Crucial BX300 240GB Review (Page 5 of 11)

Page 5 - Benchmark: Crystal Disk Mark 3.0

About Crystal Disk Mark

- Measure sequential reads/writes speed
- Measure random 512KB, 4KB, 4KB (Queue Depth=32) reads/writes speed
- Select test data (Random, 0Fill, 1Fill)

From: Developer's Page

Moving to Crystal Disk Mark 3.0, this is another one of tests which to me are the easiest to produce, and provide numbers in a timely manner. Higher capacity drives generally perform slightly better in these tests. The rated IOPS is important for these tests and it shows for the Crucial BX300 240GB. In all of the tests, it performed better than its previous generation. At the same time, it performed better than many of the drives I tested it against in the same price range. The 512K speeds were better, as were the 4K ones compared to drives in the performance class. For the 4K QD32 test, the Crucial BX300 240GB fell behind a bit, and landed toward the back end of the majority of the drives. Comparing the BX300 to the Kingston HyperX Savage 240GB, it had mostly similar speeds. The BX300 4K read speed was much worse than the HyperX Savage though, but the BX300 beat the Savage with its write speed. Unfortunately, during the 4K QD32 tests, the BX300 fell behind the HyperX Savage and the Crucial MX300 as well.

Page Index
1. Introduction, Packaging, Specifications
2. A Closer Look, Test System
3. Benchmark: AIDA64 Disk Benchmark
4. Benchmark: ATTO Disk Benchmark
5. Benchmark: Crystal Disk Mark 3.0
6. Benchmark: HD Tach
7. Benchmark: HD Tune Pro 4.60
8. Benchmark: PerformanceTest 9.0
9. Benchmark: PCMark Vantage
10. Benchmark: PCMark 8
11. Conclusion