Hardware Crucial RealSSD C300 256GB SSD Review

The first SATA 6Gbps SSD we've tested and boy is it fast: 345MB/sec fast.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/storage/2010/07/07/crucial-realssd-c300-256gb-ssd-review/1

 

This is why i've always thought to hold off an SSd until SATA6 drives become available. Still far too expensive for me though and i'm sure will see faster coming along when the rest of the manufacturers convert their drives to SATA6.

 

No doubt. All sorts of rumours flying around about SandForce and Indilinx's SATA 6Gbps controllers, but it's unlikely we'll see them until Q4 at the earliest.

 

people looking at lower GB versions of these drives should bear in mind that write performance is directly linked to the capacity. so that the 64GB versions only acheive 75Mb/s write speeds, although the stellar read performance remains.

 

I do wonder when I will read one of these SSD reviews with actual consideration towards buying one. It seems like it will take years before they become affordable

 

whilst many of us do spend quite a pretty penny on hardware the majority of us still feel that these drives are too expensive i will be happy when i can pick up 60GB for anything below £90

although the corsair reactor is getting close

 

sorry but my time honestly isnt worth that much... also would you not get better performance by upgrading your memory to 20 gig?

 

I suspect we'll see a real shift in the market when Intel's new drives come out.

 

I have one of these and they are fantastic. I know they are expensive, but well worth it. I am afraid that I only have the 3 GB connection, so I can't at the moment take advantage of the 6 GB connection speed, but it is still as fast as hell.

When I first got it I update the firmware and made sure Windows 7 was using TRIM with it and away I went. Great drive, if you can afford it.

 

Why 7 for value when you clearly state its better value for money than its smaller counterparts. Its not as cheap as the corsair reactor for example but its damn fast!

 

128 GB RAM cache according to the subtitle on the picture. I want one!!

 

I bought this SSD a few months ago, really loving this review

 

How would this fare on an average on-board 3gbps port? Would it still be considerably faster than the others? I'm mostly interested in loading times. I'm using a Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3P, and the C300 is about the cheapest 256gb drive right now. Without the extra controller, that is. Would the 620 be worth it for loading times? (Booting, games, programs).

 

"the C300 the fastest drive we’ve ever used for loading games or applications." I'm curious, has Bit-Tech never reviewed a PCIe drive such as the OCZ Z-Drives? I'd be interested to see how quick load times would get with one of them to compare it to the fastest SATA SSD's.

Good review but I must say, using "While..." in the opening sentence for three consecutive conclusion paragraphs is just wrong. So, so wrong.

 

It looks like this is the first drive to really kick Intel's butt. Although it makes perfect sense that, in order to get maximum performance. you need SATA6, but what does SATA3 performance look like with this drive? Is it any faster than the Intel? Since most people still have SATA3 in their machines, testing should be done accordingly. I would really like to put this drive in my laptop, but if it is no faster on SATA3 than the Intel, the Intel is much cheaper...

 

Good grief! One of these costs more than a whole PC ...eg Bit-tech's own Affordable All-rounder. At these prices just what is the point of an ssd ...other than the dubious benefit of shading a couple of seconds of os load times?

 

Went with the 64GB C300 personally direct from crucial and quidco on top for 9% back

Great article though, made me go and order a Highpoint 620 as my board is sata II only.
the 64GB version has the same read speeds (350+MBps on sata3, 270Mbps~ on sata2) but limited to 75MBps~ writes.


not noticed huge gains on it so far but only installed on monday

 

SSD's aren't really that fast to begin with, relative to normal hard disks anyway. The Stalker chart demonstrating exactly what I mean. Waiting 20 seconds instead of 30 seconds is pretty much useless to me. I am still having to twiddle my thumbs either way, and even 20 seconds is a significant wait. An extra 10 seconds on top of that is barely even noticeable.

Where I think these current crop of SSD's are useful though, is just general windows usage. The computer boots faster, and if Windows is on it, pretty much everything you do within Windows, happens almost instantly. Whether that's loading your browser, loading up Paint, clicking the start menu, loading the control panel or windows explorer, etc.. So I think they are nice for that. I am looking forward to there being far more exciting gains in the distant future though. I want to see the 30 second load time on a F3 become 4 seconds on a SSD.

We are getting there though, bit by bit.

 

I want one now...

 

Only problem (apart from the obvious price) would be for those of us with side windows showing off our OCD tidied PC internals.

Having the card sticking over my graphics card with visable sata cables coming out of it would look ugly when everything else is tucked away with just the glowing liquid cooling on show.