Any comments on the new Crucial BX300?

I'm about to place my order for the BX300 240GB primarily as an OS drive on a gaming PC in which I've got a Firecuda SSD 2TB (which now uses cMLC instead of SLC) for games, movies and storage.

I was suppose to get the MX300 275GB m.2 but somehow while browsing Amazon the BX300 was displayed and I looked up the reviews online and it seems the BX300 is better than MX300 for the money minus the power loss protection implementation the MX300 being hardware capacitors while the BX300 is firmware embedded.

The BX300 costs slightly less but has less storage capacity 240GB vs 275GB however considering the fact the BX300 has 16GB set aside for over-provisioning from factory there's actually almost no difference is capacity at all since I always over-provision my SSD's to at least 20% with NTFS space lost taken into account.

The MX300 has a slightly better Marvell controller as oppose to the Silicon Motion controller on the BX300 however the BX300 offers 3D MLC NAND which is big step up from 3D TLC NAND found on the MX300 and this is my primary reason for choosing the BX300 over the MX300 as I've never owned a TLC SSD ever.

Please comment...

 

See:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/11766/the-crucial-bx300-480gb-ssd-review-back-to-mlc/9

OP'ing, when taking into account factory and NTFS space lost taken into account, is not OP'ing to any effective degree.

I would recommend the 480GB model instead/over the 240GB capacity you're considering now. Saving a little longer will be worth it in the end.

TLC SSD's are great for your baby sister to browse fb with. At a higher capacity than what you think you need 'today/now', the BX300 is a good SSD that we can currently buy.

Good luck.

 

Just figured that 1024 = 1000, thanks for the heads up.

I just need a 240GB drive for my OS otherwise money will wasted and better off spending the extra $75 elsewhere like on an external hard drive for backups.

 

Afaik, a 'gaming' pc needs a lot of space/capacity for games. I allocate minimum 150GB (real, formatted space) to the C:\ for my O/S and programs. Ideally; I'm allocating 250GB though.

240,000,000,000 / 1024 / 1024 /1024 = ~223.5GB formatted total capacity

223.5 x 0.67 = 149.75GB after OP'ing a real/additional 33% (my recommendation).

As you can see; a 240GB nominal SSD drive is barely enough for the O/S and Programs in my experience in late 2017.

Having a larger capacity SSD will give you benefits each time you use the system in speed, responsiveness and longevity of the component in question. Almost all the ~250GB SSD's I had have been thrown into an external enclosure and are used as 'USB keys' now. And they're barely making the cut anymore (some of my finished projects are easily 4 times that size).

The extra capacity is not wasted. Use the 2TB Firecuda in an external enclosure instead (if need be). The $75 you spend today to double the capacity will be insignificant to the extended usage you will get from the drive over its lifecycle.

Don't forget you can expand the C:\ partition as needed to keep your system going in the future as you contemplate a new drive/platform. Doing this on the 240GB SSD will net you a whole ~73GB extra... while the 480GB option will give you almost the usable (OP'd) capacity of the 240GB SSD (~147GB) - assuming both were OP'd by 33% as I recommend/use.

You know your situation best and now you have additional data points that I hope are helpful.

Take care.