Discussion in 'Reviews' started by W1zzard, Oct 7, 2010.
To read this review go to: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Crucial/RealSSD_C300_128_GB/
hey, sweet, i might get one of these
btw would be sweet if you added CrystalDiskMark to your storage benchmark
I was already going to get the 256 GB version of this and I am glad to see my decision was well founded and worth it.
Hey W1zz, is there any plans to use an ATI/AMD SB850 board for any SSD benchmarking in the future?
Nice review W1zzard. Glad to see you didn't jump on the Sandforce bandwagon with their huge synthetic numbers like so many other reviewers did. I know I said it before but it's good to see actual real-world benchmarks as opposed to most places who use IOMeter as their synthetic benchmark and then pretend something like PCMark Vantage is a good real-world benchmark.
I picked one of these up about a month ago though so I may be a little biased. Nice to see the review of the 128GB though - most sites end up reviewing the 256 and the sequential writes are a lot higher on it so it's a little misleading.
no. i did think about it for this review but the majority of power users (those who buy ssds) will use an intel rig
I think there is a bottleneck maybe in the Sata 6 Gb/s controller or CPU, faster reads needs faster CPUs... but i don't know much about SSD but for me there is a bottleneck... you are benchmarking with a dual core...
Nah, Intel Core i5 661 addresses memory at 21333 MB/s, has a 2 GB/s chipset bus, and the SATA 6 Gb/s controller has 500 MB/s of bus bandwidth. No chance of a bottleneck (unless there's a SATA SSD rated with transfer rates of over 500 MB/s; which C300 isn't.
Separate names with a comma.