Crucial C300 256GB SATA III $489

I just picked up one of these from the [H] F/S/T forum to replace my Intel G2 160gb. Will be installing it in the next day or two (waiting on SB 2600k and a good SB mobo). Will let you know how it compares.
 
i have the 128GB version it rocks compared to my old 7200rpm drives.

I paid $335 Egg price 6 months ago for it :(
 
Holy hell, what's wrong with it? Seriously, what's the catch? Isn't that size of SSD usually $600+?

EDIT: So yeah it is regularly listed at $569.99. Damn that's a good deal.
 
All the reviews I've read of this thing say its top notch.
You have to use Sata III 6gbps to get the most from it however.

I think this is the SSD that the G3 Intels will try to compete against.
 
Great deal for anyone looking for an OS+Games SSD. Still to rich more blood.
 
Jon55 said:
Is the difference that significant? Honest question, not trying to downplay it.
Click to expand...

I haven't heard anything, but I would speculate approximately double their current speeds. I figure the SF-2000 drives are supposed to be double the SF-1200, and it's doubtful Crucial would release anything significantly slower than their competitors.
 
Crispy002 said:
I haven't heard anything, but I would speculate approximately double their current speeds. I figure the SF-2000 drives are supposed to be double the SF-1200, and it's doubtful Crucial would release anything significantly slower than their competitors.
Click to expand...

The C400 will have A 20% or so speed increase...so not amazing, but I'm sure they'll have better architecture, more stable, etc. Now I'm seeing they could be out in Feb, with the 256Gb at $425!! Damn....what to do....?
 
If you guys have to have one now; get one. If you can wait, then wait. According to reviewers; its recommended to wait till march to see how the new sandforce drives really do. I think the sandforce drives are not tru #'s as the crucial and corsair drives are.

Sandforce is expected out sometime in March. I am waiting for C400, intel G3.
I honestly do not think you will see a big difference in performance if any from the new drives. #'s don't mean a whole lot, real world performance does and typically does not match performance #'s
 
I use a single 64gb C300 at work, it's benches higher than the 2x80gb Intel G2 RAID 0 setup I have at home.
 
I think the main attraction of G3 SSDs is smaller NAND which should mean cheaper prices. I'm waiting for a good 160GB drive for less than $200 new, hopefully I'll see that with the new drives.

Of course they also should have throughput improvements, which IMO doesn't matter too much anymore compared to the main advantage an SSD brings, access time. Throughput may be 3-5x faster than a regular hard drive but access times are 100s to 1000s of times faster.
 
repoman0 said:
I think the main attraction of G3 SSDs is smaller NAND which should mean cheaper prices. I'm waiting for a good 160GB drive for less than $200 new, hopefully I'll see that with the new drives.

Of course they also should have throughput improvements, which IMO doesn't matter too much anymore compared to the main advantage an SSD brings, access time. Throughput may be 3-5x faster than a regular hard drive but access times are 100s to 1000s of times faster.
Click to expand...

This, 1000000x. Virtually no one seems to grasp these concepts... even my old 90mb/s-110mb/s transfer rate, 64GB, non-TRIM, SLC 1.8" SSD ran rings around even the best HDD's and still would (I sold it awhile back). The access times and IOPS are what make the huge difference, and SSD transfer rates typically beat out the best HDD's by quite a bit nowadays. It's not a matter of whether they're better (some people try to argue an HDD is faster that I have talked to lately), it's a matter of cost.
 
stainremover said:
the c400s are supposedly the same controller with newer firmware and smaller memory. supposedly it will be much better, but i don't believe there will be that much of an improvement based just from firmware. AT article for reference so you can form your own opinions:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4086/microns-realssd-c400-uses-25nm-nand-at-161gb-offers-415mbs-reads
Click to expand...

If the new models were going to be pricey I'd buy now but apparently they're even cheaper ($425 MSRP for 256gb) so may hold off and hope they arrive in Feb.
 
$30-$40 cheaper than its been for the past couple months is not hot. Especially when the new ones are right around the corner.
 
I've had 9 SSDs (GSkill, Intel G1 & Gs, Vertex2s, Crucial) and the C300 256GB unit is by far the best single drive I've used.
 
mattchapman said:
That's good to hear. I presume you were using the C300 on SATA III ?
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter.

This drive is great on SATA 3GB/s (SATAII) and I've used an Asus U3S6 SATA 6GB/s expansion card which killed the drive performance.

I just purchased a LSI 9240-4i 6GB/s card and although the seq. reads increased from my ICH10 ports other specs decreased.

It boiled down to a wash in the overall AS-SSD score (607 either way) but the card will shine when I get another for RAID0.

The C300 256GB is the best drive I've used on a SATA3GB/s chipset.
 
Ultima99 said:
The size is getting there, now lets see some price drops.
Click to expand...

Tell ya the truth.....I'd be and was, more than happy with an 80GB OS drive but the larger drives have the best performance.

I don't want or need a 256GB OS drive and unless you have a ton of programs I don't see the need at all.
 
Old Hippie said:
Tell ya the truth.....I'd be and was, more than happy with an 80GB OS drive but the larger drives have the best performance.

I don't want or need a 256GB OS drive and unless you have a ton of programs I don't see the need at all.
Click to expand...

Yeah I could easily be happy with 128GB, but I think the price per GB still needs to drop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top