Wednesday, June 23rd 2010

Lexar Announces Crucial RealSSD C300 SATA 6 Gb/s 64GB SSD

Lexar Media, a leading global provider of memory products for digital media, today introduced a 64GB addition to the award-winning Crucial RealSSD C300 product line. The new 64GB RealSSD C300 drive, like its predecessors, natively supports SATA 6Gb/s, is backwards compatible with the SATA 3Gb/s interface, and provides scorching-fast read speeds of up to 355 MB/s and write speeds up to 75 MB/s. Competitively priced at US$149.99, the new 64GB C300 drive is available in a standard 2.5-inch form factor, and comes with a limited three-year warranty.

"The 64GB C300 drive is a natural extension of our award-winning Crucial RealSSD C300 product line. This aggressively priced 64GB C300 drive makes SSD technology more affordable than ever, delivers durability for mobile computing, and makes it a compelling boot drive for desktop PCs," said Robert Wheadon, Lexar Media senior worldwide SSD product manager.

The 64GB, 128GB, and 256GB Crucial RealSSD C300 drives are available through select resellers worldwide and online.

Key Features:
  • The 64GB Crucial RealSSD C300 supports high-speed SATA 6Gb/s interfaces, for optimum read/write performance
  • Competitively priced with other performance drives at US$149.99
  • Leverages Micron RealSSD product design and industry-leading NAND innovations
  • As with the 128GB and 256GB C300 capacities, the 64GB C300 is available in a 2.5-inch form factor
Add your own comment

17 Comments on Lexar Announces Crucial RealSSD C300 SATA 6 Gb/s 64GB SSD

#2
Easo
Read 355 MB/s, write 75 MB/s
Kinda doesnt go together... And such write realy sucks.
Posted on Reply
#3
araditus
by: Easo
Read 355 MB/s, write 75 MB/s
Kinda doesnt go together... And such write realy sucks.
You should probably do a bit of research on the controller this thing uses, this drive has more I/Os than most, other than the intel x-treem. In fact in my opinion for a user looking for the most responsive pc experience this is what I chose to run myself,I just got the 128gb versions however.
Posted on Reply
#4
RejZoR
Especially because writting is almost always sequential and fast HDD's with lots of cache can perform better than such SSD's. Fully random write pretty much only happens in benchmark tools.
Posted on Reply
#5
dir_d
Great OS drive you dont write that much to windows anywyas
Posted on Reply
#6
Yellow&Nerdy?
The price and read speeds are great. The write sucks though. But I guess it's not that important, because its main purpose is to be a boot-drive. A serious competitor to the SF-1200 SSDs.
Posted on Reply
#7
tw3akm@ster
Anyone has an idea how two of these would perform on RAID 0 on SATA 6Gb/s? eg. using 2x 64GB RAID 0. btarunr any ideas?
Posted on Reply
#8
araditus
by: Yellow&Nerdy?
The price and read speeds are great. The write sucks though. But I guess it's not that important, because its main purpose is to be a boot-drive. A serious competitor to the SF-1200 SSDs.
Upon some research you will find the I/Os on this drive are top notch and not only does it full the SATA II bandwidth its the only single drive out there that can read at speeds that require SATA III. Boot Drive only? Done right these drives are fine for apps as well, the only think I can see you not wanting to put on this hotrod are media files. As mentioned earlier the write doesnt really count only in benchmarks, when you install a program go check the right performance on your spin drive and see what you get, if tis over 25 mbs, ill be wow'd :)
Posted on Reply
#9
araditus
by: tw3akm@ster
Anyone has an idea how two of these would perform on RAID 0 on SATA 6Gb/s? eg. using 2x 64GB RAID 0. btarunr any ideas?
SSD's are known for being near linear in their raid performance unlike spin drives, so if you put two togehter expect about 1.8x the performance of a single drive in this case 600mb/s reads should be no problem.

However you must consider that most SSD drives are not TRIM or garbage collection capable in raid mode with windows 7 inherently, in which is the bane of most SSD performance, that you should consider as well. as over the course of 2 years they might become dreadfully slow.
Posted on Reply
#10
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
Yeah it is the IOPS on this thing. I love my WD Caviar Green 1.0TB, and it writes a program (install) fine and even plays videos fine. However, its the mini writes all day eberaday and twice on sunday that just kicks its ass. For my awesome system, it slows down (also the spin speed and cache as well hurts it). This is fine for boot and program. Loving the price too. Reads are freaking crazy.
Posted on Reply
#11
n-ster
impressive... you guys keep saying IOPS... how much is it? does it beat my Vertex 2 50gb? If so, I might hate myself lol
Posted on Reply
#12
Jor3llBR
by: n-ster
impressive... you guys keep saying IOPS... how much is it? does it beat my Vertex 2 50gb? If so, I might hate myself lol
50,000 read
15,000 write
Posted on Reply
#13
nemesis.ie
Does anyone know if using Windows 7 software RAID would keep the TRIM support? And of course, if the performance would be any good. :)

Maybe someone can try it?
Posted on Reply
#14
n-ster
FUCK !@#$#@#$

My vertex 2 has the same IOPS as this... only my write IOPS are 3x more :p Not like imana use writing that much though :(

I know intel has TRIM RAID support... idk about the rest
Posted on Reply
#15
araditus
by: n-ster
FUCK !@#$#@#$

My vertex 2 has the same IOPS as this... only my write IOPS are 3x more :p Not like imana use writing that much though :(

I know intel has TRIM RAID support... idk about the rest
Pics or it didnt happen, I havent found a site yet that this drive isnt top 2 in overall real world results. Fuck syntheic results.
Posted on Reply
#16
n-ster
idk, I just went on ocz's site and it says 50k IOPS in/out
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment