![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
64GB OS SSD
- Thread starter note235
- Start date
C300 has a higher random 4KB read speed as compared to the m4 (as compared to any SSD, actually, C300 is champ for random 4KB read speed).
I think that is what you meant, but it is not what you wrote!
And it is correct that the m4 has higher sequential speeds than the C300.
It is unlikely you will notice any difference in performance between the C300 and the m4 in normal usage -- the differences being discussed in this thread are mostly only apparent if you run benchmark programs like AS-SSD.
I'd go with whichever one is less expensive.
I'd go with whichever one is less expensive.
The C300 has been around a year longer than the m4, so I'd give it a slight edge in projected reliability, but that is just a guess.
I think the C300 / m4 is the best choice for a 64GB SSD. Whichever is second is far enough behind that I would not even consider it. Once you get up into the 80GB size, the Intel 320 becomes my top choice for most people.
I think the C300 / m4 is the best choice for a 64GB SSD. Whichever is second is far enough behind that I would not even consider it. Once you get up into the 80GB size, the Intel 320 becomes my top choice for most people.
C300 has a higher random 4KB read speed as compared to the m4 (as compared to any SSD, actually, C300 is champ for random 4KB read speed).
I think that is what you meant, but it is not what you wrote!
shit you're right. I said it backwards. I always think lower latency when I think about 4k read.