![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
A Great friend to the HardForum with a great kid that he is trying to get a scholorship to continue his schooling. Please give hime a vote! Only 24 hours left! Thanks.
If you have an VOTE FOR KEENAN!
SSD Decisions
- Thread starter DeaconFrost
- Start date
Post 17 where you said it was bad advise to get whichever you think has the best post sales support & you tout the different firmware provided by crucial.
Kinda feels like it too. Being named john though I doubt this guy has the ASSets to be worth the trouble though.
No, read it again. I did not "tout" Crucial. I said it was different. Do you think at all before you post?
Do you Read.. Apparently not because you just quoted & reaffirmed exactly what I posted.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 11,610
Well, I'd like to thank bastage for putting worse in people's mouth and derailing my thread.
If you take a look at the wording in Post #17, as you linked...he says the Crucial drives would have different firmware, which translates to different performance. Different doesn't mean better. Different doesn't mean worse. It means the drives will be tested independently.
Why do you think motherboards update their firmware? Not only to fix bugs or compatibility issues...but they can often yield differing performance as well.
I appreciate a good debate, but not when one said makes too many ASSumptions (using your tactic from earlier) instead of sticking to what people actually say.
If you take a look at the wording in Post #17, as you linked...he says the Crucial drives would have different firmware, which translates to different performance. Different doesn't mean better. Different doesn't mean worse. It means the drives will be tested independently.
Why do you think motherboards update their firmware? Not only to fix bugs or compatibility issues...but they can often yield differing performance as well.
I appreciate a good debate, but not when one said makes too many ASSumptions (using your tactic from earlier) instead of sticking to what people actually say.
The assumption was drawn when he said it was "bad advice" to choose any of the 3. Through several post's he made it clear that he believed the c400 would be the superior product because it would ship with better firmware.
Especially after you said
One would think you would welcome the prospect of more updates & trouble free operation which was my whole point in the 1st place.
NightOps
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2004
- Messages
- 1,168
john4200 & bastage...take it offline please.
Unfortunately I cannot comment the different SSDs in the marketplace...but it appears that the Intel X25 and the Crucial C300 are top in reliability and offer solid performance. However, Sandforce-based SSDs appear to be operating faster - but there is obviously some trade-offs to be had when you push the speed envelope. Everyone is going to have their own opinion here. My $0.02 would be to go with the Crucial or Intel-based SSDs if you cannot afford to have this machine go down, or if you are not going to use an external drive for critical data.
Unfortunately I cannot comment the different SSDs in the marketplace...but it appears that the Intel X25 and the Crucial C300 are top in reliability and offer solid performance. However, Sandforce-based SSDs appear to be operating faster - but there is obviously some trade-offs to be had when you push the speed envelope. Everyone is going to have their own opinion here. My $0.02 would be to go with the Crucial or Intel-based SSDs if you cannot afford to have this machine go down, or if you are not going to use an external drive for critical data.
Wrong again, troll.
Comparing currently shipping Sandforce SSDs to currently shipping Crucial and Intel SSDs, it is incorrect to say that the Sandforce SSDs are faster (although I suppose the misleading statement that they "appear" faster may be justified, since Sandforce specs are inflated).