256GB Class Performance Testing
Comparison Chart 2
The Crucial BX500 240GB will see much more scrutiny than the 480GB model. In this section, we brought back the previous generation model, BX300, but also the modern mainstream SSD from the company, the MX500. The cost difference between the 240GB BX500 and the 250GB MX500 is just a little over $10. The overall cost isn't exactly lunch money, but the price difference is.
We could have included other mainstream SSDs in this group like the $58 Samsung 860 EVO but we let the MX500 represent the upper-performance class.
The other DRAMless SSDs in the 256GB product class come from HP (S700), and Inland Professional (2.5" SATA III). We also included the Seagate Barracuda SSD, a drive no one should actually consider at its current $65 price point.
Sequential Read Performance
The BX500 had a dip at queue depth 2, where we record results for the bar chart. We ran the tests a few times and the dip persisted at that workload but for the most part, the 240GB BX500 performs nearly as well as the comparison drives.
Sequential Write Performance
Unlike the Barracuda SSD, the MX500 didn't have any issues with the sequential write test using data bursts. The SLC buffer is strong enough to absorb the incoming large block size data.
Sustained Sequential Write Performance
Moving over to longer sequential data writes, here we fill the entire drive while monitoring the performance. This allows us to see how much data you can move to the drive before hitting what we call native TLC performance. The BX500 has a much smaller bugger compared to the MX500. The latter is also twice as fast after the buffer fills.
Random Read Performance
Native TLC write performance isn't why we like the MX500 over the BX500 for just a few dollars more. The random read performance is why we think the MX500 is a superior drive compared to just about every other SATA SSD sold new today.
In this capacity, the MX500 has amazing value. In the introduction, we stated the MX500 didn't leave a lot of room for Crucial to wedge a BX series product in using the old playbook.
For most users and especially those Crucial targets for the BX500, random read performance is the most important performance area. The 240GB BX500 performs well here, but for a few dollars more, you could have an SSD with performance great.
Random Write Performance
The SLC buffers increase random write performance so much that we rarely even need to look beyond the surface of the results. The BX500 has a large buffer so we never have to worry about random writes slowing your desktop workload performance.
70% Read Sequential Performance
The 240GB BX500 loses around 50 MB/s of mixed sequential performance from the 480GB model. The MX500, on the other hand, leads the drives tested at QD2 and surpasses 400 MB/s through the queue depth range.
70% Read Random Performance
Again, we see very low mixed random performance with the BX500. For casual PC users, this will not be an issue. Users multitasking with multiple programs should be more concerned as the low mixed performance can lead to increased latency.
PRICING: You can find the product discussed for sale below. The prices listed are valid at the time of writing, but can change at any time. Click the link below to see real-time pricing for the best deal:
United States: The Crucial BX500 SSD - Fewer Components, Lower Prices retails for $XXX at Amazon.
United Kingdom: The Crucial BX500 SSD - Fewer Components, Lower Prices retails for £XXX at Amazon UK.
- We at TweakTown openly invite the companies who provide us with review samples / who are mentioned or discussed to express their opinion of our content. If any company representative wishes to respond, we will publish the response here.