Crucial BX500 480 GB

[W1zzard]

Crucial's new BX500 SSD comes at a great price point of just $80 for the reviewed 480 GB version, making it one of the most affordable drives on the market. It is a DRAM-less design that's built around a Silicon Motion controller with Micron-made 3D TLC NAND.

Show full review

 

[EatingDirt]

Is there a reason the Mushkin Source is only included in the Synthetics and not in the Real world & summary? These two are both direct competitors in the DRAM-less ultra-cheap budget SSD sector and should be able to be compared throughout the benchmarking.

 

[dj-electric]

BX500 looks somewhat bad in this review, simply because he has none of its competitors.
Some other 70-90$ popular SSDs should be here. I'd suggest the WD Blue \ Sandisk Ultra

 

[W1zzard]

Is there a reason the Mushkin Source is only included in the Synthetics and not in the Real world & summary? These two are both direct competitors in the DRAM-less ultra-cheap budget SSD sector and should be able to be compared throughout the benchmarking.

Whoops, updated

 

[_UV_]

The Crucial BX500 has no DRAM chip on the PCB, which helps optimize cost even beyond what is possible with TLC as a significant portion of the BOM cost comes from the DRAM memory, in the order of about $8 per GB of DRAM.

According to DRAMeXchange 8GB of DDR4 cost around 1$ per GB.
spot prices table

 

[W1zzard]

According to DRAMeXchange 8GB of DDR4 cost around 1$ per GB.
spot prices table

april 2017 and those are gigabits

 

[Ubersonic]

In future reviews is there any chance you could include say a WD Velociraptor or a big WD Black drive for comparison? Hell failing that maybe an older SATA2 SSD.

It's just with the full SSD lineup all some charts actually show is that NVMe drives are faster than SATA3, and this drive is pretty crap compared to existing drives like the MX500. Having an older SSD or a mech drive for comparison would add a useful point of reference (I.E the IOPS seem closer to a HDD in some tests than a current SSD).

 

[newtekie1]

With the MX500 being only $10 more than the BX500, I really don't see a point in buying the BX500.

In future reviews is there any chance you could include say a WD Velociraptor or a big WD Black drive for comparison?

I was just thinking the same thing. It would be nice to see a reference to a HDD in the tests. Because these DRAMless SSDs look really slow compared to other SSDs, but they are still miles ahead of a HDD.

 

[Assimilator]

I only wish Crucial offered larger capacities than 480 GB.

Amen! The low-capacity SSD market is saturated to hell and gone, we need high-capacity SSDs at good prices so we can start getting rid of the spinning rust.

In future reviews is there any chance you could include say a WD Velociraptor or a big WD Black drive for comparison? Hell failing that maybe an older SATA2 SSD.

It's just with the full SSD lineup all some charts actually show is that NVMe drives are faster than SATA3, and this drive is pretty crap compared to existing drives like the MX500. Having an older SSD or a mech drive for comparison would add a useful point of reference (I.E the IOPS seem closer to a HDD in some tests than a current SSD).

I was just thinking the same thing. It would be nice to see a reference to a HDD in the tests. Because these DRAMless SSDs look really slow compared to other SSDs, but they are still miles ahead of a HDD.

W1zz is comparing things that are trying to compete in the same performance bracket, to allow readers to gauge their relative performance. Adding an old SSD, or an HDD, into the mix isn't useful because it will show exactly what you'd expect... that an old/slow drive is old and/or slow. It'll also throw the scale on all of the charts way out of whack.

So, no. No old SSDs, and especially no HDDs; I see zero value in providing an apples-to-oranges comparison like that.

 

[W1zzard]

the scale

thats the issue

 

[newtekie1]

W1zz is comparing things that are trying to compete in the same performance bracket, to allow readers to gauge their relative performance. Adding an old SSD, or an HDD, into the mix isn't useful because it will show exactly what you'd expect... that an old/slow drive is old and/or slow. It'll also throw the scale on all of the charts way out of whack.

So, no. No old SSDs, and especially no HDDs; I see zero value in providing an apples-to-oranges comparison like that.

Showing the relative performance to an HDD is definitely something that I think is important information for people considering upgrading their HDD to an SSD. I don't really care about older SSDs, but I think including an HDD in the results would be beneficial to the people on the fence about going with an SSD.

thats the issue

The times when the HDD bar is extremely small on the chart isn't really an issue, but obviously when it is extremely large it can be an issue. But you should be able to get around that by splitting the HDD bar to make it shorter, but still you'd have the value listed.

 

[trparky]

With the MX500 being only $10 more than the BX500, I really don't see a point in buying the BX500.

That's what I'm thinking too. Spend $10 (or even $15 due to market price fluctuations) more, get a better drive with much better performance. I don't even know why this BX500 model exists. Looks to me like it's a solution looking for a problem.

 

[Ubersonic]

W1zz is comparing things that are trying to compete in the same performance bracket, to allow readers to gauge their relative performance. Adding an old SSD, or an HDD, into the mix isn't useful because it will show exactly what you'd expect... that an old/slow drive is old and/or slow. It'll also throw the scale on all of the charts way out of whack.

1: Relative performance is the reason a mech drives and/or an older SSD should be included in a big SSD review.
2: Actually in your case it wouldn't show what you expect as the number sin this review indicate this cheapo SSD to be inferior to outdated ones, it just isn't visible to the naked eye because there isn't one in the chart.
3: The scale is already way out of whack because of the lack of comparative data.

So, no. No old SSDs, and especially no HDDs; I see zero value in providing an apples-to-oranges comparison like that.

In the case of a HDD it would help somebody decide whether or not they should sacrifice performance or capacity when spending their money. You can't tell if the performance difference over a modern HDD is worth it compared to the capacity sacrifice if you have no idea what the difference is...

In the case of an old SSD it would help people /shock with an old SSD decide if it's worth upgrading/replacing it, or more to the point if it even is an upgrade to go from an old high end drive to a new low end one (from these charts no, but again you can only tell that if you know where the old drive would land).

This is why SSD reviews usually include one or both of these drive types.

 

[newtekie1]

That's what I'm thinking too. Spend $10 (or even $15 due to market price fluctuations) more, get a better drive with much better performance. I don't even know why this BX500 model exists. Looks to me like it's a solution looking for a problem.

IMO, it is more of a poor solution to a problem that exists. They are trying to make the drives cheaper, because cost is still the biggest negative to SSDs, but they aren't able to make them cheap enough. Going DRAMless only really saves about $10 by the time it gets to the consumer, and that really just isn't enough.

 

[trparky]

Going DRAMless only really saves about $10 by the time it gets to the consumer, and that really just isn't enough.

Yep. OK, so I'll have to give up on getting a few high-priced Starbucks drinks to get the SSD with the onboard DRAM but in the end it's a better choice to make. The BX500 just doesn't make any ounce of sense.

 

[newtekie1]

Yep. OK, so I'll have to give up on getting a few high-priced Starbucks drinks to get the SSD with the onboard DRAM but in the end it's a better choice to make. The BX500 just doesn't make any ounce of sense.

Yep. it is really only going to catch people that don't know the difference and just are buying a 480GB SSD. And I'm guessing all the manufacturers putting out DRAMless SSDs are just hoping for that. And at the same time, the people buying these SSDs just to buy an SSD and don't know any different are probably going to be happy with it.

 

[trparky]

Yep. it is really only going to catch people that don't know the difference and just are buying a 480GB SSD. And I'm guessing all the manufacturers putting out DRAMless SSDs are just hoping for that. And at the same time, the people buying these SSDs just to buy an SSD and don't know any different are probably going to be happy with it.

Yep. Now if the price difference was a much larger margin (like $50) it would make a little more sense to buy the BX500 as versus the MX500 model that has onboard DRAM but since it's only a $10 to $15 difference it just doesn't make sense. It really makes you wonder what the hell they were thinking.

 

[zelnep]

dam - 80$ starting launch price for 0.5TB SSD (launch price = so it will go down over time)! I guess we will soon store our porn collections on SSD (as if we ned that (I mean we to need our pron collections, but if we need to store it on SSDs, because HDDs are fine).
but seriously, what are HDD producers thinking about this? because 8TB HDD costs 250$+ for 3 years, and 10TB and more price per TB rises exponentially - here is no progress at all, while SSDs catch up big time

 

[Assimilator]

1: Relative performance is the reason a mech drives and/or an older SSD should be included in a big SSD review.
2: Actually in your case it wouldn't show what you expect as the number sin this review indicate this cheapo SSD to be inferior to outdated ones, it just isn't visible to the naked eye because there isn't one in the chart.
3: The scale is already way out of whack because of the lack of comparative data.

1. No.
2. Which you can already see by the comparison of this SSD to other, better SSDs.
3. No.

In the case of a HDD it would help somebody decide whether or not they should sacrifice performance or capacity when spending their money. You can't tell if the performance difference over a modern HDD is worth it compared to the capacity sacrifice if you have no idea what the difference is...

The people who don't know that SSDs are faster than HDDs are not the people reading these reviews.

 

[newtekie1]

The people who don't know that SSDs are faster than HDDs are not the people reading these reviews.

It isn't about knowing that SSDs are faster than HDDs, it is about people that are trying to decide if they really should go with an SSD, if the difference really is that big and worth the price difference.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

I bought one of these about a week or two ago. I knew it was the shittiest level of poop anyone could scoop so all i do is run it as a spare SSD and dump some of my music on it. Nothing mission critical.

 

[lexluthermiester]

This drive seems weak compared to other lower priced, better performing drives. Granted, it is Crucial/Micron but at that performance the price seems too high. Drop it to $60 and the price suddenly makes more sense.
Edit;
Examples;
https://www.amazon.com/ADATA-SU655-Internal-ASU655SS-480GT-C-Version/dp/B07DNKKGP8
https://www.amazon.com/Silicon-Power-Endurance-Internal-SP512GBSS3S60S25AE/dp/B07GBYHWGL
Both of these drives are lower priced and perform better. And they are not DRAM-less AFAIK.

 

[EatingDirt]

dam - 80$ starting launch price for 0.5TB SSD (launch price = so it will go down over time)! I guess we will soon store our porn collections on SSD (as if we ned that (I mean we to need our pron collections, but if we need to store it on SSDs, because HDDs are fine).
but seriously, what are HDD producers thinking about this? because 8TB HDD costs 250$+ for 3 years, and 10TB and more price per TB rises exponentially - here is no progress at all, while SSDs catch up big time

Well, a $250 8TB HDD has 16x the capacity of a 500GB SSD.

16x $80 = $1,280. The prices aren't even in the same ballpark.

Not to mention that these ultra-cheap SSD product stacks often don't even have an option for anything larger than 500GB(as is the case here), so to get the equivalent 8TB of space you'd have to have space in a case for 16 of them.

In conclusion: HDD's continue to be non-threatened even by the cheapest of cheap 500TB SSD's for anyone with 1TB+ storage needs.

 

[R0H1T]

Well, a $250 8TB HDD has 16x the capacity of a 500GB SSD.

16x $80 = $1,280. The prices aren't even in the same ballpark.

Not to mention that these ultra-cheap SSD product stacks often don't even have an option for anything larger than 500GB(as is the case here), so to get the equivalent 8TB of space you'd have to have space in a case for 16 of them.

In conclusion: HDD's continue to be non-threatened even by the cheapest of cheap 500TB SSD's for anyone with 1TB+ storage needs.

That's because no NAND (or SSD) maker wants to turn this industry into smartphone battle royale 2.0 & not because cheap 8TB SSD isn't a possiblity, even in 2.5" FF.

 

[Assimilator]

Well, a $250 8TB HDD has 16x the capacity of a 500GB SSD.

16x $80 = $1,280. The prices aren't even in the same ballpark.

Not to mention that these ultra-cheap SSD product stacks often don't even have an option for anything larger than 500GB(as is the case here), so to get the equivalent 8TB of space you'd have to have space in a case for 16 of them.

In conclusion: HDD's continue to be non-threatened even by the cheapest of cheap 500TB SSD's for anyone with 1TB+ storage needs.

I guess you haven't seen the $300 2TB Micron 1100 SSDs that are widely available on Amazon.