Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Sifter3000, 7 Jul 2010.
Way too expensive for a drive, they will come down but god knows when.
You would see no benefit from having 20GB of RAM unless you are doing ridiculous amounts of multitasking/rendering.
Until you have used a PC with a SSD it's hard to explain the difference, but once you have used one there is no going back.
I agree with this last post 100%.
Took the SSD route in Dec... and never going back!!
Also glad I picked up the 160GB G2 over the 120GB vertex.
Probably I will put my hand in one of those SSD at the end of this year
Im thinking the same to be honest
i have always maintained £1-£2 per at 60GB would be when i genuinely consider them and i think by my Bday we will be near that point
Basically this is over rated for most people out there. It's being talked about like the gods descended from the heavens and had sewn every lead with gold. For the price it's at, It's Crap! You'd think it would be like twice as fast as other SSD's. Or perhaps maybe 60% faster on most tests or something. But in reality it will score only modestly higher than most SSD's in real world usage. Unless you only transfer huge 100GB files at a time will it really matter to save a few seconds, and then it would soon fill up anyway. It's nice, but there are new SSD's emerging right now that are close to about 70% of it's read speed in sequential, and cost less than 1/2 as much. And the other scores are much closer. But I get it, sequential is what it does best, because all the other scores are just not that great. But I'm just not blown away for that kind of money. Also, you could raid two cheaper SSD's and it would still cost less, and it would blow this away. Finally the 6Gbps is great for future SSD, but this drive is barely using that really, if at all. Think about it. it's true, not to mention only a hand full of people have the 6gps MB. It is an enthusiast, high end SSD that will net the owners a small increase in speed on normal every day applications which is fine if they don't mind a big price and small increase. And only if they love copying big files will there be perhaps a 30% improvement over much cheaper SSD's. And watch and see. In the next 6 months the cheaper SSD's will start pouring out. To start with PNY just came out with a 128GB, 2 weeks ago that has 240 MB/sec sequential read speeds. From $351 it just fell to $225. Not as good as the 300, but not shabby, and definitely reasonable.
Laptop + good RAM + Quad core + SSD + docking station (for dual / triple if possible) monitors = beast of a workstation for IT folks..
SSD / quad / RAM being key points for us when we have lots of VMs open at once. My current laptop can handle 3 + main OS reasonably well (with 2 VMS running from a external HDD via USB2, which surprisingly doesn't stall at all)
if your building a dream rig it's still affordable
put one of those in pete and bumrush's rigs
I could not resist.I ordered the Crucial C300 256gb.A littlw worried about my mobo supporting the speed though.I have the Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R board.Will try it on a sata 6gb port and hope i get good results.
Might be single when my MRS finds out about it though.
Just tell her "but look how fast my porn loads!"
She'll love you more.
Not sure she will really appreciate that to be honest
What's wrong with Random 4 Ko performance ?
I had read another C300 bench on Anandtech before yours and i don't understand the difference between the results.
* Both of you check Random Read/Write with IOMeter set to 4 Ko files and Queue Depth=3.
Anand Lal Shimpi does a 3 minutes test (bit-tech : 3X2 minutes) over an 8 GB space (bit-tech : 4 GB) but i don't think it matters that much.
* You both use Win 7 x64
* You are both on X58 (ICH10R + Marvell chip) and have the latest firmware available for the C300.
Again, there are small differences between CPU, RAM and GPU but I doubt it can explain that :
You find very similar results with the X25-M 160 Go :
bit-tech (Read=58 MB/s Write=51 MB/s) vs Anand (Read=58.1 MB/s Write=46 MB/s)
But with the C300 256 Go (6 Gbps), the results greatly differ :
bit-tech (Read=53 MB/s Write=72 MB/s) vs Anand (Read=83.1 MB/s Write=128 MB/s)
That's more than 50 % difference
There could be a software explanation : you installed Stock Windows AHCI driver (msahci.sys) instead of Anand's (Intel 126.96.36.1995 + Intel IMSM 8.9).
I wonder if drivers can cause such a performance change...
But that can still be an hardware problem. A well hidden one !
On Crucial's Forum, one can read that changing the SATA cable can have dramatic influence (the eighth post of this topic).
Although a special "SATA 6 Gbps" cable is not mandatory, the increased bandwidth of the new SATA become sensible to cable quality !
So, have you got any idea about this ?
PS : sorry about being so long and have pity for my English, I'm french.
You know, from the country that can't play football
What's the deal with having to use a HighPoint SATA 6Gb SATA card for the test - the Gigabyte motherboard you used for the test has a 6Gb SATA interface. Is the motherboard's 6Gb SATA slow?
Why not just use Gigabyte P55-UD series board they got SATA 6 Gbps Support already preinstalled. Just curious if its any good as Gigabyte claims to be...
It's the same as any Marvell chipset on a motherboard - the performance is just not that good. We're preparing a full 6Gbps review soon.
Separate names with a comma.