The BX200 is Crucials newest entry level SSD with slightly faster write speeds over the older BX100, according to Crucial. The BX200 starts at 240GB size but the BX100 can be had at a smaller 120GB size.
Those are Crucials claims, not mine. They claim 490 write speed for the BX200 vs 450 write speed for the BX100. The BX100 is the better SSD no doubt. Crucial certainly missed the mark with their newer drive.
But why Crucial did a worst SSD?The logical step were to improve the BX100,no?
The new NAND is cheaper to manufacture, and at some point the BX200 will (probably) sell for lower prices per GB than the BX100 ever could. Still, the BX200 seems like a mistake. Sacrificing a bit of performance for lower prices is arguably fine, but the BX200 is too big of a step backwards. Crucial should probably have waited for 3D NAND.
Yes but for around the same price the Samsung 850 EVO is better than any of the Crucial models so it doesn't really matter.
But the Samsung 850 EVO uses TLC, no?
Yes. 3D TLC, that is. 3D improves the durability and performance, negating the drawbacks of using TLC. It's an excellent SSD.
The BX200 uses planar (2D) TLC. Obviously that didn't work out so well.
Samsung's old 840 Evo also used planar TLC, and although its performance initially looked fine, it did end up suffering from performance degradation on older stored data.