Wait for Crucial C400 or buy a C300?

It seems like were putting 4k random performance up on a pedestal as the be all end all of everyday SSD performance, much like we did with CPU clock speed in the past. With all the millions of dollars Crucial, Intel, Marvell etc invest in R & D do people really think that they're going to take a step backwards at this stage of the game?

Take a look at the Anand review of the 510, http://www.anandtech.com/show/4202/t...d-510-review/4 which uses the same controller as the c400, and even though the firmware will be different, it still follows the same trend of lower random 4k, higher sequential. It shows the c300 is almost 3 times faster at random 4k write performance (49 mb/s vs 141 mb/s) and almost twice as fast in random read performance, (44 mb/s vs 79 mb/s) yet if you look at the real world "Light Workload" benchmark, the 510 bests the c300 in every benchmark (as well as the Heavy Workload benchmark.) Even the Vertex 3, which has a massive 212 mb/s random 4k write, and a sequential read/write performance advantage, is beaten by the 510 in several heavy and light benchmarks, so pure speed cant be the only factor to consider, obviously firmware plays an important role too.

Maybe 4k random alone is not as important as we thought it was, or we have reached the limits of what it can noticeably give us, as we have already seen massive improvements on 4k random since the first gen SSDs. Maybe it is a combination of different parameters, including firmware that give the best results and now we are starting to find the sweet spot.
Maybe random 4k performance after a certain speed just isnt noticable anymore (eg 50mb/s) For example, if a file is loaded in .02 seconds on one drive, and .01 seconds on a different drive, are you really going to notice which is faster, even though technically its twice as fast? No, your not. So why not put extra focus into areas that will improve performance where you WILL notice it, which is what i think Intel and Crucial are doing.

All im saying is that im sure the guys making these drives know their stuff alot better than we do, so we should'nt put all our eggs in the random 4k performance basket.
 
Maybe 4k random alone is not as important as we thought it was, or we have reached the limits of what it can noticeably give us, as we have already seen massive improvements on 4k random since the first gen SSDs.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's a fair comparison...the C300 uses 8GB nand while the 510 uses cheaper 16GB modules. The trend seems to be toward higher density and cheaper, not necessarily faster. Furthermore when comparing the Intel to the Vertex in "real-world" benchmarks, you have to keep in mind that the 510 has a huge RAM cache, while the Sandforce has virtually no RAM so it doesn't do corrupt writes when the power goes out.
 
Last edited:
Many folks have said that after a certain threshold, increases in random performance are not noticable.
It was exactly as you said -the piss poor initial random performance that was later addressed - that we did see a huge difference in. And yes, as it turns out, as long as your SSD(s) are at or over that "threshold" in random performance, gains in sequential are certainly noticable. Either that, or we truly are victims of "higher is better" marketing scams...
 
Last edited:
All good responses but why is the final score on the C300 higher than the C400?

It looks that the software creator of AS-SSD puts a higher value on some catagories that make the C300s total score higher than the newer C400.

I guess it all boils down to what's important to the user but this is the first time I've seen a "better" drive with a final ASSSD score lower than an older model.
 
If 4k random reads/writes is/was "the" benchmark for what most users would experience when using their shiny new SSDs (if you weren't using it for video editing/game level loading/moving large files) and the 'advanced' format HDDs are also using 4k blocks now- are 8k blocks more efficient than the 4k block sizes? It would seem to prove otherwise in tests on these new drives.

Also, if IOPS were such a big deal with the 'uncapped' SSDs from SandForce and now we have articles that state the average user would rarely see above 20K IOPS, are the companies marketing their drives that have the lower IOPS trying to justify these new lower performing drives with some other kind of hype?

Granted, these new drives are in their early stages and will probably get some FW upgrade to increase performance (maybe) but, architectually speaking, these drives seemed to be handcuffed by the NAND being used and the FW can only compensate so much.
 
So I fell into the SSD quicksand ....

C300 128GB, SATA III ports, Windows 7 (64bit), 8GB memory and AMD Phenom X4 3800.

Just as slow as

WD 1TB green, SATA II ports, Windows XP (32bit), 4GB memory, and AMD Athlon X2 4200.

---

When benchmarks cannot tell these two machines are indistinguishable, the benchmarks are worthless.

But for $600 I got a couple days of time experimenting with computers.
 
GeorgeHR said:
So I fell into the SSD quicksand ....

C300 128GB, SATA III ports, Windows 7 (64bit), 8GB memory and AMD Phenom X4 3800.

Just as slow as

WD 1TB green, SATA II ports, Windows XP (32bit), 4GB memory, and AMD Athlon X2 4200.

---

When benchmarks cannot tell these two machines are indistinguishable, the benchmarks are worthless.

But for $600 I got a couple days of time experimenting with computers.
Click to expand...

If you cannot tell a difference, you're doing something wrong, somewhere.
Use it for 2 weeks, then switch back to the spinner.

Also, you usage may be nothing like other's usage. In my usage, there is no spinner available that can do what my SSDs can.
 
Brahmzy said:
Also, you usage may be nothing like other's usage. In my usage, there is no spinner available that can do what my SSDs can.
Click to expand...

It's all about usage. In my experience the main benefit of a SSD has been the instantaneous access time and the speedy random reads. If those aren't being required for a use case, then it's very possible that the SSD upgrade will yield no benefits.
 
AS-SSD C400:





AS-SSD C300:




Just saying......a 128GB C300 is scoring better than a 256GB C400?
 
Last edited:
Burner27 said:
If 4k random reads/writes is/was "the" benchmark for what most users would experience when using their shiny new SSDs (if you weren't using it for video editing/game level loading/moving large files) and the 'advanced' format HDDs are also using 4k blocks now- are 8k blocks more efficient than the 4k block sizes? It would seem to prove otherwise in tests on these new drives.
Click to expand...

I was thinking something similar as well. I don't know much about the higher density NAND chips, but could it be that 4k is smaller than their fundamental read/write block size? If so you would have alignment issues similar to what happened with the migration from 512->4K disk sectors.
 
Old Hippie said:
All good responses but why is the final score on the C300 higher than the C400?
Click to expand...

AS-SSD does not equally weight the rows to compute the composite number. I read the criteria he used once, but I cannot remember the details. You can probably find it on the author's web site if you look around. I think that he places a lot of weight on the 4K-64 row, which is probably irrelevant to more than 90% of desktop power users.
 
Zipp said:
Can someone explain 4k-64 reads/writes? When are 4k-64 speeds important?
Click to expand...

Loading O/S, games, programs are an important reason for good random speeds. Definitely not the only time when it is important but for majority of users it is most noticeable.
 
Brahmzy said:
If you cannot tell a difference, you're doing something wrong, somewhere.
Use it for 2 weeks, then switch back to the spinner.

Also, you usage may be nothing like other's usage. In my usage, there is no spinner available that can do what my SSDs can.
Click to expand...

What could I be doing wrong? All the benchmarks that I have (the several hard drive ones that people post results from, several application ones that are typical office apps) show the SSD machine is much faster than the other.

Yet there is no significant difference in usage. Boot time (from turning the machine on until Windows is ready) is not enough different that is is worthy of note. Time to load applications is not measurably different. Time to load data for the programs is not measurably different.

Your usage may be different than mine but unless one is playing games against others the speed advantage of the fastest computers one can buy is really not that great.
 
It is not uncommon for me to have 30-40 windows of whatever open at a time, all day, all while dl'ing, copying etc. Again, no spinner can give the response/experience my SSDs give me. And actually, games is where I've never really noticed the difference, other than load times.
My machines show 4 dots on the W7 splash screen for a second that don't even form the MS flag before I'm at my desktop - my R0 Velociraptors wouldn't do that.
 
 
Well I got the Micron C400, so it's definitely available for those who want it. Got a good price too, $450 for the 256GB version.

Screen%20shot%202011-03-24%20at%202.57.41%20AM.jpg


And here's the Xbench results.

Xbench.jpg
 
Burner27 said:
It seems they're the only place that has them.
Click to expand...

Yeah it was weird...at first they said they didn't have them in stock. Then when I threatened to take my business elsewhere, the lady on the phone said she check for me. An hour later I got an email saying that she found a supply of them and the drive was on its way to me later that afternoon. Since they are local I got it the next morning.
 
Too bad they are out of 128GB drives. The 256GB does have a good price though.
 
Last edited:
Quite the opposite for me. The intel is usually at the bottom of the pack on these gen SATA3 SSDs.
 
SuperBiiz (the only retailer that supposedly has the drive for sale) has raised the price $5 for the 128GB C400 for drives that are currently 'out of stock'.


;)
 
Im about to pull teh trigger on the 256gb Micron C400 at SuperBiiz. I put in a question about either runnign dual 128gb in RAID 0 or 3 x 64gb in RAID 0 but got no response in the forum yet. Not sure if I should run the single drive for trim. I am still on SATA II and don't want to have to jump over to sandy bridge yet. No room for a card either! Maybe you guys can advise. Im getting 518/148 with my intel's in RAID 0 but they are G1 and getting old.
 
Copyright said:
Im about to pull teh trigger on the 256gb Micron C400 at SuperBiiz. I put in a question about either runnign dual 128gb in RAID 0 or 3 x 64gb in RAID 0 but got no response in the forum yet. Not sure if I should run the single drive for trim. I am still on SATA II and don't want to have to jump over to sandy bridge yet. No room for a card either! Maybe you guys can advise. Im getting 518/148 with my intel's in RAID 0 but they are G1 and getting old.
Click to expand...

Im in a similar situation, except im considering either dual 64gb's or one 128gb c400. Just waiting to see how well they scale in raid 0, and how said scaling equates to real world performance before i decide to give up trim or not.
 
Karndog said:
Im in a similar situation, except im considering either dual 64gb's or one 128gb c400. Just waiting to see how well they scale in raid 0, and how said scaling equates to real world performance before i decide to give up trim or not.
Click to expand...

I hear ya. I see guys say its hard to make a C300 slow down and I see some say they go to crap in RAID without having TRIM. Not sure who to believe.
 
Yep, ill probably wait to see some benchmarks from reputable sites before making my decision. Not having TRIM won't bother me as im already using a RAID 0 setup and my SSDs dont even have garbage collection so my performance does go to shit after a few months, meaning i have to do a backup, secure erase, set allocation size and restore once every month or so. It was a pain at first but now i can have the process done in about 10 minutes and im back to as new performance, so having TRIM isnt a big deal to me, as long as the gains are there to be had.
 
Copyright said:
Im about to pull teh trigger on the 256gb Micron C400 at SuperBiiz. I put in a question about either runnign dual 128gb in RAID 0 or 3 x 64gb in RAID 0 but got no response in the forum yet. Not sure if I should run the single drive for trim. I am still on SATA II and don't want to have to jump over to sandy bridge yet. No room for a card either! Maybe you guys can advise. Im getting 518/148 with my intel's in RAID 0 but they are G1 and getting old.
Click to expand...

Late yesterday somebody ordered a 256 C400 from SuperBiz and they told him they're out of stock, even though their site says they've got 'em, FYI. Supposedly they'll be available again mid-late next week. Might wanna pre-order if you really want one.
 
Im getting 518/148 with my intel's in RAID 0 but they are G1 and getting old.
Click to expand...

I've run that setup and dunno what to tell ya.

The 80GB Intel G1's vs G2's in RAID0 were too close to call for me but my single 256GB C300 wasn't the equal of the G2's in RAID0.

Pretty much splitting hairs and I have no experience with a C400.
 
before i decide to give up trim or not.
Click to expand...

I can speak from experience and tell you that garbage collection will almost equal TRIM in a RAID0 setup if you leave enough space on the SSD.
 
Old Hippie said:
I can speak from experience and tell you that garbage collection will almost equal TRIM in a RAID0 setup if you leave enough space on the SSD.
Click to expand...

Old Hippie, Ive spoken with you a few times on here and know you have ran many setups and helped others as well. With a SATA II setup like mine.. would you run RAID 0 128gb drives or a single 256gb? I value your input!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top