The Crucial BX500 is currently one of the most affordable drives in the 500 GB class because of the company's choice to skip the DRAM chip, which enables the cost savings required to reach such a price point. On previous pages, we talked extensively about the theory behind DRAM-less designs, which basically trade some performance for lower manufacturing cost.

Generally, and the Crucial BX500 is no exception here, the lack of DRAM mostly affects performance of random writes; i.e. writing small data chunks spread out over a large area of the disk (multiple GB). When benched with our regular test area size of 128 GB, we saw pathetic numbers (that, of course, are still much better than with a HDD) that are nowhere near what we've come to expect from modern SSDs. After some consideration, we added a second data point for these results, testing at a smaller size of 16 GB, which should be more in-line with what the Crucial BX500 will see in actual use, as it's targeted at the entry-level market for people looking for an SSD that's "better than a HDD". At our smaller test size, the SSD does a lot better, but the synthetic results are still not as fast as competing drives with DRAM. Nearly all of today's write-intensive consumer applications fall into just two categories: large sequential writes (ISO/game/disc image/video copy, large software installation) and small random writes (small software installation, extracting or copying lots of small files). Sequential performance of the Crucial BX500 is excellent, nearly identical to more expensive drives with DRAM. The small random writes are what trouble it, but they usually are localized to a small subset of the total disk space, which is why our real-life testing shows results that are "close enough" to competing drives, especially when you consider the lower cost of the BX500. Some applications do write to larger disk areas, but are constrained by the rate at which they can generate data (for example, BitTorrent downloads). In the enterprise world, things are different, of course. Large databases with many concurrent writers are the norm, as are busy file servers with many connected clients, for which the BX500 is definitely not an option.

On average, in real life, we see the Crucial BX500 about 7% slower than high-end 2.5" SATA drives, which is not a lot. The top-end NVMe drives in our test group are up to 20% faster. Individual applications will see different results, but overall, the numbers are much better than what the synthetic testing results would suggest. What really matters for the Crucial BX500 is its price. With just $80 for the tested 480 GB variant, it is easily 10%-20% cheaper than competing drives. While that's "just" 15 dollars or so, it could still factor into your buying decision, especially when building a rig where performance isn't that important.

The biggest competition for the Crucial BX500 comes from the same company. It's the Crucial MX500, which offers better performance more consistently and in more edge cases, for just a little extra cost, which is why I wouldn't be surprised to see the price of the BX500 drop in the near future; below $70 seems possible. The BX500 is definitely a great choice when upgrading or building a lightly used system for your parents, for example, or when focusing on productivity and Internet browsing; scenarios that require mostly disk reads, which the BX500 will handle with ease. I only wish Crucial offered larger capacities than 480 GB. The BX500's pricing makes it attractive for a large HDD-replacement drive to store the Steam Library on.