• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bit the bullet on Corsair Performance 3 128GB

B

bargetrav

Banned
Figured I didn't want to be changing SSD's for a long time, so I just went ahead and did it. Have a 128GB drive due in tomorrow.


Now my real question is, I have a Gigabyte P55a-UD3 board which has the solid Intel ICH10 Sata 2 controller as well as the questionable Marvell 9128 Sata III controller.

I know you can't use the Marvell for RAID, however I should still use it for this new SSD correct? I couldn't find any numbers on the internet performance wise for this controller for just a single SSD, everyone seems to of been focused on RAID, which I care less about.

The fact that this drive can pump out reads in excess of 400mb/s I really want to use the Marvell chip, but am worried it will just suck and depress me.


I'll be happy to post my review of this drive as well as any benchmarks requested!
 
you ever wonder who does the micron (crucial) controller? given the 49/51 split tech share with intel - micron has access to intel and vice versa. makes you go hmmm 🙂
 
Well results were as the few others have achieved, poor random 4k read/write but drive performs as advertised in all other arenas.

What the hell could be causing this? Honestly it feels extremely fast, what situations would 4k random read/writes be more noticeable?



I am using it on a Marvell 9128 Sata III controller.


Would it be possible to test it on my Intel ICH10 Sata 2 controller just plugging it in to the different SATA port?
 
What would be considered "poor" performance? I ran the AS benchmark against mine and found that mine was 15x-20x faster that my RAIDed spindle drives on 4K random reads and writes, and an average of 30% faster in sequential reads/writes. (Jeez, I turned off the test on my RAID set when I discovered that it was running 0.6 MB/s in 4K random reads. Woulda taken all night. So it's all relative. Clearly your SSD is also a huge throughput upgrade in all cases.

You could try running it on the SATA-2 controller, but it might wipe your drive. Not sure. I will say that I moved my RAID set from the Intel SATA-2 to the Intel SATA-3 ports without any issues whatever.
 
Dadofamunky said:
What would be considered "poor" performance? I ran the AS benchmark against mine and found that mine was 15x-20x faster that my RAIDed spindle drives on 4K random reads and writes, and an average of 30% faster in sequential reads/writes. (Jeez, I turned off the test on my RAID set when I discovered that it was running 0.6 MB/s in 4K random reads. Woulda taken all night. So it's all relative. Clearly your SSD is also a huge throughput upgrade in all cases.

You could try running it on the SATA-2 controller, but it might wipe your drive. Not sure. I will say that I moved my RAID set from the Intel SATA-2 to the Intel SATA-3 ports without any issues whatever.
Click to expand...

I think he means 'relatively poor'. Example: In the benchmarks I've seen online the Corsair Performance 3 128GB is significantly slower than the Crucial RealSSD c300, yet significantly more expensive. There's another thread about this and I'm surprised to see that someone bought the Corsair drive - was it on sale or something?
 
I'm not at my desktop right now, but they are almost identical on a different controller. Drive rated at 300 overall by that program. I do get the high throughput though at roughly 400read/200write on this drive.
 
bargetrav said:
I'm not at my desktop right now, but they are almost identical on a different controller. Drive rated at 300 overall by that program. I do get the high throughput though at roughly 400read/200write on this drive.
Click to expand...

Right. I just posted a link to a thread containing someone else's benchmark and the overall rating for the Corsair Performance 3 128GB was 298. Could you please explain to me why you bought this drive over the Crucial RealSSD C300 version that scores over 500 points in the same benchmark? I asked this question in the other thread (along with Old Hippie) and I simply don't understand why someone would pay more (money) for less (performance) in this case. I feel as if I'm missing an important detail.
 
Aristotelian said:
Right. I just posted a link to a thread containing someone else's benchmark and the overall rating for the Corsair Performance 3 128GB was 298. Could you please explain to me why you bought this drive over the Crucial RealSSD C300 version that scores over 500 points in the same benchmark? I asked this question in the other thread (along with Old Hippie) and I simply don't understand why someone would pay more (money) for less (performance) in this case. I feel as if I'm missing an important detail.
Click to expand...


Didn't see that one particular guy's review, I guess my patience got the best of me on this one.


Again, I can't seem to find a fault on the drive other than that benchmark that appears to be bad on the 4k random reads/writes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top