Corsair Performance 3 128GB.

[smakme7757]

Hi all,

I'm so happy with my Force 160GB SSD that i now want an SSD for my laptop. So i think i might move that to my laptop and buy a 128gb Corsair Performance 3 SSD to have in my desktop.

Here is a link: http://www.corsair.com/solid-state-...e-3-series-p3-128-solid-state-hard-drive.html

Has anyone heard anything about these drives?

 

[Nebor]

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.

 

[smakme7757]

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.

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.

 

[bargetrav]

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.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

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.

No their not. A mediocre Super Talent PCI-E raid drive took it to the cleaners

 

[Aristotelian]

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.

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.

 

[Nintendesert]

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.

 

[smakme7757]

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.

Hmmm i might hang on and see what crucial brings to the market now

 

[Concillian]

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.

Vertex 2 is usually lower in sequential, but better in the 4k marks. I doubt it would be a perceivable difference.

 

[Old Hippie]

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.

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?

 

[Old Hippie]

If that benchmark is a good measure of real world performance

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.

 

[Aristotelian]

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.

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.

 

[Old Hippie]

The results are horrible or the benchmark itself isn't indicative of performance?

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?

 

[Burner27]

Could be the SB architecture that the benchmarks come from......teething pains from the new chipset perhaps?

 

[Aristotelian]

A user review up here: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=4730811

vs these for the Corsair drive:

 

[Aristotelian]

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?

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.

 

[Old Hippie]

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.

Scroll thru this thread to find my numbers.

I don't know what to tell ya.

 

[Old Hippie]

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.

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?

 

[SolMiester]

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

 

[smakme7757]

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

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.

 

[bargetrav]

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.

 

[scooterlibby]

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.

 

[Aristotelian]

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'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?

 

[Old Hippie]

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

I dunno. Here's a screenshot of a Crucial 128GB C300 on an ICH10.....

 

[Burner27]

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.

Can you link me to where yo bought that LSI card, please?