Crucial M4, 256GB...any good deals out there?

[SMutty]

$364.99 is about the lowest I can find.

 

[pcslookout]

Why do you need a SSD so big?

 

[Rubycon]

That's a good deal. I'm using the 512GB version in a macbook pro. 500/255 R/W speeds! :awe:

 

[SMutty]

I want a standalone SSD. I haven't put even 100 gigs on this 1TB HDD. I want to use it for a business pc that needs lots of storage.

 

[MobiusPizza]

I bought a 2nd hand Crucial C300 256GB for about $270 4 months ago

If you can find a cheap 2nd hand C300 256Gb it will perform just as good if not overall better. Sequential speed is 50MB/s slower, but 4k random read/write (app loading, windows loading, virus scans, file searching, databases, etc) is much better on the C300 and that's what you want for a SSD anyway, not huge sequential file transfers.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...0-vs-510-vs-320-vs-x25-M-vs-F120-vs-Falcon-II

The C300 is on older flash chip on a larger process node (38nm?) vs 25nm on m4. The program/erase cycle on 38nm is at least twice that of the 25nm. The C300 is likely to last longer

 

[aceO07]

That is a good deal for the M4 256GB. If I didn't have my 320 300GB already, I'd go for that.

Someone is testing their M4 64GB and it's at 750TB of writes so far. There hasn't been an update on the C300 for a while. It may have been around 400TB

 

[Old Hippie]

I bought a 2nd hand Crucial C300 256GB for about $270 4 months ago

You did good. :thumbsup:

The new ones are mostly still going for 400.00 on Ebay but once in awhile I see a few for 300.00-320.00.

These are fantastic drives and I doubt I'll ever sell the 2 I have in RAID0.

 

[pcslookout]

That's a good deal. I'm using the 512GB version in a macbook pro. 500/255 R/W speeds! :awe:

Nice but how much did that cost?

 

[pcslookout]

I say get a 128 GB version and buy a 1 TB + fastest 7200 rpm hard drive you can find for all the data.

 

[Rubycon]

Nice but how much did that cost?

I don't know honestly, it was handed to me. (long story)

 

[TemjinGold]

Why do you guys care why he needs it?

 

[Burner27]

I say get a 128 GB version and buy a 1 TB + fastest 7200 rpm hard drive you can find for all the data.

Or get 2 x 128GB drives, RAID them to achieve your 256GB of space and also have better performance than a single 256GB drive.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

I ended picking one up from Amazon. Came out to $344 with my $20 Battlefield 3 credit. My WD 640gb dual platter black is too slow compared to my Vertex 2 in my laptop lol.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Why do you need a SSD so big?

The bigger they are, the faster they are. Each chip is accessed in parallel.

 

[tomt4535]

Amazon has it for $350 today. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004W2JL2A

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Amazon has it for $350 today. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004W2JL2A

Ugh I just bought it yesterday. You think they would credit me the diff?

 

[Diogenes2]

Amazon is usually pretty good about that sort of thing...


B&H has it for $350 also ..

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...4_SSD_2_5.html

 

[blackened23]

$364.99 is about the lowest I can find.

Its bound to be on sale sometime this month, i'd wait for a black friday sale.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Amazon is usually pretty good about that sort of thing...


B&H has it for $350 also ..

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...4_SSD_2_5.html

Got the difference back in store credit.

 

[imaheadcase]

Why do you need a SSD so big?

Because he wants one? Also because why not? I think its silly the way people use a 2nd hardrive when you can get a bigger SSD myself.

 

[Rubycon]

The bigger they are, the faster they are. Each chip is accessed in parallel.

It tops out at the 256GB size for me. The 512 is no faster. The 256 is a little faster than the 128. The 128 is a big jump over the 64. Of course if one has the room (and a decent controller) a bunch of smaller drives striped will rule the roost for a long time.

 

[MobiusPizza]

It tops out at the 256GB size for me. The 512 is no faster. The 256 is a little faster than the 128. The 128 is a big jump over the 64. Of course if one has the room (and a decent controller) a bunch of smaller drives striped will rule the roost for a long time.

That's because the contoller is limited by a number of channels (hence also number of NAND die) so that parrallelism no longer increase performance.

You lose trim doing RAID though and if you have a 4 disk RAID0, your data security isn't very good.

 

[Rubycon]

That's because the contoller is limited by a number of channels (hence also number of NAND die) so that parrallelism no longer increase performance.

You lose trim doing RAID though and if you have a 4 disk RAID0, your data security isn't very good.

LOL I have arrays with 48 SLC drives, not worried about Trim. Never worried about RAID0 either. When we had 20 something member SAS 15K RAID0 arrays as scratch disks not once did I have an issue that caused data loss/corruption. Consider the 100s of thousands of terabytes that were written to those arrays, that's practically a miracle! :awe:

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Wow this thing is a beast. Running on SATA2, its blowing my vertex 2 out of the water in benchmarks.

 

[MobiusPizza]

LOL I have arrays with 48 SLC drives, not worried about Trim. Never worried about RAID0 either. When we had 20 something member SAS 15K RAID0 arrays as scratch disks not once did I have an issue that caused data loss/corruption. Consider the 100s of thousands of terabytes that were written to those arrays, that's practically a miracle! :awe:

Ah if you use enterprise class drives yes no problem. Even without GC, 48 disk is so quick even if the SSDs are dirty, sequential write speed won't suffer to much to be noticeable. Server activities tends to be read rather than write and as long as you can saturate the ethernet, e.g. Gigabit LAN (not hard) it's no problem.

I wouldn't do it with MLC consumer drives, you see, still quite a number of people having problems with some SSD dropping out of BIOS, freeze, bluescreens.