Have an SSD narrowed down..need final input

J

jnick

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 25, 2004
Messages
2,888
I'm looking to grab an SSD this month. I'm looking to replace my 74GB raptor. I'm looking in the 120GB range.

I've narrowed it down to G.Skill SSDs and the Crucial C300. I'm open to suggestions on which I should get. I understand the Crucial is supposedly insanely fast on SATA III and therefor may be worth the extra $50ish. However, I'm open to suggestions.

In regards to the G.Skill, there is the SNIPER gaming model and the Phoenix Professional series...which is better?

I also hear a lot of good things about the OCZ Vertex 2, but I hear their support is non-existent should problems arise. With that said, I have crossed this one off my list.

Any suggestions are appreciated!

Thanks!
 
Even on a SATA 3 Gbps interface, the C300 will be faster on reads than a Sandforce-based SSD like the G.SKill Phoenix Pro.

AS-SSD 128GB C300 on SATA 3 Gbps:
2jaat6f.jpg


AS-SSD G.Skill 120GB Phoenix Pro:
120G-asssd.jpg


If you want top performance, go with the C300. You might also want to consider the 120GB Intel X25-M. It is not as fast as the C300 (although it holds its own), but it may be more dependable.
 
Oh john, why not recommend an OCZ SSD, I know they are your favorite. ;)

Yes, I agree with the Intel X25-M, those have been rock solid so far and are great for an OS.
 
The only ssd I have had zeros problems with is my Kingston drive, I believe it uses a toshiba controller. The Intel drive I have doesn't like amd ahci drivers but it has fared better than the gskill drives I had that died in about a week, 2 of them. I had an ocz vertex le which was super slow also. Personally I would recommend this for the least amount of problems kingston>=intel>>>>>sandforce drive.
 
The Intel, while it gets good reviews, isn't nearly half the performance speed compared to the C300? And on top of that from my experience Crucial does have good customer service and typically makes quality products..?
 
The real world difference is minimal at best, unless you are constantly copying large amounts of files around.
 
jnick said:
The Intel, while it gets good reviews, isn't nearly half the performance speed compared to the C300?
Click to expand...

Where are you getting that?

For comparison, here is AS-SSD for the 160GB Intel X25-M. The 120GB model is new and I did not find any AS-SSD benchmarks yet, but the 120GB should perform close to the 160GB model.

AS-SSD 160GB Intel X25-M:
2mcp6g.jpg
 
I'm in the same boat as OP, but after doing some extensive reading thorough reviews and forums, the Crucial drive looks like the best to get for home users since Sandforce drives are extremely sensitive to what kind of data you're messing with while the Crucial is consistent. The fact that is supports SATA 6 makes it even more attractive, since I'll end up with more performance once I buy a Bulldozer system when released. The random write performance should be a huge step up from my Torqx, which is it's main weakness.
 
Thanks for clarification. Based on the research, it appears that the Intel drive is the one to go for. It's reliable, fast and seems affordable to me!

Thanks for the clarification!
 
This Crucial C300 256GB drive is the best SSD (out of 9) that I've had so far.

Nice all-around drive. ;)
 
Hmm...I have just heard today that SSDs (in general) while fast, are unreliable and tend to fail "easily". This is from two sales engineers for a product we use at my job. They claim that OSes are not engineered to run off of SSDs and therefore the thrashing of read and writes kills drives MUCH faster.

At the same time, all of the reviews I've read on crucial and gskill, I do see people complaining about the drive dying after 3 weeks, etc where as I have not seen this on the X-25.

I'll be using this as my OS drive. In that case, it will also be running my games and my apps (Photoshop, Lightroom, etc).

Would you still choose the C300 over the X-25M?
 
Hmm...I have just heard today that SSDs (in general) while fast, are unreliable and tend to fail "easily". This is from two sales engineers for a product we use at my job. They claim that OSes are not engineered to run off of SSDs and therefore the thrashing of read and writes kills drives MUCH faster.
Click to expand...
Ahhhhhh OK.

If I were you, I'd wait awhile.

You don't want to have this new-fangled stuff to die on you, do ya?

Go with whatever those expert sales engineers recommened.
 
jnick said:
Hmm...I have just heard today that SSDs (in general) while fast, are unreliable and tend to fail "easily". This is from two sales engineers for a product we use at my job. They claim that OSes are not engineered to run off of SSDs and therefore the thrashing of read and writes kills drives MUCH faster.

At the same time, all of the reviews I've read on crucial and gskill, I do see people complaining about the drive dying after 3 weeks, etc where as I have not seen this on the X-25.

I'll be using this as my OS drive. In that case, it will also be running my games and my apps (Photoshop, Lightroom, etc).

Would you still choose the C300 over the X-25M?
Click to expand...

You listen to the advice of a sales engineer?
Are any of them real "engineers"?
 
Old Hippie said:
Ahhhhhh OK.

If I were you, I'd wait awhile.

You don't want to have this new-fangled stuff to die on you, do ya?

Go with whatever those expert sales engineers recommened.
Click to expand...

I wasn't ignoring your advice, I was more-so asking if their points were valid. I apologize if I worded it wrong. No need to take it personally...

vraa said:
You listen to the advice of a sales engineer?
Are any of them real "engineers"?
Click to expand...

Don't believe they are "true" engineers. Again, it came up in conversation about new technologies and since I do not know much about SSDs other than "They're fast", I was looking for clarification.
 
No one takes anything personally, have a whiskey

I think there is only 2 major disadvantages of SSD right now
1) Cost
2) Lack of GBs (indirectly related to cost)
 
jnick said:
Don't believe they are "true" engineers. Again, it came up in conversation about new technologies and since I do not know much about SSDs other than "They're fast", I was looking for clarification.
Click to expand...

Pure FUD from them 'engineers'.
 
I was more-so asking if their points were valid. I apologize if I worded it wrong. No need to take it personally...
Click to expand...
I wasn't taking it personally.

You have over 6yrs in this forum, have been looking to replace your Raptor for @ 10months and I'm sure you've read enough to realize the validity of those statements yourself. :)

My opinion is that the Crucial C300 256GB is the best SSD I've ever used.
 
I have been using a Kingston SSD (even without trim) for about a year now and it has not failed on me. The R/W speeds did not degrade that much considering it doesn't even have TRIM.
 
The problem with the C300 is if you use it on a Marvell controller, their speed (for random I/O) etc can be very poor compared to the Intel chipset (obviously 6Gbps streaming will be faster) but for real workloads it may not be the right choice.
 
Does the C300 come with any type of "toolbox" for optimization, similar to Intel's? Or is this not needed on Crucial's drive when paired with W7.
 
Does the C300 come with any type of "toolbox" for optimization, similar to Intel's?
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of any such thing.

If you find one please post it. :)
 
Thanks for the reply...will do! Is one of those "toll boxes" really needed for smooth operation, or is it more so a marketing strategy on Intel's part? Just curious :p
 
I have 2 x 80GB Intel SSDs running in RAID 0 for my OS because, well, I can......... and it is very fast.

I have a 120GB Intel SSD that I bought because I couldn't get a decent price on a C300 128GB at the time. The $165 deal during BF was too tempting to pass up for one of these babies.........

I have also owned 2 x Mushkin Callistos (SF based drives) and I had them running singly and in a RAID 0 setup. By far the Intel drives were 'snappier' than the SF based drives. Benchmarks--shmenchmarks---it's all about how you perceive it when you use it. Old Hippie taught me that. And it's true.

I would still like to get my hands on a C300 or even the C400 when Crucial releases it next year. But for now, I can say that I have had no issues using the Intels as my OS drives.

Intel RAID 0 ATTO benchmark--again, benchmark, shmenchmarks
 
Last edited:
I noticed there are two models of the C300 in 128GB flavor. A 1G1 and a 1G1CCA. I looked the specs over multiple times. I can't find a difference other than the 1G1CCA comes with a SATA-USB cable, yet it's cheaper that the 1G1. Anything I need to know between the two?

Thanks!
 
The USB adapter is the only difference. The CCA one is normally more expensive. I guess newegg just has a crazy discount at the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top