We didn't tackle this conclusion until all of our tests with Momentum Cache finished. It turns out that the DRAM cache doesn’t improve real-world performance enough for the BX200 to catch its low-cost SSD competition. Even with the cache enabled, performance only goes up to match some of the slowest drives available. Because of that, this goes down as one of the most disappointing SSDs introduced since 2008, when early JMicron DRAM-less controllers suffered the stutter fiasco. I really just can’t understand how Crucial tested this drive in-house and decided to release the BX200 in its current form.
We used our new low-cost SSD charts today, so we didn’t even compare the BX200 to the best-performing SATA drives available. Many of those only cost $20 to $30 more at the 512GB capacity point. Even though Crucial told us that its MSRP probably won't hold for long, it’s the only pricing we have. At its suggested retail price, the BX200 is not competitive with any SSD sold today. Adata's SP550 costs less, uses the same controller and has faster SK Hynix 16nm TLC flash.
For the BX200 to compete, its price has to fall below the SP550. I wouldn't buy the Crucial drive if its price was within 15 percent of the Adata.
Chris Ramseyer is a Contributing Editor for Tom's Hardware, covering Storage. Follow him on Twitter and on Facebook.
For those who have been out of the loop or haven't bough their first SSD yet just avoid SSDs that use TLC unless it is 3D (stacked) and just pay a little more for MLC.
It's not a duplicate. The latency distribution is just the same for both. I'm working on fine tuning those charts a bit.
Also, you will notice that the bars on the side are different sizes even though it's still 0%. Data has fallen into those buckets but not more than 1%.