The Crucial C300 uses 34NM NAND and is SATA3.0 too. Terbinator has one:Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
http://forums.hexus.net/members/terbinator.html
Printable View
The Crucial C300 uses 34NM NAND and is SATA3.0 too. Terbinator has one:Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
http://forums.hexus.net/members/terbinator.html
I think some of the vertex 2 and vertex 2SE are 34nm, but some are also 25nm. They are supposed to be telling you which is which, so ask before you buy if in doubt.
If you see dots under an acronym then hover your mouse over it and Hexus will reveal all LOL :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
And there's me wondering what technical acronym it was. I thuoght it sounded weird that an SSD controller should selectively reset all MSN, F***book and similar internet relay chat. That would be some bug!Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
never realised that - thanks :) (Works even with no dots, or at least my screen's not showing any)Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
After looking at Hexus' PC Mark Vantage benchmarks, I am going to stick with the Corsair Force 3.
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=31209&page=7
The Crucial M4 looks to be the best value. But the Force 3 is not far behind. It certainly not terrible. And it shown as being better than the Vertex 3 in pretty much everything. The Vertex 3 uses the Synchronous flash too (AFAIK), so if the Force 3 can do better without that it can't be too bad.
As the cheapest of Sata 3 drives, I think it is reasonable.
why avoid the 25nm ones? and what examples of cheapish SSDs in the 60gb-100gb approx range are good for sata2 laptops?Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
Wondering about the OCZ SOLID 3
http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-sol...i-2-5-ssd.html
It uses much slower asynchronous NAND than the Agility 3. Writes are in some cases around 30% to 40% slower than the equivalent Agility 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brewster0101
With an incompressible data the Force 3 is massively slower than a Vertex 3. The whole point of synchronous NAND is that is faster which such data. These are things like music,videos and images which cannot be compressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheva
On top of this look at this article again which looks at the SF2281 with the two NAND types:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/...asynchronous/4
http://www.hardocp.com/images/articl...fhgN4o_4_1.png
50% Full Tests
http://www.hardocp.com/images/articl...fhgN4o_4_2.png
http://www.hardocp.com/images/articl...fhgN4o_4_3.png
http://www.hardocp.com/images/articl...fhgN4o_4_4.png
http://www.hardocp.com/images/articl...fhgN4o_4_5.png
http://www.hardocp.com/images/articl...fhgN4o_4_6.png
http://www.hardocp.com/images/articl...fhgN4o_4_7.png
I'm not really going to have any incompressible data on there. It will just be the OS and some software.
I am getting tempted by the Crucial M4.
However, I looked on anandtech, and whilst the M4 does generally come out better it is also lower than the Force 3 on some benchmarks.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/400?vs=355
What do you think?
If it was the Force 3 GT at arond the same price or the Vertex 3 then you have the best of both worlds. However,the HardOCP article show why asynchronous NAND is cheaper even in normal usage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheva
There is this Adata SandForce SF2281 drive which I think uses synchronous NAND:
http://www.scan.co.uk/products/120gb...s-sata-iii-ssd
However,it has 8GB less capacity than the M4 and costs a bit more. I have not seen any comparisons of the 120GB versions of the drive with other similar drives. Also,I don't know how good Adata support is either.
Both neonplanet40 and Blackmage have had the 128GB Crucial M4 for a few months now. Perhaps it might be worth asking them to see how they rate the drives with real world usage.
Edit!!
It seems some of the SSDs are on offer this weekend:
http://www.scan.co.uk/todayonly/inde..._icmp=AkaIX3H4
As it's been my first SSD I can't really compare it to another in terms of speed but I've yet to have a problem with mine. I've had mine for around 3 months now, the booting of operating system is very fast and general OS usage. No stuttering, handles incompressible data without slowdowns (Important); overall I'm very happy. Write speeds aren't as important as read, so this has you covered.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
I'm glad I went for this rather than the Sandforce or Intel drives as they seem to be problems with firmware etc (Some issues have been sorted now). The crucial M4 SSD is like a tin of beans, it is what it claims to be, no surprises; Just a reliable SSD and value for money.
I just tested the drive with AS SSD, to see if it has suffered a degraded in speed.
These are the numbers, when I first got the drive.
Sequential Write: 416 MB/s Sequential Read: 186 MB/s
4k Write: 22.86 MB/s 4k Read: 53.62 MB/s
4k 64Thrd Write: 216.41 MB/s 4k 64Thrd Read: 143.86 MB/s
Today
Sequential Write: 419 MB/s Sequential Read: 184.60 MB/s
4k Write: 24.82 MB/s 4k Read: 65.95 MB/s
4k 64Thrd Write: 221.41 MB/s 4k 64Thrd Read: 139.79 MB/s
So the trim/garbage collection function is working excellent, hope this helps you.
Just seen this thread - get the Crucial M4 :) I ahve the 128GB version and wouldnt go back - it is extremely fast and ive had 0 problems with it :)
25nm NAND wears out quicker than 34nm. The result is the overprovisioning requirements of these drives has to be increased meaning that the actual usable drive space is less. Also 34nm NAND gives faster performance too, but I can't remember the precise reason for this. Someone else will fill you in I'm sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by uni
The prices listed aren't the ones I get...? It says on the Today Only page the Crucial M4 is £152.39. But when I click the link it comes up as £156.98Any ideas why?Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Edit: Never mind. Seems the Today Only prices dont always reflect the real price.