AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer

The Destroyer has been an essential part of our SSD test suite for nearly two years now. It was crafted to provide a benchmark for very IO intensive workloads, which is where you most often notice the difference between drives. It's not necessarily the most relevant test to an average user, but for anyone with a heavier IO workload The Destroyer should do a good job at characterizing performance. For full details of this test, please refer to this article.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

Despite the lack of IO consistency, the BX100 does very well in our heaviest The Destroyer trace. It's easily faster than the MX100 and quite close to the higher-end SSDs as well in both data rate and latency.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

The share of high latency IOs is very reasonable too, suggesting that the consistency is fine under real-world workloads.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Power)

And finally the power consumption where the BX100 shines in. Even though it's not the fastest drive on the market, it's by far the most power efficient and the difference to the MX100 is nearly twofold. 

Performance Consistency AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Vepsa - Friday, April 10, 2015 - link

    I wonder how two of these would do in RAID1 attached to a HP P410/256 controller. My poor little HP N40L could stand a capacity boost (2x250GB HDDs for booting) as well as a performance boost.
  • owbert - Friday, April 10, 2015 - link

    Performance besides power consumption is so close to the mx100.

    Current prices have both bx100 and mx100 around the same price. Would it be a smarter buy to pick the mx100 because it offers a few gigs more storage at each tier?
  • CaedenV - Friday, April 10, 2015 - link

    If I were purchasing today I would spend the extra $5 for a 1TB EVO. However, the EVO isn't likely to see many more price drops over it's life span, while the BX drives are brand new and will probably see a few price drops after the initial release. 6mo from now it might be substantially cheaper than the EVO and be a true budget drive (granted sub $400 for a 1TB SSD is not a bad price at all!).

    For my next build I think I am going to stick with m.2 for the added throughput and ability to have less stuff cluttering my box (looking at ITX next time). I wonder if there will be a 'budget' M.2 drive available by then that will offer better performance than SATA3 or SATA Express options.
  • MrCommunistGen - Friday, April 10, 2015 - link

    Due to the different controller in the 1TB 850 EVO (and the generally lower performance profile it offers compared to the 500GB model) I'd personally skip the 1TB EVO...

    Then again I'm not really in the market for a new SATA SSD at the moment either. My 500GB 840 EVO is *good enough* until I can get some future, shiny PCI-E, NVMe, 3D NAND SSD. Of course I'll need a new machine too since Z77 isn't going to know how to boot a NVMe SSD...
  • Margalus - Friday, April 10, 2015 - link

    the performance difference between the 500GB and the 1TB is negligible. Plus the 500GB is too small. I just bought the 1TB evo a couple weeks ago for $350. I wish they had a 2TB...
  • bunsenbunner - Friday, April 10, 2015 - link

    Nothing like ordering two of these last night (based on other reviews thus far) for a video editing setup only to see this review drop the next day. No stress at all reading through this to verify I made the right purchase! :-)

    Samsung's handling of the 840 EVO issues had me hesitant to go with the 850 EVO (even though I know the 3D NAND in the 850 EVO is a different beast from the TLC electrical drift issues in the 840 EVO). Samsung has had some stellar drives in recent years, but they've also not had any after-the-fact issues to really deal with. A "fix" followed by a second "fix" didn't give me a lot of confidence in Samsung's ability to truly resolve the issue. And this is from a current owner of two 840 EVOs.

    I of course wanted to hold out for the Intel 750 Series, but it skews a little far on the performance vs. value per GB for my needs.
  • Elixer - Friday, April 10, 2015 - link

    Storage Executive installs JAVA, that is why it is so huge.
    In theory, using JAVA means that this app could be ported to linux or Macs fairly easily.

    Personally, I rather not install anything that has to do with JAVA, they should have went with C# or C++ like the other OEMs are using.
  • Mr Perfect - Saturday, April 11, 2015 - link

    Oh. Java? I've actually removed that from my systems. Nothing I have uses it, and it's got as many security flaws as Flash.

    I'm also a little disappointed that this isn't a standalone application, but then I have all of these horrible flashbacks of Internet Explorer updates hopelessly breaking browser-based applications. *IE6 flashback*
  • dave_the_nerd - Friday, April 10, 2015 - link

    Bought one of these (500GB) the other day for a family member's build. I thought I had read a review on AT already, but I probably got it mixed up with the MX100.

    Nevertheless, I was impressed with the performance, especially for the price. (I guess I lucked out.) Seems like the arguments in favor of the BX100 come down to:

    1) Cheap
    2) Fast enough
    3) Crucial

    I'm okay with that.

    Also, I ordered a V4 once upon a time, then read some reviews of it and cancelled the order. So I guess that's twice I've lucked out.
  • jabber - Friday, April 10, 2015 - link

    Bought one of the 250GB ones a few weeks ago.

    My review - Works just as well as any other SSD I've bought over the past two years. No disappointment.

    Erm that's about as much as you need to know.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now