Crucial C400

wanted to start a thread for info about the c400 drive due out in the next week or two (hopefully)

the micron parts catalog lists the c400 drives as being in production which means "Production orders are being taken, parts are shipping". the c300 drives are listed as EOL Production. (aka End Of Life) "Production of part is ramping down, please see Recommended Part or Contact Factory"

here's a link to the Micron Innovations Blog which has a few more specs/info/a comparison video of the c400 vs a standard platter drive. also states that the drives should be hitting the shelves in "mid-march"..

anyone have any other info/speculations?

 

Error 404 for the PDF.

 

Weird, won't work when I link to it.. thanks for the heads up.

Here's a link to the 128gb c400 product page. If you click on documentation, then "c400 2.5-INCH SATA NAND flash SSD" it'll take you to it

 

Thanks for the link, interesting in the PDF the 256GB and 512GB have the same performance, i think either the C400 256GB or the Intel X25m G3 300GB will be my next drive.... a nice month ahead with so many ssds bieng released.

 

sweet! I am just wondering about the performance gains of getting a raid 0 array of 2 128 gb of those drives over a single 256 gb. appreciate if anyone can chime in on this

 

I'd venture to say the the 2x 128 would perform better. Except it won't have TRIM.

Without any actual benchmarks of any of the c400 drives, it's hard to say anything with a ton if certainty..

 

I would go for the 256gb, thats what im doing, losing trim imo not worth it, also the random write/reads dont increase that drastically, the sequentials do, but if thats your goal go with the Vertex3 or Intel 510, both will have better sequential reads than C400/G3.

 

thanks for the input guys. i need TRIM and will go with the 256GB. Not sure how the sequentials would help me in my day to day use.

 

I personally like Les article on this, The SSD Manufacturers Bluff, seems he update it this month.

 

Looks like just the last chart (which he got the date wrong on... 2011, not 2010. ); no reason to update the main portion of the article, after all.

 

Micron version up at SuperBiiz c400 - SuperBiiz.com

 

Time to sell my c300. , but c400 512 cost around 1k? Holy....

 

The Intel 510 is better.

 

C400 has better randoms doesn't it? Intel has better sequential.. But they've got the same controller I guess so each has the potential to improve

 

Crucial C400

Sequential Read: up to 415 MB/s
Sequential Write: up to 260 MB/s
Random 4k Reads: up to 40,000 IOPS
Random 4k Writes: up to 50,000 IOPS

Intel 510:

Sequential Read: Up to 500 MB/s
Sequential Write: Up to 315 MB/s
Random 4 KB Reads: Up to 20,000 IOPS
Random 4 KB Writes: Up to 8,000 IOPS

 

c400 128gb

Sequential Read Rate: 415 MB/s (max)
Sequential Write Rate: 175 MB/s (max)
Random 4k Read: 40,000 IOPS
Random 4k Write: 50,000 IOPS

120gb 510

Random 4 KB Read: upto 20,000 IOPS
Random 4 KB Write: upto 8,000 IOPS
Sequential Read: 450 MB/s
Sequential Write: 210 MB/s

 

looks like C400 is a better one assuming similar reliability level.

 

how about those 3gb/6gb and stuff? , which is faster for boots up?

 

Yeah that is the question. The specs can look breathtaking on the paper, but once you start using the drive, it may be crap at sustaining these speeds

 

Im guessing they are almost identical at booting up. Both of them are SATA 3 (6 gbps) if that is what you meant?

 

Yea , you have any idea how many sec for the boot up?

 

couple of benchmark results on the micron blog

review from THE SSD REVIEW.com

beats the intel 510 by like 18000 points in PCMark Vantage. i want.

 

if c400 is reliable/stable, I will probably grab one

I didn't pay attention on the history of c300 reliability. Any word/record/user comments about micron's SSD reliability?

 

The interface doesn't affect that since it's the 4K speeds that are utilized most during booting up and none of these drives even saturate SATA/150.

 

I would also like for someone to answer this as best they could. Additionally, what's the difference between random and sequential writes/reads. Each of the Intel and Crucial have advantages, so what's the differences between their advantages?

 

A lot of reviews say that better sequentials are useful when you're transferring lots of big files.. Randoms are more for day to day stuff like browsing and gaming. That's while the c400 stomps the 510 in PCMark Vantage (many suggest that Vantage is the best benchmark of how a drive will perform for every day uses)

 

PCMark Vantage is the best synthetic benchmark but it's still very limited compared to real world benchmarks.

In real world performance I expect the difference between Intel 510 and C400 to be very small. Just like the difference between Intel 510 and Vertex 3 is very small, see Hardwareheaven.com

 

This is undoubtedly true.. I'm sure there's not a while lot of difference in "real-world" performance at this level

But I have a few family members and friends that I sort of compete with, so in my case bench scores are important for dominating them

 

Correct me if im wrong, but according to this the c400 will be out in one month - thats pretty late

Crucial M4 aka C400 - ETA? - Page 3 - Crucial Community

 

C400's are Micron branding. Supposedly theyre enterprise drives.

M4's are Crucial brand. Consumer drives.

They're exactly the same though. C400's have been popping up now, M4's aren't due out till end of April

 

If you need a baseline from a C300, I'm at about 13.4 seconds from the last POST message until I can log in on Win 7. Dunno if you can get apple to apple comparisons where due to different services running on this machine (sql server, iis, etc.)

 

Mind disabling log in, and running a boot timer? just for reference

 

There is a thread for boot times on NBR...

 

Boot times also depends greatly on what stuff the OS need to start up, so i think it will be difficult to measure the time between systems.

 

here's another review of the m4..

interesting results. the old c300 out performs it in several cases. as does the 510. here's a bit of the conclusion:

 

NP.



Seems like the time from last post to when the "login" occurs w/ a stop watch (my 1st post) is pretty close to BootTimer.

 

Ya know, I was reading a review of the 510 last night. I was going to email the reviewer as the C300 they used in the review was using FW 0002. However, FW 0006 has been out for a while. In any case, the WRITE times were greatly increased in some of the benches w/ that FW release, and I was going to ask if the user could re-visit the benches using 0006 for the C300.

FWIW, here are some of my times:

 

the review i posted has the c300 using the 0006 FW

edit: here's a question, how come every time i type "FW" it links it to some BS about a Sony Viao or something? ?

2nd edit: now it linked "sony".. maybe it's my browser? but its a link to an NBR page. ANNOYING

 

The Intel 510 review which i found on a link somewhere in another thread ran benches on the 510 as well as the C300 for ATTO, Crysis Disk, and AS SSD. For the two I had taken a couple of months back, the C300 was comparable to that reviewer's benches in READS, but it absolutely blew away the 0002 in WRITE speeds.

Pretty annoying. I think it is something related to the browser. In Firefox (my default) it shows up. But in Internet Explorer "FW" has no such link.

 

FW is a sony vaio model

 

Thanks man. Interesting review.


LOL look at the Vertex 3.

 

so i use chrome 11 beta. it doesn't have links pop up when i type dell or apple... sony must pay nbr

 

yea lol. i saw that when i was in class and chuckled a bit to myself. people gave me funny looks

 

Unfortunately Techreport didn't run their normal real world benchmarks. But either way, the results don't look good.

 

Great! So much for "a great month for SSDs ahead". I'm just going to buy the C300 64GB and use it in my SATA III notebook.

So far, it looks like OCZ is the only one to keep their promises. Well ok maybe we hyped it up a little bit, but I expected much better performance from these guys

Mr. Mysterious

 

Ehh... what promises did OCZ keep again? More like Sandforce...