number of tests at 5 and size at 100MB. </i>

<div align="center"><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/BX300/cdm_w.jpg" border="0" alt="" />
<img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/BX300/cdm_r.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></div>

PCMark 7

<i>While there are numerous suites of tests that make up PCMark 7, only one is pertinent: the HDD Suite. The HDD Suite consists of numerous tests that try and replicate real world drive usage. Everything from how long a simulated virus scan takes to complete, to MS Vista start up time to game load time is tested in these core tests; however, we do not consider this anything other than just another suite of synthetic tests. For this reason, while each test is scored individually we have opted to include only the overall score.</i>

<div align="center"><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/BX300/pcm.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></div>


The BX300 really is excellent competition for the likes of Toshiba, Intel, Samsung, and any other manufacturer you care to mention. It is even pretty darn tough competition for Crucial themselves too. However, when you take a close look at the numbers you realize that the controller really is the weak link in the BX300 series. Put simply it is based an old design and this does keep the NAND from reaching its true potential. A potential we will never see in the BX300 series.

 

[AkG]

AS-SSD / Anvil Storage Utilities Pro

AS-SSD

<i>AS-SSD is designed to quickly test the performance of your drives. Currently, the program allows to measure sequential and small 4K read/write speeds as well as 4K file speed at a queue depth of 6. While its primary goal is to accurately test Solid State Drives, it does equally well on all storage mediums it just takes longer to run each test as each test reads or writes 1GB of data.</i>

<div align="center"><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/BX300/asd_w.jpg" border="0" alt="" />
<img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/BX300/asd_r.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></div>

Anvil Storage Utilities Pro

<i>Much like AS-SSD, Anvil Pro was created to quickly and easily – yet accurately – test your drives. While it is still in the Beta stages it is a versatile and powerful little program. Currently it can test numerous read / write scenarios but two in particular stand out for us: 4K queue depth of 4 and 4K queue depth of 16. A queue depth of four along with 4K sectors can be equated to what most users will experience in an OS scenario while 16 depth will be encountered only by power users and the like. We have also included the 4k queue depth 1 results to help put these two other numbers in their proper perspective. All settings were left in their default states and the test size was set to 1GB.</i>

<div align="center"><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/BX300/a_w.jpg" border="0" alt="" />
<img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/BX300/a_r.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></div>


Once again this NAND is the only thing that is allowing the BX300 to shine as bright as it does. It just does not shine as bright as it could have if Crucial had simply opted for a similarly priced PHISION or even Marvell controller. Crucial may have been better off holding the release of the BX300 a little longer and using a NVMe based drive as the launching pad for this spectacular NAND.
 

 

[AkG]

IOMeter Results

IOMETER

<i>IOMeter is heavily weighted towards the server end of things, and since we here at HWC are more End User centric we will be setting and judging the results of IOMeter a little bit differently than most. To test each drive we ran 5 test runs per HDD (1,4,16,64,128 queue depth) each test having 8 parts, each part lasting 10 min w/ an additional 20 second ramp up. The 8 subparts were set to run 100% random, 80% read 20% write; testing 512b, 1k, 2k,4k,8k,16k,32k,64k size chunks of data. When each test is finished IOMeter spits out a report, in that reports each of the 8 subtests are given a score in I/Os per second. We then take these 8 numbers add them together and divide by 8. This gives us an average score for that particular queue depth that is heavily weighted for single user environments. </i>

<div align="center">
<img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/BX300/iom.jpg" border="0" alt="" />
</div>

These results actually did surprise us. On the one hand you have a mediocre controller that is not much than a refresh of an older model, which in turn was not much of an improvement over an even older controller. On the other the BX300 480GB comes equipped with some of the best NAND available on the market today. Then to just make things even less clear it <i>also</i> comes with better NAND interleaving <i>and</i> over-provisioning than the MX300 series. That combination is certainly better than average.
 

 

[AkG]

Windows 8 / Adobe CS5 LOAD TIME

Windows 8.1 Start Up with Boot Time A/V Scan Performance

<i>When it comes to hard drive performance there is one area that even the most oblivious user notices: how long it takes to load the Operating System. We have chosen Windows 8.1 64bit Pro as our Operating System with all 'fast boot' options disabled in the BIOS. In previous load time tests we would use the Anti-Virus splash screen as our finish line; this however is no longer the case. We have not only added in a secondary Anti-Virus to load on startup, but also an anti-malware program. We have set Super Anti-Spyware to initiate a quick scan on Windows start-up and the completion of the quick scan will be our new finish line. </i>

<div align="center"><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/BX300/boot.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></div>

Adobe CS5 Load Time

<i>Photoshop is a notoriously slow loading program under the best of circumstances, and while the latest version is actually pretty decent, when you add in a bunch of extra brushes and the such you get a really great torture test which can bring even the best of the best to their knees. Let’s see how our review unit fared in the Adobe crucible! </i>

<div align="center"><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/BX300/a.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></div>

Now that we turn our attention to the real world the BX300 does lose a little bit of its luster. The BX300 is indeed an amazing refresh and strong competition to the MX series but it is not the slam dunk it should be. The cynical side of us says this was done on purpose by Crucial to keep MX300 sales high until they can refresh it. The other half of us says this was simply done to keep the cost for this drive in check. We will leave it up to you decide which side of the debate you fall on.

 

[AkG]

Firefox / Real World Data Transfers

Firefox Portable Offline Performance

<i>Firefox is notorious for being slow on loading tabs in offline mode once the number of pages to be opened grows larger than a dozen or so. We can think of fewer worse case scenarios than having 100 tabs set to reload in offline mode upon Firefox startup, but this is exactly what we have done here.

By having 100 pages open in Firefox portable, setting Firefox to reload the last session upon next session start and then setting it to offline mode, we are able to easily recreate a worst case scenario. Since we are using Firefox portable all files are easily positioned in one location, making it simple to repeat the test as necessary. In order to ensure repetition, before touching the Firefox portable files, we have backed them up into a .rar file and only extracted a copy of it to the test device.</i>

<div align="center"><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/BX300/ff.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></div>

Real World Data Transfers

<i>No matter how good a synthetic benchmark like IOMeter or PCMark is, it cannot really tell you how your hard drive will perform in “real world” situations. All of us here at Hardware Canucks strive to give you the best, most complete picture of a review item’s true capabilities and to this end we will be running timed data transfers to give you a general idea of how its performance relates to real life use. To help replicate worse case scenarios we will transfer a 10.00GB contiguous file and a folder containing 400 subfolders with a total 12,000 files varying in length from 200mb to 100kb (10.00 GB total).

Testing will include transfer to and transferring from the devices, using MS RichCopy and logging the performance of the drive. Here is what we found. </i>

<div align="center"><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/BX300/copy_lg.jpg" border="0" alt="" />
<img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/BX300/copy_sm.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></div>


Once again the deep queue depth performance of the BX300 is handicapped compared to Toshiba's (TL100 and VX500) and even Crucial's now <i>cheaper</i> MX300 series. Luckily deep queue depths are going to be rare in the entry level corner of the market so the typical BX300 buyer will rarely notice this difference. It is however something to take into consideration when looking at this model versus other similarly priced offerings from the competition.