• 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.

Corsair Performance 3 128GB.

They seem to be the fastest thing out there. I'm attracted to their SATA III hotness. I'm not attracted to their price. Performance scales with size too.
 
Nebor said:
They seem to be the fastest thing out there. I'm attracted to their SATA III hotness. I'm not attracted to their price. Performance scales with size too.
Click to expand...

Yea they look like awesome drives, it's unfortunate the 256gb model is so epensive. Im thinking abougt the 128 model though it looks like a nice upgrade if i move the 160gb Force to my laptop seeing as space isn't an issue on the desktop.
 
Last edited:
I posted a thread earlier about these to no avail, where in the world are professional reviews??? A little bit scary as these drives have been on the market for a few weeks with no real reviews up.
 
smakme7757 said:
Yea they look like awesome drives, it's unfortunate the 256gb model is so epensive. Im thinking abougt the 128 model though it looks like a nice upgrade if i move the 160gb Force to my laptop seeing as space isn't an issue on the desktop.
Click to expand...

The 256gb model is about 20% more expensive than the cheaper Crucial RealSSD c300. I'd love to see some benchmarks comparing the two as well, and it's strange to see the drives for sale with no benchmarks.

I just found these: http://www.hardwareluxx.de/community/f227/corsair-p3-und-adata-s501-782628-3.html where someone posts the CrystalDiskMark numbers for the 256GB model of the Performance 3 series. If that benchmark is a good measure of real world performance and if we can find the same numbers for Crucial's c300 256GB perhaps we can come to a conclusion about which is the better drive.
 
Last edited:
And the C400 should be out this month as well. I was deadset on a P3-256 until the prices came out. Way too much. Micron is claiming the C400 is aiming for $1.6gig ratio so we'll see, at that price I'll snatch up those C400s.
 
Nintendesert said:
And the C400 should be out this month as well. I was deadset on a P3-256 until the prices came out. Way too much. Micron is claiming the C400 is aiming for $1.6gig ratio so we'll see, at that price I'll snatch up those C400s.
Click to expand...

Hmmm i might hang on and see what crucial brings to the market now 🙂
 
Aristotelian said:
I just found these: http://www.hardwareluxx.de/community/f227/corsair-p3-und-adata-s501-782628-3.html where someone posts the CrystalDiskMark numbers for the 256GB model of the Performance 3 series. If that benchmark is a good measure of real world performance and if we can find the same numbers for Crucial's c300 256GB perhaps we can come to a conclusion about which is the better drive.
Click to expand...

Vertex 2 is usually lower in sequential, but better in the 4k marks. I doubt it would be a perceivable difference.
 
Nintendesert said:
And the C400 should be out this month as well. I was deadset on a P3-256 until the prices came out. Way too much. Micron is claiming the C400 is aiming for $1.6gig ratio so we'll see, at that price I'll snatch up those C400s.
Click to expand...

I'm not understanding what's happening here.

AFAIK Corsair and Crucial are the same drives.

Why didn't they go on sale at the same time?

After they hit the market with a sufficient supply I thought they were to be the same price because they're the same drives?

What am I missing?
 
If that benchmark is a good measure of real world performance
Click to expand...
That benchmark is horrible!

I dunno what chipset he's using but a final score of 313 is unbelieveably bad.

I get a score of 671 on my Crucial 256GB C300 with an LSI SATA6Gbs card and a score of 606 on an Intel ICH10.

Edit.....Looks like he's using an Intel chipset. I have no idea what the problem is.
 
Last edited:
Old Hippie said:
That benchmark is horrible!

I dunno what chipset he's using but a final score of 313 is unbelieveably bad.

I get a score of 671 on my Crucial 256GB C300 with an LSI SATA6Gbs card and a score of 606 on an Intel ICH10.

Edit.....Looks like he's using an Intel chipset. I have no idea what the problem is.
Click to expand...

The results are horrible or the benchmark itself isn't indicative of performance? If the results are horrible how the heck is it the most expensive SSD I can see? It commands quite a premium over the Crucial 256GB C300 (which I had on order but cancelled just in case) but isn't faster? That's bizarre.
 
The results are horrible or the benchmark itself isn't indicative of performance?
Click to expand...
The results are horrible and should represent the performance.

Isn't that what benchmarks are all about....results reflect performance?

The site isn't in English and I'm not bothering with a translation but what would you conclude from a test like that?
 
Could be the SB architecture that the benchmarks come from......teething pains from the new chipset perhaps?
 
A user review up here: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=4730811

skvkY.jpg


vs these for the Corsair drive:

2jaat6f.jpg
 
Last edited:
Old Hippie said:
The results are horrible and should represent the performance.

Isn't that what benchmarks are all about....results reflect performance?

The site isn't in English and I'm not bothering with a translation but what would you conclude from a test like that?
Click to expand...

I wasn't coming down either way, but I haven't done hd benchmarking in a long time so I wasn't sure how important this given benchmark was as a performance indicator. What about the numbers I just posted above?

I'd find it strange that the Crucial c300 (almost 1 year old?) would be faster than Corsair's brand new drive which is also more expensive than Crucial's.
 
Aristotelian said:
I wasn't coming down either way, but I haven't done hd benchmarking in a long time so I wasn't sure how important this given benchmark was as a performance indicator. What about the numbers I just posted above?

I'd find it strange that the Crucial c300 (almost 1 year old?) would be faster than Corsair's brand new drive which is also more expensive than Crucial's.
Click to expand...

Scroll thru this thread to find my numbers.

I don't know what to tell ya.
 
Aristotelian said:
I'd find it strange that the Crucial c300 (almost 1 year old?) would be faster than Corsair's brand new drive which is also more expensive than Crucial's.
Click to expand...

Since you've had time to think about it, what's your conclusion?

OR what's ANYBODY'S conclusion?

Aristotelian and I can't be the only people finding that comparision unusual......can we? 😕

What are we missing?
 
I have the Force 120 w\ sandforce controller and are quite sure it is a better controller than the Marvel Performance 3 SSD

SSDForce.PNG
 
SolMiester said:
I have the Force 120 w\ sandforce controller and are quite sure it is a better controller than the Marvel Performance 3 SSD

SSDForce.PNG
Click to expand...

I'm considering a Corsair Force 120 for my laptop. It looks nice a nice drive and it's on special at my local etailer. I've been put off these current performance drives due to so many strange reviews and user comments.
 
Last edited:
Considering there are NO professional reviews of the drive, you can't take what one guy posted as what the drive is capable of.


Remember, this drive is the evolution of the C300 (it's the same as what will be in the C400 Crucial drive due in March). So it's performance obviously will be above the last line of drives.

The few people who bought these were testing on P67 chipsets with known performance problems.
 
Those prices seem quite bad if the reported pricing of the 400's turns out to be true. However, the C400 isn't around yet so I guess they have a captive market.
 
Old Hippie said:
Since you've had time to think about it, what's your conclusion?

OR what's ANYBODY'S conclusion?

Aristotelian and I can't be the only people finding that comparision unusual......can we? 😕

What are we missing?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. Something seems drastically wrong with respect to a more expensive drive being significantly slower than a 1 year old drive, at the same size.

Some of the posters claim that it's a firmware issue, but can firmware adjustments make up for the vast performance delta between the Corsair Performance 3 series and Crucial's Real SSD C300 series?

I've been trying to hold out but I'm itching to hit 'weiter' on 2x 256GB Crucial C300s.

I simply don't understand: http://forum.corsair.com/v3/showthread.php?t=92229 Some people acknowledge that the scores suck but are still buying these drives? I'm not one for 'bang for the buck' type talk usually but why piss your money away on a slower product?
 
Last edited:
Old Hippie said:
That benchmark is horrible!

I dunno what chipset he's using but a final score of 313 is unbelieveably bad.

I get a score of 671 on my Crucial 256GB C300 with an LSI SATA6Gbs card and a score of 606 on an Intel ICH10.

Edit.....Looks like he's using an Intel chipset. I have no idea what the problem is.
Click to expand...



Can you link me to where yo bought that LSI card, please?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top