Crucial C300 128GB performance

[Lee Saxon]

Anyone seen benchmarks anywhere or have experience with how the 128GB (or 64GB) C300s compare to the numbers we've seen for the 256GB version?

 

[Tephras]

The SSD Diaries: Crucial's RealSSD C300

 

[Lee Saxon]

wow, fail

It's not on Bench yet so I just assumed it hadn't been reviewed

sorry...

 

[stag3]

i just picked one of these up for 280 shipped
hopefully it is the world of diff everyone is making them out to be

my old rig that's being upgraded is ~3 years old and i didn't want to
install the os onto that raptor, figured i'd just go for the ssd now.

 

[VirtualLarry]

The SSD Diaries: Crucial's RealSSD C300

Paired with the controller is an absolutely massive 256MB DRAM. The Marvell controller has a smaller cache than what Intel outfits its X25-M G2 with and rather than demand a more expensive controller with a larger cache, Crucial uses a very large external DRAM to store mapping tables and access history. Micron, Crucial’s parent company, being a DRAM manufacturer probably played a role in making that decision.

The RealSSD C300 is available in three capacity points, two of which I’ll be looking at today: 64GB, 128GB and 256GB. The Crucial controller has 8 channels to its NAND. Both the 128GB and 256GB versions have all 8 channels populated, however the 256GB drive physically has more die per NAND package which allows for greater parallelism and potentially higher performance.

They store the mapping tables in DRAM? That just seems to scream "issues", especially if the drive doesn't have a supercap to power it when power gets cut. If you cut power to this drive, I would think that perhaps that would kill it, or at least scramble your data slightly, due to outdated mapping tables.

 

[Emulex]

price to pay for speed. the x25-e g2 will have super-cap. don't want to add a few bucks in parts that wold cut into thin margins.