Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Crucial BX300 480GB Review - An Affordable Upgrade to Your Older SSD - MMORPG.com
System
Member UncommonPosts: 12,599
Crucial BX300 480GB Review - An Affordable Upgrade to Your Older SSD - MMORPG.com
Crucial is known for their competitive, and often cheaper, SSD solutions. Always seemingly a step behind Samsung, Crucial still remains a reliable, affordable alternative. 2015’s BX200 was recently replaced by the new BX300, and with a hefty performance upgrade. Read on for our review.
Comments
1. How is it possible that BX300 to BX300 transfer got higher average file transfer speed than WD Blue 3D to WD Blue 3D, but according to article WD Blue 3D finished its transfer faster? If you've been transferring the same files, shouldn't the one that finishes faster also get better average speed.
2. How do you count the price difference in
"When we look closer at the two SATA drives here, the Blue and BX300, we see that Western Digital has a slight edge. Given the $100+ price difference between these drives (and sometimes more), this level of performance is impressive"
Based on Amazon's prices, shouldn't the price difference be more like $10+ instead of $100+.
That said this a pretty good price drop and considering that here in Canada Samsung can be a huge hassle to get a RMA etc etc
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
I can answer these for Bill.
1. It has to do with burst speeds. The WD Blue's initial speed burst was much faster and lasted a bit longer.
2. The WD Blue now comes in two versions, the older 2D NAND and the new 3D one. The price difference being referred to is against the newer 3D NAND version (which matches the BX300).
1. Does that mean the "average" speed on your review is actually median value?
I though average should be transfer size divided by transfer time. In that setting if the transfer size is same, it's mathematically impossible for longer transfer get faster average speed.
If you're telling the median value in your review, that would be possible.
2. That doesn't seem to explain it. What shop are you using?
https://www.amazon.com/Blue-NAND-500GB-SSD-WDS500G2B0A/dp/B073SBZ8YH
https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-BX300-480GB-Internal-Solid/dp/B073W4N5KB
Good catch. Looks like we were looking at the 1TB WD Blue. Correction submitted and we'll have that fixed. Thank you!
In regard to the first point, we begin tracking for average speed after the initial burst on all SSDs. I'll make sure this is something we make clear going forward, but I would be interested to hear your thoughts as well. Our rationale here is that all SSDs begin their transfers with an unrepresentative high speed burst. We track speeds immediately as they stabilize until the transfer has completed. Otherwise you have transfer speeds skew higher than what you'll see 99% of the time.
Still in that price range the Crucial drives are among the best. Crucial and WD definitely have the best products here. For Crucial, the BX series is their affordable lineup. It makes sense it doesn't have the highest transfer speeds since the goal is gb/dollar.
I don't really know enough to comment on that. The speed burst could either be a phase when the SSD is reading data and not writing anything yet, or it could be a case of Windows having already loaded some data into RAM.
Maybe @Quizzical would know enough to comment something on this.
SSDs are designed to slowly retire most used sectors as part of their normal operation, and they've got a lot of extra invisible sectors that they can take into use to replace those retired sectors.
HDDs do not have similar functionality and bad sectors mean often unrecoverable errors or indicate the drive failing soon.
SSDs do wear out faster than HDDs, but one shouldn't compare the number of reallocated sectors because it means different thing for SSD than it means for HDD.