• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Crucial C300 SATA II(INTEL ICH10/R) vs SATA III (Marvel) performance difference?

P

psyside

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,243
I'm about to get an C300 128GB, and from few reviews/tests i read i noticed that the peformance of C300 especially
in the 4K blocks (the most important part, mostly Write) is alot better on the Intel controlers, then SATAIII (Marvel)

The only better side of SATA III is the sequential read which is quite useless generally.


Now in some of the reviews the difference was smaller, which made me think maybe firmware and some settings also come in play, confusing...

So in short, i would love to see someone who owns C300 to make few AS-SSD & CDM tests comparing SATA II and SATA III to kind of confirm this.

Thanks in advance!
 
You might try search function. This topic's been done a few times over.
 
Last edited:
Particularly, you would have lower performance when using RAID; the Marvell RAID drivers are not as good as Intels Windows RAID drivers. But for non-RAIDed SSDs i would suspect the Marvell be faster, even though it is kind of handicapped on a PCI-express 2.0 x1 (500MB/s) interface, this should get you faster performance than the Intel i would think. But it shouldn't differ all that much; make sure you use TRIM-compliant driver (check with AS SSD).
 
Last edited:
Here's my C300 256GB on an ICH10....

asssdbenchc300ctfddac25.png




and here's the same drive on an Asus U3S6 expansion card........

asus6gbcardasssdbenchc3.png



The expansion card uses an older Marvell chipset compared to the one on the Gigabyte MBs that have SATA6 ports. Seems Gigabyte is also updating the chipsets software/firmware and the performance has increased but the updates can only be applied to Gigabyte MBs integrated Marvell chipset.

I believe Gigabyte said NOT to use the SATA6 controller for RAID because there were too many problems with drives dropping from the array.

This card is pretty much junk and I only used it one day.......I shoulda listened to Burner27. :(
 
Last edited:
Let me get this straight..

Your saying that the scores LSDmeasap is getting (ICH10) are possible only on Gigabyte boards? or that apply only to Marvel controller? because hes 4K scores are alot higher then yours and almost from everyone i saw till now. Its amazing using the slower 120GB version of C300 vs 256GB he got such a higher scores. If thats the case i'm really lucky to have Gigabyte mobo :D And yes i talk about the Intel controllers ICH10/R let alone Marvel.
 
Last edited:
Your saying that the scores LSDmeasap is getting (ICH10) are possible only on Gigabyte boards?
Click to expand...

Correct, he's using the Marvell SATA6 controller but unfortunately Gigabyte doesn't recommend RAID arrays on the chipset so you're stuck with the Intel RAID unless you go to an expansion card.

Edit....Looks like I'm talking about Sin0822's set-up.
 
Last edited:
Dude, i'm talking about the ICH10 not Marvel :)

I will be using the ICH10R settings and i got Gigabayte mobo as well, does this mean that ill get also higher scores similar to LSDmeasap, comparing other users using ICH10/R?
 
No problem :)


So how do you explain then the 4Kwrite scores LSDmeasap is getting on hes C300 128 vs yours 256GB which should smoke the 128 i'm really confused here.... :S

Maybe tis the ICH10R setting Single SSD as non member? he said that also makes difference.

Here is from an hardforum user john4200.

Why are they higher then yours? i just don't get this performance differences, i also noticed it on other users as well what could it be?


http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1036509003&postcount=2

Yours,

asssdbenchc300ctfddac25.png





And here are LSDmeasap scores.



Single-ICH10RRAID-NonMember-For-Crucial-ForumL.jpg
 
Last edited:
psyside said:
No problem :)
So how do you explain then the 4Kwrite scores LSDmeasap is getting on hes C300 128 vs yours 256GB which should smoke the 128 i'm really confused here.... :S

Maybe tis the ICH10R setting Single SSD as non member? he said that also makes difference.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I have no explanation.

Maybe you'd better ask him?

Just for shits and giggles I'll try mine in RAID mode but off hand it just looks like he's got an exceptional drive.
 
Mine won't boot in RAID mode probably because I only have one HD in there.

I can't even get the Raid set-up screen.
 
psyside said:
No, its not the drive. I edited my post chek out john scores as well and here is another i just find on google save it for comparation with my incoming C300 go figure :S
Click to expand...

By the way, none of those are my benchmarks. I did the same thing as you, searched the web for AS-SSD benchmarks.
 
Ok then so something is not right on some C300 disks, or what? because screenshots/results we are seeing are really much better then others, regarding 4K performance.

Maybe its really only on Gigabyte mobos ("better" BIOS or something) i got no idea, really.
 
I think one important factor is whether the disk being benched is your system disk. There are usually background I/O tasks going on with a system disk, so that could cause lower benchmark scores. If you bench a non-system disk, then you may see higher scores.
 
That sounds reasonable but look at this scores, also higher with system disk.

attachment.php


Even with default WIN7 driver and 128GB vs 256, i'm really curios to find out what's behind this..

NOTE: This user also have Gigabyte mobo.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top