Go Back   Hardware Canucks > HARDWARE > Storage

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old April 19, 2011, 12:58 PM
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 46
Default

[M] SSD Roundup Fall 2010

review on all the drives, overall the C300 is a "great" drive.

C300's have GC as well.

Come now, i don't make bad suggestions.
__________________
Heat
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old April 19, 2011, 03:21 PM
Rookie
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 29
Default

K, I'm gonna go through that review and this one:
Crucial RealSSD C300 128 GB SATA 6 Gb/s Review - Page 1/13 | techPowerUp

To see if the C300 is what I want.

Any idea if typical onboard raid controllers are up to the task of Raid 0ing two SSDs?

Will two 50-64GB SSDs in Raid 0 really get a significant increase in performance over a single?

I guess that's likely in the case of the C300, cuz the 128gb C300 has read speeds past Sata 2 limits, so with 2 in raid I would actually be capable of getting higher than 300MB/s read speeds but I can't on a single Sata 2 lane.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old April 19, 2011, 03:43 PM
AkG's Avatar
AkG AkG is offline
Hardware Canucks Reviewer
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,327
Default

The thing to remember with the C300 is the 64 DOES NOT get the same level of performance as the 128GB model.

Even setting aside the RAID 0 and TRIM factor....you would be better off getting one 128GB now and adding in a second one later than getting two 64s now. Try one and IF you need the added speed...get a second. But be prepared to be underwhelmed by the real world performance difference in most scenarios.

IMHO until you get into the 4+ SSDs in RAID 0 range its just not worth it. Hell, even then unless you really, really are a benchmark junky I doubt most peeps would notice a big improvement over a single SSD.

YMMV
__________________
"If you ever start taking things too seriously, just remember that we are talking monkeys on an organic spaceship flying through the universe." -JR

“if your opponent has a conscience, then follow Gandhi. But if you enemy has no conscience, like Hitler, then follow Bonhoeffer.” - Dr. MLK jr
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old April 19, 2011, 03:58 PM
Rookie
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 29
Default

No, I don't care about benchmark. I just want windows to boot faster, programs to load faster, that sort of thing.

I seriously doubt I'll get a second 128GB anytime soon. I won't need more space for a very long time for my OS/App drive.

So, if Raid 0 on two 64GB isn't going to give me a noticeable improvement over a single 128GB, then I might as well get a single 128GB. HOWEVER, keep in mind that I'm stuck on Sata 2 and won't be upgrading my mobo anytime soon. So a 128GB C300 is going to be limited down to more like 285MB/s reads instead of 350MB/s.

Would it not be possible to get more than 400MB/s read speeds on two 64GBs?
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old April 19, 2011, 04:20 PM
AkG's Avatar
AkG AkG is offline
Hardware Canucks Reviewer
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,327
Default

The seq speed is a terrible way to pick your SSD. Look at the 4k r/w speeds. yes it will take a hit on Sata 2....BUT both the 64 and 128 will take the "same" percentage hit.
__________________
"If you ever start taking things too seriously, just remember that we are talking monkeys on an organic spaceship flying through the universe." -JR

“if your opponent has a conscience, then follow Gandhi. But if you enemy has no conscience, like Hitler, then follow Bonhoeffer.” - Dr. MLK jr
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old April 19, 2011, 04:41 PM
Rookie
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 29
Default

Yes I know how important random 4k r/w speeds are and since Indilinx we've got good enough speed on that. SF dramatically increased all the speeds over indilinx. C300 totally loses against SF with random, small writes but it still beats Indilinx (I think) but it's got better reads.

My theory is that with good enough random 4k r/w you're not going to notice any operations being slower/faster going from indilinx to anything else. But it would be nice if windows and apps loaded a couple seconds faster.

But, all that said, I'm thinking I'll just get the Vertex 2 120GB, if Raid 0 isn't going to give me much of a gain. I'll RMA the V2 to get a 16 chip solution. There are just too many benchmarks where the V2 beats the C300.

I could be wrong and maybe it doesn't matter that the C300 loses those tests, but I'm too tired and have spent far too much time trying to make this decision.

I'm rather annoyed at how hard this has been. It was such an easy decision to get the Agility back when I did.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old April 19, 2011, 04:51 PM
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,496

My System Specs

Default

The C300 is faster in performance in real-world OS usage and app loading, but if you'll be running benchmarks all day, then the Vertex 2 is definitely for you. Having said that, the real-world difference between the two will be less than if you were running on Sata 3.
__________________
For my part I know nothing with any certainty, but the sight of the stars makes me dream.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old April 19, 2011, 04:57 PM
Rookie
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 29
Default

Exactly. Since I'm stuck on Sata 2 there is little point in me getting the C300.

C300 128GB: $220
V2 120G: $165

I think I've got my choice; V2. As long as OCZ RMAs it for 16 chip then I'll be happy :)
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Decide for me! automatic Display Units 0 August 11, 2010 07:28 PM
Can't decide martin_metal_88 Air Cooling 1 February 28, 2010 12:20 PM
help me decide bcguy Audio 5 July 14, 2009 10:32 PM
Can't Decide bumfloss Video Cards 10 April 30, 2009 04:49 AM
Help me decide thanks trayton CPU's and Motherboards 2 March 15, 2009 09:51 AM