Crucial BX500 SSD Review: The DRAMless Invasion Continues (Updated)
Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.
480GB Comparison Products
Trace Testing – PCMark 8 Storage Test 2.0
PCMark 8 is a trace-based benchmark that uses Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite, World of Warcraft, and Battlefield 3 to measure the performance of storage devices in real-world scenarios.
The 480GB BX500 is even slower in this test than the 240GB model–it lags significantly behind the other drives and lands in last place.
Game Scene Loading - Final Fantasy XIV
Most 500GB-class SATA SSDs load the Final Fantasy game level in 22-23 seconds. The 480GB BX500 isn't too much slower with a 24.5 second load time, but it still trails the other SATA SSDs. It does, however, offer significantly improved game load performance over the HDD, making it a viable option for storing your games library.
Transfer Rates – DiskBench
Crucial’s BX500 is unimpressive in our real-world copy test. Again, it falls into last place against the other SSDs. Its average of just 58 MB/s is just an 11 MB/s faster than an HDD.
The BX500 read data at an average speed of 496 MB/s, landing just ahead of the WD Blue 3D SSD.
SYSmark 2014 SE
SYSmark installed onto the BX500 faster than our HDD by about three and a half minutes, but that was still a minute slower than any other SSD in our comparison pool. The BX500’s poor performance continued during the application testing.
ATTO
Like the 240GB model, the 480GB BX500 surpassed its sequential read specifications.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Anvil's Storage Utilities
Crucial’s BX500 ranks behind our comparison pool once again. It displays strong sequential performance, but performance in random workloads holds it back.
CrystalDiskMark
View Original
View Original
View Original
View Original
View Original
View Original
View Original
View Original
View Original
View Original
The BX500 reached sequential read/write speeds of 557/492 MB/s at QD32. These aren't world-beating numbers, but they are more than acceptable for a SATA SSD. The drive scored the fastest QD1 sequential read result in our test pool, but the lowest result in the sequential write test.
Random performance isn't very promising. The BX500 ranks in last place again at QD32. The drive reads data at just 31 MB/s at QD1, making it the slowest in the group, but its 107 MB/s of random write performance ranks second.
Sustained Sequential Write Performance
The larger 480GB model can write more data continuously than the 240GB model before it slows down. Performance degrades to just 100 MB/s after about 24GB of continuous writes.
Power Consumption
View Original
View Original
View Original
View Original
View Original
The BX500’s sips just 31mW at idle with LPM enabled, and 0.4W when we disable the feature. Both results rank in second place, just behind the Samsung 860 EVO.
The BX500 averages 1.42W during the file copy test, which is the best in our comparison pool. The BX500's peak consumption comes in second.
Like the 240GB model, the 480GB BX500 isn’t that efficient. It averaged 44 MB/s-per-watt during the file copy, again trailing the other SSDs.
MORE: Best SSDs
MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs
MORE: All SSD Content
Current page: 480GB Performance Results
Prev Page 240GB Performance Results Next Page 960GB Performance Results
Sean is a Contributing Editor at Tom’s Hardware US, covering storage hardware.
-
logainofhades Doesn't appear to be a great alternative to other drives already on the market. I'd rather spend the extra on an MX500 for the better warranty alone. I use a 1tb MX500, for extra storage, in my laptop. If you can use M.2 NVME, and are on a tight budget, though, the 660p is kind of a no brainer. I have had no complaints, with system performance, with the 1tb, that I have in my desktop.Reply -
chickenballs are you serious? they want 60 bucks for a 500gb dramless ssd?Reply
I just bought a MX500 500gb for 65 dollars...
125 dollars for a 980gb is also laughable when you can get the mx500 1tb for around 140 -
Glock24 Remind me why do DRAMless SSDs exists? You get lower performance, lower endurance and are almost the same price as decent SSDs. I don't see any benefit.Reply -
BaRoMeTrIc Reply
especially when the mx500 is only $5 more on amazon and newegglogainofhades said:Doesn't appear to be a great alternative to other drives already on the market. I'd rather spend the extra on an MX500 for the better warranty alone. I use a 1tb MX500, for extra storage, in my laptop. If you can use M.2 NVME, and are on a tight budget, though, the 660p is kind of a no brainer. I have had no complaints, with system performance, with the 1tb, that I have in my desktop. -
LordConrad Reply
Because there was a bigger price difference when DRAM was expensive.Glock24 said:Remind me why do DRAMless SSDs exists? You get lower performance, lower endurance and are almost the same price as decent SSDs. I don't see any benefit. -
chickenballs lol this is what I call ironyReply
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/crucial-mx500-500gb-ssd-deal-sale,39672.html -
dhivakarag Hi, I am confused between Crucial BX500 960GB (₹6770) vs Intel 660P 1TB (₹9500) as my gaming drive. I use Samsung 970 evo 500GB as my boot drive and I have installed all applications in it except games. Will my game load time decrease if I consider Intel over Crucial? Is Intel worth the price difference and is it reliable as Crucial?Reply -
MoisesLevy75 On the crucial website they report that the SSD has SLC write acceleration. This led us to think that he had NAND SLC memories when he actually has TLC. They has no respect the consumer.Reply
Moises Levy from Osório/RS - Brazil.