Crucial BX300 480GB SSD Review

[AkG]

Partial and Full Drive Performance

Partial and Full Drive Performance

<i>While it is important to know how a drive will perform under optimal conditions, more realistic scenarios are just as important. Knowing if a solid state drive will behave differently when partially or even nearly full than when it is empty is very important information to know. To quickly and accurately show this crucial information we have first filled the drive to 50% capacity and re-tested using both synthetic and real world tests. After the completion of this we then re-test at 75% and 90% of full capacity. </i>

Synthetic Test Results

<i>For our synthetic testing we have opted for our standard PCMark 7 test.</i>

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


Real World Results

<i>For a real world application we have opted for a modified version of our standard Windows 7 Start Up test. Unlike our standard Windows 7 image this image is based on a working system that has been upgraded numerous times of the past few years and represents an even more realistic real world test.</i>

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


These results are why we go the extra mile and do not just base our conclusion on perfect scenarios. As you can see the SM2258 may not bring anything to the performance table but the other side of that coin is that it actually does an above average job when used in more realistic ways. Its almost as if SMI and Crucial do not care much about benchmarks and rather care about the real world. This really does make the BX300 much better overall than it appears on first blush – especially when compared to the MX300 and its Marvell controller, one that still has issues with more realistic scenarios.

To throw a little cold water on that parade is that while SMI – and by extension Crucial – have just been resting on its laurels other companies have been hard at work making their offerings even better. That is why Toshiba's OCZ division, Intel, PHISION, and many others have caught up and even surpassed what was once excellent results. This is a shame as this is supposed to be a showcase model to highlight how good the new MLC CuA NAND really is.

 

[AkG]

Conclusion

Conclusion

With the release of the BX300 series Crucial has once again put the industry on notice that inexpensive can no longer be synonymous with cheap. The BX300 480 may not be the lowest cost solution in the value end of the marketplace but it is easily one of the best. Its combination of cutting edge <i>MLC</i> 3D CuA NAND with a decent controller does set a rather high threshold on what can now be considered a good value in the entry level end of the marketplace.

As we saw throughout testing this new 'BX' acts, and reacts more like a 'BX+' and that should worry the competition. However, you wouldn’t know that by just looking at the BX300’s price point. In a market that is reaching new levels of affordability, a drive like this coming in at a higher cost per gigabyte than its predecessor will likely turn off anyone who doesn’t look beyond a retailer’s virtual shelves. Just know that you will be getting a lot more for your money.

Let’s start with the obvious; in real world applications and synthetics alike, the BX300 is significantly faster than its predecessor. More importantly, it actually retains that level of performance until well after the 50% capacity mark is reached. Those initial synthetic numbers are important that long term throughput is a key factor for every one of our SSD evaluations and Crucial nailed it here.

While there are many challengers from within the BX300 480GB’s $150 bracket, one of its primary competitors actually comes from right within Crucial’s own lineup. That MX300 525GB looks really tempting since it matches its sibling’s benchmark numbers in both real and synthetic tests while offering more capacity. Granted, 45GB doesn’t sound like a huge amount but when newer games are pushing up against the 60GB ceiling, every little bit counts.

But does that cause a huge issue for the BX300? That depends on the capacity you are looking for. It has an enticing 120GB model for the entry level buyers and tops out at 480GB whereas the MX300 hits the 275GB to 2TB markets. Unfortunately this situation does cause something of an identity crisis for the 480GB model we’re reviewing here, especially when you consider the competing MX300 has hardware-based onboard data loss protection.

But a lot of what we’re talking about here will be all for naught in the coming months. Based on this drive's performance the BX300 series not only marks Crucial's return to the value corner of the market but also suggests the death knell of the MX300. It quite possibly even suggests a turning point for future Crucial mainstream 'MX' model designs. After all Crucial now has an 'old' MX model that is no longer clearly superior to a new BX model. The smart money will be on Crucial releasing a 4th generation MX branded series in the near future but that’s only our educated guess.

In the interim, knowledgeable buyers looking for a SATA based solution that does not randomly slow down, and yet does not cost an arm and a leg, need look no further than the BX300 series. Hopefully, at some point in the near future Crucial will offer larger BX300s as this artificial limitation on the capacity front is its only real smudge on an otherwise sterling new series' release.

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