Crucial BX300 480 GB

[W1zzard]

Crucial's new BX300 SSD is not only affordable, but also impresses with excellent performance that's right up there with the best SATA drives in our test group. The secret sauce is clearly the use of MLC flash, which offers better write performance than TLC, lasts longer, and is trusted by users.

Show full review

 

[newtekie1]

The 525GB MX300 is $150 at Newegg. If I had to choose between the MX300 and BX300, I'd go with the MX.

 

[Static~Charge]

Same thing at Amazon: BX300 480GB and MX300 525GB are $149.99. With the MX300, you get 9.3% more usable space for the same amount of money.

 

[newtekie1]

With the MX300, you get 9.3% more usable space for the same amount of money.

Plus power loss protection and a few other features.

 

[EntropyZ]

I got the MX300 525GB for a little over 150 euros, because the BX model isn't available in my country, and probably won't be for months. I didn't even open it yet or try it out. My ADATA SP550 250GB serves me well enough, it's plenty of space combined with HDD's.

In the near future I'm probably going full SSD's in my system, simply because 7200rpm drives are sometimes louder than a case/power supply fan, it's a sacrifice for having over 160-200MB/s read on a 7200RPM HDD, but the noise is a deal breaker.

GG those when I have to install a 20-50GB worth of game data.

I think the BX model has more overprovisioned space tho. That's why it's only 480GB usable. Dunno if Crucial has a software implementation to manage overprovisioning yourself, though I did see somewhere that simply leaving space unpartitioned would work the same way.

 

[newtekie1]

I got the MX300 525GB for a little over 150 euros, because the BX model isn't available in my country, and probably won't be for months. I didn't even open it yet or try it out. My ADATA SP550 250GB serves me well enough, it's plenty of space combined with HDD's.

I still run an MX200 as my main drive, and have had a MX300 just sitting brand new in the box for months. It hasn't been worth it to me to switch it out...

 

[W1zzard]

MX300 is TLC. This is for people who want MLC at a low price

 

[Assimilator]

I got the MX300 525GB for a little over 150 euros, because the BX model isn't available in my country, and probably won't be for months. I didn't even open it yet or try it out. My ADATA SP550 250GB serves me well enough, it's plenty of space combined with HDD's.

In the near future I'm probably going full SSD's in my system, simply because 7200rpm drives are sometimes louder than a case/power supply fan, it's a sacrifice for having over 160-200MB/s read on a 7200RPM HDD, but the noise is a deal breaker.

GG those when I have to install a 20-50GB worth of game data.

I think the BX model has more overprovisioned space tho. That's why it's only 480GB usable. Dunno if Crucial has a software implementation to manage overprovisioning yourself, though I did see somewhere that simply leaving space unpartitioned would work the same way.

To overcome mechanical disk noise issue, network attached storage is IMO the way to go. Get a NAS, stick it in another room where noise isn't an issue and fill it with spinning disks, connect it with ethernet to your house's hub, job done.

Considering the maximum throughput of 1GbE is around ~125MB/s, which is pretty close to what spinning disks can max out at anyway anyway (and the bottleneck with these is generally random I/O, so rarely will you even hit that speed), even a single ethernet link should suffice (assuming you aren't using to RAID-0/RAID-5). This Tom's article (from 2009, so old, but still relevant) explains that they found the same in real-world testing.

When we (finally) get 10GbE integrated in consumer products, a single link of that will allow over a GB/s of throughput, which means even a RAID setup of spinning disks will be catered for. Here's an article from a guy who made the jump, it wound up costing him around ~$120. If you want/need to add a 10GbE switch to the equation however, that will cost upwards of $200.

If I were building a 10GbE home network, I'd probably go with a pure 10GBASE-T setup via the ASUS XG-U2008 switch (~$220 on Amazon with a $20 rebate) plus a pair of ASUS XG-C100C cards (~$115 each), you will probably be able to find them cheaper elsewhere or second-hand. The bonus of this is that if your house is already wired with Cat5e, you can reuse that and don't need to run new optical cables like you do with the SFP setups that the linked articles used.

 

[damric]

After losing several SSDs due to power loss, I wouldn't ever get one again without protection, which is one reason I would much rather go with the MX300. Slight performance penalty is worth peace of mind, besides MX300 is still magnitude faster than HDD and has some more capacity.

 

[R0H1T]

Plus power loss protection and a few other features.

Again the MX series, or any other client SSD, don't have full power loss protection. Can we stop this myth, once & for all?

 

[TheLostSwede]

I think the BX model has more overprovisioned space tho. That's why it's only 480GB usable. Dunno if Crucial has a software implementation to manage overprovisioning yourself, though I did see somewhere that simply leaving space unpartitioned would work the same way.

No, that's not it. The MX300 is using 3D TLC NAND and those packages are 32 layers and 384Gbit. Hence for example, the 750GB MX300 is actually 768GB. The BX300 uses 3D MLC packages that are still 32 layers, but 256Gbit, so you get more common SSD sizes, as the 480GB drive would be 500GB without over provisioning.

 

[Frick]

Oohhh if they release it in sweden I'll probably get one, if the price is decent enough. Then I'll have a 120GB BX100, 240GB BX200 and 480GB BX300. It would feel very right.

 

[_JP_]

and I wonder if anyone still buys 120 GB SSDs.

Well, considering the price rise, there should be a market for these again

It would feel very right.

It would certainly please everyone's OCD.

 

[Frick]

Well, considering the price rise, there should be a market for these again

There should always be a market for them as well as 60GB and maybe even 30GB SSDs. They are so useful everywhere, being able to buy one for like €20 and plop in a server or streamer or whatever would be really nice.

 

[StrayKAT]

120 is pushing it for me. But it's more than enough for a boot drive...which is all I care for with ssd atm.

 

[ERazer]

Considering the maximum throughput of 1GbE is around ~125MB/s, which is pretty close to what spinning disks can max out at anyway anyway (and the bottleneck with these is generally random I/O, so rarely will you even hit that speed), even a single ethernet link should suffice (assuming you aren't using to RAID-0/RAID-5). This Tom's article (from 2009, so old, but still relevant) explains that they found the same in real-world testing.

Hdd over 1GBe only maxed 60-70+MB/s that why i use SSD as cache to hit that max.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Again the MX series, or any other client SSD, don't have full power loss protection. Can we stop this myth, once & for all?

I was under the impression that the MX300 is able to write cache to disk on power loss. Not "full power loss protection" (which was never claimed), but not nothing.

 

[newtekie1]

MX300 is TLC. This is for people who want MLC at a low price

Honestly, I don't believe MLC offers any benefit of TLC to the consumer on a SATA drive at this point. Yeah, there are going to be people that have to have MLC, but they really have no good reason for that requirement.

Again the MX series, or any other client SSD, don't have full power loss protection. Can we stop this myth, once & for all?

It has the same power loss protection as most enterprise drives. It is enough to write the data stored in cache to the NAND. That is really all the power loss protection an SSD needs, and way more than almost any other consumer SSD. If you want more than that, buy a UPS.

There should always be a market for them as well as 60GB and maybe even 30GB SSDs. They are so useful everywhere, being able to buy one for like €20 and plop in a server or streamer or whatever would be really nice.

I'd happily buy 120GB SSDs if they were cheap enough. They are more than enough space for a HTPC or even a workstation with all the data stored on a NAS/Server/"The Cloud". But the 120GB drives are overpriced. They start at like $60 for a 120GB drive, and you can pick up a 240GB drive for $80-85. It doesn't make any sense at those prices to go with the 120GB.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

I'd happily buy 120GB SSDs if they were cheap enough. They are more than enough space for a HTPC or even a workstation with all the data stored on a NAS/Server/"The Cloud". But the 120GB drives are overpriced. They start at like $60 for a 120GB drive, and you can pick up a 240GB drive for $80-85. It doesn't make any sense at those prices to go with the 120GB.

There's probably a manufacturing cost floor. 1TB HDDs likewise bottom out at ~$50, while one can buy 2TB drives all day for less than $70. However, if you truly only need 120GB/1TB, what's the benefit in spending $20 for the extra capacity (beyond nice-to-have/just-in-case)?

 

[R0H1T]

It has the same power loss protection as most enterprise drives. It is enough to write the data stored in cache to the NAND. That is really all the power loss protection an SSD needs, and way more than almost any other consumer SSD. If you want more than that, buy a UPS.

It doesn't, it only protects data at rest, like its predecessors.
AT & a few other sites have clarified this in their reviews, you can find my previous comments regrading the same. This is what enterprise power loss protection on SSD looks like, for Intel's DC 3500 ~

 

[newtekie1]

It doesn't, it only protects data at rest, like its predecessors.

I can believe it was at-rest power protection on the previous MX200/100, but they doubled the number of caps and used PCB space on the MX300 drives. I can't see that being for just at-rest protection.

And the Datasheet for the MX300 says "Power Loss Protection completes write commands even if power is lost". That sounds like more than at-rest protection to me.

Either way, it is besides the point that the MX300 offers some form of power loss protection, even if it isn't enterprise grade, while most consumer drives don't offer any.

 

[R0H1T]

I can believe it was at-rest power protection on the previous MX200/100, but they doubled the number of caps and used PCB space on the MX300 drives. I can't see that being for just at-rest protection.

And the Datasheet for the MX300 says "Power Loss Protection completes write commands even if power is lost". That sounds like more than at-rest protection to me.

This seems to suggest something else ~

Aside from adopting 3D TLC and upgrading to the latest in Marvell's long line of SATA SSD controllers, the MX300 offers all the usual features of the MX series: encryption support, SLC caching, partial power loss protection and a three year warranty.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10274/the-crucial-mx300-750gb-ssd-review-microns-3d-nand-arrives

Remember the MX200 review was also updated with such info, after further clarification from Micron.

Though tbf one can always ask Micron if data in flight is completely protected or not, because it requires end to end data protection & enhanced data protection, as they're advertised in case of enterprise SSD.

 

[newtekie1]

This seems to suggest something else ~
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10274/the-crucial-mx300-750gb-ssd-review-microns-3d-nand-arrives

Remember the MX200 review was also updated with such info, after further clarification from Micron.

Completing write from the DRAM to RAM still falls under partial power loss protection, so no it really isn't suggesting something else. This is why AT goes into the at-rest power protection in the MX200 review, but not in the MX300 review. The MX300 offers more than just at-rest protection, it actually finishes the write commands.

The difference is, and the reason it is still considered partial protection, is the instant the MX300 detects a power loss it stops accepting data from the host SATA controller. So if the SATA controller is sending data to the drive, that data will be lost. Enterprise drives will allow the last block of data from the host controller to the SSD controller to finish.

 

[R0H1T]

Completing write from the DRAM to RAM still falls under partial power loss protection, so no it really isn't suggesting something else. This is why AT goes into the at-rest power protection in the MX200 review, but not in the MX300 review. The MX300 offers more than just at-rest protection, it actually finishes the write commands.

The difference is, and the reason it is still considered partial protection, is the instant the MX300 detects a power loss it stops accepting data from the host SATA controller. So if the SATA controller is sending data to the drive, that data will be lost. Enterprise drives will allow the last block of data from the host controller to the SSD controller to finish.

I'm still not sure how this is accomplished, based on what you're telling me.

Shouldn't there be a chance of data corruption in such cases?

 

[newtekie1]

I'm still not sure how this is accomplished, based on what you're telling me.

Shouldn't there be a chance of data corruption in such cases?

Yes, very much a chance. But in an instant power loss there is always a chance for data corruption. Hence why UPSes are necessary to allow clean shut downs of the computer. However, in consumer computers, when there is a power outage, it is almost guaranteed that the SATA controller also just lost power. So the SATA controller will instantly stop sending data anyway. But, at least the MX300 will allow any data in the DRAM to be saved to the NAND.