Crucial BX100 1TB SSD Review
Why you can trust Tom's Hardware
Four-Corner Performance Testing
To read about our storage tests in-depth, please check out How We Test HDDs And SSDs. Four-corner testing is covered on page six.
128KB Sequential Read Performance


Sequential read performance starts out strong at low queue depths and continues on through the higher queue depths. This is typical of products based on the SM2246EN controller.
We see two distinct groups in the sequential read test at a queue depth of two. It would be nearly impossible for you to tell the difference between drives in the first group reading large files back from the drive.
128KB Sequential Write Performance


The BX100 performs well writing sequential data, but it's slower than many other models on the market.
At a queue depth of two, the drives separate into two groups. Crucial's BX100 1TB is in the bottom half, though it's also in the lowest-priced group as well. In short, write performance is proportional to the price.
4KB Random Read Performance



Although the BX100 performs well reading sequential data, random reads barely break 70,000 IOPS. You should be more concerned with performance at low queue depths, though. In a consumer environment, you'll rarely read past a queue depth of four. There, the BX100 appears near the bottom of the list with Mushkin's Reactor, another SM2246EN-controlled 1TB SSD.
In normal consumer workloads, we rarely get into high queue depths reading random data. SSDs are just too fast for requests to stack up. This can change with heavy multitasking, but nearly every SSD provides the enough throughput to satisfy what a handful of open programs use.
4KB Random Write Performance



Again we find the BX100 at the low end of the scale. It still delivers acceptable performance at a queue depth of one though, and it scales well up to a queue depth of four.
It's actually easier to hit higher queue depths writing random data than reading it. We install apps, update Windows, and download torrents on a new PC. Though, once everything is current, the write activity slows.
Current page: Four-Corner Performance Testing
Prev Page A Closer Look At The BX100 1TB Next Page Mixed Workload And Steady State PerformanceStay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
-
salgado18 My only issue with the drive is endurance. Because a secondary drive for storing data is meant to be the safe repository, wouldn't a hard drive be a better match, even with the lower performance?Reply -
logainofhades You can currently get an 850 evo for less than a BX 100. http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/compare/crucial-internal-hard-drive-ct1000bx100ssd1%2Csamsung-internal-hard-drive-mz75e1t0bam/Reply -
MrMusAddict "As a subsidiary of Lexar, parent company of Micron, Crucial has access to the highest-quality flash before competing drive vendors can buy it up."Reply
You have it backwards there. It should read:
"As a subsidiary of Micron, parent company of Lexar..." -
Chris Droste i Love my MX100 512GB but i dunno if I'd go anything cheaper than that unless it's older/proven like a Samsung 830 or a Crucial m.4. i mean, $210 for 512GB is really damn sweet for a +90k IOps driveReply -
dachiesa I grabbed a $85 sale for the 256GB one and upgraded my 120GB Kingston SSDNOW to this and I am very happy to have that extra space (the 120GB Kingston was 60 when I bought it last summer)Reply -
mczak1 The last page is saying "The cheaper controller is missing advanced features like DevSlp support and hardware-based encryption" - that is however untrue as far as the encryption is concerned (look it up on SiliconMotions site). I guess though Crucial decided to not make it available so there's some feature difference to the MX series. There could of course be some problems with it as well, but other SSDs based on the same controller offer hardware based encryption.Reply -
mapesdhs Re the 128KB Sequential Write Performance graph - please stop using graphsReply
that do not have a zero origin. They are thoroughly visually misleading. What's
the point of using a graph at all if the bars' relative sizes are so different because
of a non-zero origin? The line graph makes it obvious the BX100 is slower but
not that much slower than the upper end models, whereas the bar graph at
first looks far worse. Also, the other graphs have not been done in the same way.
Best not to use non-zero-origin graphs at all.
Ian.
-
SinxarKnights Time to move to a 1Tb SSD from a 256gb one I have now, this may be the one get.
I got the MX100 256GB and simply love it. I would like to get this and just use it for storage. I mean it would last pretty much forever since it isn't mechanical and the data isn't constantly being written to it.