- Page 1 Crucial BX100 250GB
- Page 2 Performance, Warranty and Verdict
Crucial BX100 250GB – Performance
The BX100 got off to a decent start in our AS SSD tests. Its sequential read and write speeds of 521MB/s and 349MB/s are better than the MX100, and the former result also beats the SanDisk – although that drive fights back with a write pace of 473MB/s.
Results were more mixed when the MX100 dealt with smaller files. It fell behind the MX100 in the 4K tests and traded blows with SanDisk in the same tests, but it was behind both drives in the 4K-64 benchmarks. Its worst performance here came when reading files: its 277MB/s result lagged behind the MX100’s 335MB/s and the 330MB/s scored by the SanDisk.
The BX100 remained inconsistent in CrystalDiskMark. Its sequential read and write speeds of 536MB/s and 368MB/s beat the older MX100 drive, but it traded blows in the mid-sized 512KB test – its 368MB/s read speed fell behind, but its 369MB/s write pace was faster than its home-grown rival. It remained a little slower when reading and writing small files.
In the 8KB Atto benchmark the BX100’s read speed of 344MB/s is decent – far quicker than both the MX100 and MX200, but behind the 403MB/s result of the SanDisk. The BX100 overturned that SanDisk’s lead in the 32KB test, and remained ahead for most of Atto’s read tests. Its top read speed of 557MB/s beat the MX100, and was only 1MB/s behind the Ultra II.
Crucial’s budget drive was less convincing when writing files. Its initial 8KB result of 326MB/s fell behind both of its rivals, and its top write speed of 367MB/s was a little ahead of the MX100 but miles behind the 506MB/s result of the SanDisk.
The BX100 regained its composure in our last two benchmarks. Its IOMeter all-in-one result of 6,644 IOs trounced the MX100 and Ultra II, which scored 2,426 and 1,843 respectively. In PC Mark 7’s storage test the BX100 scored 5,382 points, which squeezed ahead of the 5,270 scored by the older MX100.
Other things to consider
The more expensive Crucial MX200 ditched its smallest capacity, but the BX100’s budget nature means it’s possible to buy this drive at 120GB, and it’s cheap – just £50. That makes it one of the most affordable SSDs we’ve ever seen.
The 500GB version costs a tempting £149, and the largest drive available, 1TB, will set you back £282. Crucial’s budget drive is available in a good range of capacities, but it’s not made in the M.2 or mSATA form factors – for that, you’ll need to jump up to the MX200.
The three-year warranty matches the other Crucial drives and SanDisk’s unit, and the 7mm BX100 is supplied with a 9.5mm spacer. That accessory was included with the other Crucial hardware, but it’s missing from the SanDisk.
Should I Buy the Crucial BX100 250GB?
Crucial’s latest drive trades blows with its competitors for many of our benchmarks: its good read speeds were undermined by poorer write pace, and it offered similar speed to its competitors when handling smaller files.
That pattern repeated in Atto, with decent read speeds hampered by mediocre write speeds. Thankfully the pace picked up in IOMeter and PC Mark 7, where the BX100 beat its key competitors.
We’d comfortably recommend the BX100 over the MX100 – it’s faster in most read tests and is a little quicker in several key write benchmarks, too.
However, Crucial’s budget drive is a tougher sell when up against the SanDisk. The Ultra II has similar read pace and faster, more consistent write results, and it’s just as affordable as the BX100. They’re all compelling arguments, even if the BX100 trounced the Ultra II in IOMeter.
Crucial’s BX100 doesn’t include the high-end features of other drives, but it delivers decent performance at a tempting price – especially when its impressive file reading pace is considered. Those results make it a better bet than the older MX100, but it’s a tougher sell when against the SanDisk Ultra II, which has faster writes but poorer IOMeter results. It’s not an entirely clean bill of health for Crucial’s new SSD, then, but it remains an impressive budget drive.