Crucial BX200 480 Go: Review |Specs | CPU | Hashrate| Set-up | Config

Test – Crucial BX200 480 Go: Review |Specs | CPU | Hashrate| Set-up | Config | Pros & Cons – Crucial, after excellent MX100 / 200 and BX100 do not stop there and release a new version of its entry level SSD, I named the BX200! It is offered in 3 different capacities, 240GB, 480GB or even 960GB, so Crucial is now skipping the 120GB which should gradually disappear from PCs seeing the price difference between 120GB and 240GB.

Contents hide

1 La configuration de test

2 ATTO Disk Benchmark

6.1 Where can I find Crucial BX200 SSDs?

6.2 Related posts:

Entry-level requires the price to be aggressive, ranging from around € 70 for the 240GB version to € 300 for the 960GB through € 140 for today’s test version of the 480GB. Let’s see what the beast has in its belly!

Specification: Hashrate

Model name	Crucial BX200 240Go	Crucial BX200 480Go	Crucial BX200 960Go
Capacity	240 Go	480 Go	960 Go
Cache memory	256 Mo + 3 Go SLC	512 Mo + 6 Go SLC	1 Go + 12 Go SLC
Format	2.5″	2.5″	2.5″
Dimensions	100 x 69.9 x 7 mm (9.5 mm with adapter)	100 x 69.9 x 7 mm (9.5 mm with adapter)	100 x 69.9 x 7 mm (9.5 mm with adapter)
Interface	Sata 3.0	Sata 3.0	Sata 3.0
Controller	Silicon Motion 2256	Silicon Motion 2256	Silicon Motion 2256
Nand	Micron 16nm 128Gbit TLC	Micron 16nm 128Gbit TLC	Micron 16nm 128Gbit TLC
Sequential Read	Up to 540 MB / s	Up to 540 MB / s	Up to 540 MB / s
Sequential Write	Up to 490 MB / s	Up to 490 MB / s	Up to 490 MB / s
Random read IOPS	Up to 66,000 IOPS	Up to 66,000 IOPS	Up to 66,000 IOPS
IOPS Random Write	Up to 78,000 IOPS	Up to 78,000 IOPS	Up to 78,000 IOPS
Consumption	4 W maximum	4 W maximum	4 W maximum
Operating temperatures	0°C ~ 70°C	0°C ~ 70°C	0°C ~ 70°C
Endurance	72 TB (Or 40 GB per day for 5 years)	72 TB (Or 40 GB per day for 5 years)	72 TB (Or 40 GB per day for 5 years)
MTBF	1,500,000 hours	1,500,000 hours	1,500,000 hours
Guarantee	3 years	3 years	3 years
Price	~ 92 €	~ 187 €	~ 373 €

The Crucial BX200 is therefore a 2.5 ″ SSD with a thickness of 7mm or 9.5mm with the adapter supplied, which will allow it to be installed anywhere even in laptops that require a greater thickness. The weight on the other hand is not specified but the carcass being in aluminum it is clear that it is not him which will explode the weight of the machine, exactly like the BX100 of which it is the exact copy.

Like its brother, the Crucial BX100 called on Silicon Motion and put in the new 2256 controller, an evolution of the 2246. The memory is provided by TLC chips from Micron (normal you will tell me, Crucial belonging to Micron) , farewell therefore to the MLC to make room for less enduring memory. The choice of TLC memory should however not really change anything for the average user because with a given endurance of 72 TB it will be necessary to write 40 GB per day for 5 years to bring the beast to its knees, which does not is not ready to arrive ne “normal” use.
A quick note on the cache memory which is 256 MB for the 250 GB version, 512 MB for the 480 GB and 1 GB for the 960 GB, so far nothing surprising but Crucial has added another cache, a kind of mini 3/6/12 GB SSD for the 250/480/960 GB, this will be used to speed up the copy in order to keep high level performance in almost all situations (almost because as we will see in the tests this is not is not always the case!).

Read This Now: AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution im Test: Test |CUP | Specs |Config

Regarding the theoretical performance Crucial gives its SSD for a maximum of 540 MB / s in reading and 490 MB / s in writing, we are more or less at the level of any SSD on the market, for once the speeds manufacturers are identical for all versions. Once again I repeat because it is not really clear to everyone but these data are only theoretical and do not really reflect the experience that it will result in practice, indeed even an SSD that does not offer “That” 400 MB / s in theoretical reading will not necessarily be less good in practice, and even if it is by looking at the benchmarks during current use you will see absolutely no difference, because the final goal c is to use the disk and not to do benchmarks, right? 😉
The MTBF is identical to that of its brother the BX100, namely 1.5 million hours (171 years) which announces a theoretical reliability more than adequate, even if the warranty is only 3 years.
The prices range from € 70 to € 300 and are clearly at the bottom of the SSD market, it will be necessary to see what this gives in practice to say if the BX200 deserves its place in a new (or old!) Configuration.

As usual, Crucial does not go into extravagance, here the brand offers us a photo of the product accompanied by the brand, model and capacity, nothing more! It doesn’t hurt not to have pompous marketing 😉

At the back we find another photo of the beast as well as the contents of the box and the mention of the warranty period of 3 years.

A l’intérieur rien de bien folichon, un moule en plastique dans lequel réside le SSD enveloppé dans un sachet antistatique, Crucial va droit au but!

En ce qui concerne le bundle Crucial propose exactement la même chose que d’habitude, à savoir le SSD (oui quand même un minimum!), un adaptateur en plastique permettant de passer son épaisseur de 7mm à 9.5mm ainsi qu’un numéro de série pour le logiciel Acronis True Image HD (qui permet de cloner un disque rapidement).

Ici encore la carcasse du BX200 est une copie parfaite du BX100, tout en aluminium avec un autocollant du le dessus présentant la série et en dessous un autre autocollant avec les numérotations d’usage. Il n’y a jamais eu aucun problème avec ce boitier donc pas vraiment de raisons de le changer!

Read This Now: Radeon RX 6x50 XT, will the new models retire the originals?

La configuration de test

La configuration utilisée lors des tests est la suivante :

Processeur: Intel Core i4670K @ 4 Ghz
Ventirad Processeur: Noctua NH-D15
Carte mère: Gigabyte Z87-UD5 TH
Carte graphique: XFX 7870 Black edition
Ventirad Carte Graphique: Accelero S1 rev B + 2 Noctua NF-F12
Mémoire: Kingston Beast 4 x 8 Go 1866Mhz
SSD: Intel Postville X25-M 80Go (OS)
Alimentation: be quiet! E9 580CM
Système d’expoitation: Windows 8.1 64bits

Le Crucial BX200 480Go sera testé face aux SSD que j’ai à ma disposition, qui sont:

Crucial BX200 500Go (testé ici)
Crucial MX200 250Go (testé ici)
Samsung 830 128Go
Kingston HyperX 3K 240Go (testé ici)
Kingston HyperX Savage 240Go (testé ici)
AMD R7 240Go (testé ici)
Plextor M6S 256Go (testé ici)
Plextor M6e 128GB (tested here)
Plextor M6 Pro 256GB (tested here)
Plextor M6e-BK 256GB (tested here)

The software used is as follows:

ATTO Disk Benchmark (downloadable here)
AS SSD Benchmark (downloadable here)
CrystalDiskMark (downloadable here)
Futuremark PCMark 8 (downloadable here)

ATTO Disk Benchmark

Crucial_BX200_480_Go_results_atto_lecture

As we can see in reading on ATTO the BX200 achieves scores very comparable to what we have with its brother the BX100, amounting to a maximum of 557.9 MB / s on files of 1 MB / s. files it manages to hold a throughput of 23.3 MB / s which is pretty good, again at the same level as the BX100. Seeing these results we can say that the BX200 does not lose anything compared to the old version, but it is not efficient either.

Crucial_BX200_480_Go_results_atto_ecriture

In writing on the other hand and according to ATTO the BX200 obtains more positive results, by the level of the small files which remain at 40 MB / s compared to its brother but the maximum flow goes from approximately 455 MB / s to 497 MB / s, which is a significant gain! With its 497 MB / s the BX200 is almost at the level of the MX200.

AS SSD

AS SSD confirms the trend, the BX200 obtains similar results to the BX100 in reading with a maximum of 507 MB / s in sequential reading and 23 MB / s on reading small files, like its big brother! On the other hand in writing and here again it exceeds the BX100 by going from 424.5 MB / s to 456 MB / s, a gain less marked than what we have on ATTO but still present.

CrystalDiskMark

Same observation with CrystalDiskMark with very good sequential read performance but which is very weak when small files are used. In writing once again the BX200 is at the level of the BX100 but is however behind a good number of SSDs in the comparison, even if we exceed 450 MB / s, which is in itself already good.

Futuremark PCMARK8

Crucial_BX200_480_Go_results_pcmark8_table

As usual under PCMARK8 all the SSDs are neck and neck in all the benchmarks, the only difference that can be seen with the BX200 is on the Adobe Photoshop Heavy part which records here the worst result of the comparison with 387.2 seconds to complete the test. For the rest there is absolutely nothing to report.
Theoretical benchmarks are good but in the end and as I always say in use there will be very little difference between all the SSDs on the market, the Crucial BX200 is no exception and offers performance similar to all the others.

Read This Now: TSMC claims chip shortage is a myth, companies have piled up inventories

Practical tests

Let’s move on to the practice tests now! For this I will use 2 scenarios, a copy of a 14.1 GB directory made up of 88 Folders and 12 647 files of various sizes and a copy of a single 15.3 GB
file . The source files are in first copied to a RAMDisk (more information here) and then sent to the various SSDs, in this way there will logically be no clamping at the source.

Crucial_BX200_480_Go_results_tests_practice

So here we hit the nail on the head in the main concern of the BX200! Indeed the copy of the directory to the SSD proceeds normally and even if the performances are not the best with 70 seconds it is not very far behind the others. By cons when copying the large 15 GB file we clearly see that there is a problem somewhere, with 105 seconds the BX200 is very far from other SSDs, let’s see how the transfer behaves:

We can see more clearly, indeed the flow is very good at the start but when it reaches around 40% it drops dramatically to around 80 MB / s, how to explain the phenomenon? Indeed as I said at the beginning the BX200 has a SLC cache of 6 GB, as soon as it is full the flow collapses. One thing is certain the BX200 is not made to write large files, if the file size remains smaller than the cache then all is well, otherwise we end up with what we see on the capture of ‘screen above.
It will put into perspective however, an SSD is not really there to store large iso files or other, but it is still very damaging to be faced with such a situation nowadays, if you happen to store on your SSD and speed is important then the Crucial BX200 is by no means for you.

Here we are at the end of this test, what about the Crucial BX200 480GB?
After a rather successful BX100 Crucial returns with a new version of its entry-level SSD, all the frills are left behind to deliver a product that claims to be able to make a PC responsive and finally say goodbye to hard drives. conventional by installing an operating system, all at a low price. The build quality is very good, the aluminum frame makes the beast very light and well finished.

The performances are at first glance close to what one finds on a BX100, at least during the benchmarks, the limits of the BX200 are however found when writing large files, once the cache is full (3 GB, 6 GB or 12 GB depending on the version) the writing speed drops to 80 MB / s for the rest of the copy, which is not even at the level of a conventional hard disk! However, this should be put into perspective because during “normal” use this should not really be disabling, but those who copy large files (ISOs, films or other) will have to look elsewhere so as not to be confronted with this situation.

Offered at a price ranging from € 70 for the 250GB to € 300 for the 960 GB, the BX200 is not for those looking for the fastest SSD on the market, but rather for people who want to give their life a boost. aging configuration without spending too much money, as long as write performance on large files is not taken into account.

The +