The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.
← Previous pageNext page →

    Crucial M4 / Micron C400 SSD Series Thread

    Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by Phil, May 16, 2011.

  1. Phil

    Phil Retired

    Reputations:
    4,415
    Messages:
    17,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    455
    Well it's only worth any money if Intel 510 actually gets better battery life with LPM than M4 w/o LPM. I don't know if that's true.

    I think Kingston V+ is fairly reliable, going by Newegg. It's fast for single tasks but slightly slower for multi tasking.
     
    Phil, Jun 3, 2011
    #151
  2. Brabostaan

    Brabostaan Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    238
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    55
    My results. Any good? Just installed the disk today.
     

    Attached Files:

    Brabostaan, Jun 4, 2011
    #152
  3. Cloudfire

    Cloudfire (Really odd person)

    Reputations:
    7,279
    Messages:
    10,304
    Likes Received:
    2,878
    Trophy Points:
    581
    That 4K write was very slow (50% reduction). The difference is that their drive was empty when testing it while your was 33% filled. No way that it is that reduced that much when filled up? Here is what ssdreview got.
    [​IMG]
     
    Cloudfire, Jun 4, 2011
    #153
  4. santhosh.sivajothi

    santhosh.sivajothi Notebook Guru

    Reputations:
    126
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    Yes, I'll be interested to see the reason for the reduction as well, since I am strongly considering the M4 drive. Reviews mentioned performance might take a hit as the drive is filled up, but even if it were true it shouldn't be this much of a difference. Anyone know the reason or the low bench numbers?
     
    santhosh.sivajothi, Jun 5, 2011
    #154
  5. Phil

    Phil Retired

    Reputations:
    4,415
    Messages:
    17,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    455
    The 50% reduction in 4K random read would worry me more.

    Here's my M4 (LPM off, Intelppm off)
    [​IMG]

    Probably Intelppm running, which is good for power consumption and heat but bad for benchmark numbers.
     
    Phil, Jun 5, 2011
    #155
  6. Cloudfire

    Cloudfire (Really odd person)

    Reputations:
    7,279
    Messages:
    10,304
    Likes Received:
    2,878
    Trophy Points:
    581
    So let me get this straight Phil. Are you saying that M4 performance is reduced greatly if you let the CPU act the way it should? You only get the M4 advertised speeds if you disable the CPUs ability to idle?

    I hardly think that the result I posted was due to them messing up the states of the CPU just to show off "awesome" scores. If so, then that is messed up.

    The Intel 510 is actually on par with 4K read and write what you got. And that was without tweaking the LPM or the ppm. This needs some investigation

    Intel 510 120GB
    [​IMG]
    Don`t pay attention to the 4K 32 Queue depths because that is something you will never let the drive go through in every day tasks
     
    Cloudfire, Jun 5, 2011
    #156
  7. Phil

    Phil Retired

    Reputations:
    4,415
    Messages:
    17,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    455
    4KQD32 do impact multi tasking performance. For some users that is day to day usage.

    Not at all. All SSDs' synthetic performance can be influenced by intelppm. Like described here: How To: Improve Low SSD Performance in Intel Series 5 Chipset Environments | StorageReview.com

    I suggest we don't focus so much on CDM results. Their value is way too limited for that, expecially when we're comparing across different laptops. Hardwareheaven has compared M4 and Intel 510 in real world settings in the same testbed.
     
    Phil, Jun 5, 2011
    #157
  8. Cloudfire

    Cloudfire (Really odd person)

    Reputations:
    7,279
    Messages:
    10,304
    Likes Received:
    2,878
    Trophy Points:
    581
    No way that you are going through a depth of 32. Every day task including multi tasking don`t involve more than 0-7 QD.

    The reason I ask is because the first screenshot I posted got 100 MB/s in write and it was on a empty disk. Your screenshot and Brabostaan`s was the result from a drive that was not even half full but you got severely hit on the score. To the point it is lowered to the 510s performance. Why?

    And that Intelppm tweak does not impact 4Ks that much. It does not give it 200% better score.
     
    Cloudfire, Jun 5, 2011
    #158
  9. Phil

    Phil Retired

    Reputations:
    4,415
    Messages:
    17,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    455
    The 4KQD32 in CDM is a much better indication of multi task performance than the normal 4K in CDM. Have a look at kingston V+ 100 if you want to verify.

    You're comparing an empty non system disk connected to a desktop with a half full system disk in a laptop. I'm not surprised the results are different.

    The only problem with Brabos results are his 4K random read is ~15 MB/sec. This is typically a chipset (read intelppm) problem.

    His 4K random write is ~ 50MB/sec. That's fine. His 4KQD32 results are fine too.
    It actually does. It's been proven, by me ;)
     
    Phil, Jun 5, 2011
    #159
  10. Cloudfire

    Cloudfire (Really odd person)

    Reputations:
    7,279
    Messages:
    10,304
    Likes Received:
    2,878
    Trophy Points:
    581
    Yeah that makes sense. I have gone through forums and they got the same results with the M4s as you two got. And I thought that the 4Ks was much better on an M4 compared to Intel 510. Oh well.
     
    Cloudfire, Jun 5, 2011
    #160
  11. Phil

    Phil Retired

    Reputations:
    4,415
    Messages:
    17,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    455
    Phil, Jun 5, 2011
    #161
  12. Cloudfire

    Cloudfire (Really odd person)

    Reputations:
    7,279
    Messages:
    10,304
    Likes Received:
    2,878
    Trophy Points:
    581
    Yep, once the QD increase, the M4 runs away from Intel 510.
     
    Cloudfire, Jun 5, 2011
    #162
  13. Brabostaan

    Brabostaan Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    238
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    55
    I disabled LPM but not Intelppm. Wil have a look at that later.
     
    Brabostaan, Jun 5, 2011
    #163
  14. Brabostaan

    Brabostaan Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    238
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Did a test with virtual memory on and the numbers went up a little.
     
    Brabostaan, Jun 5, 2011
    #164
  15. kilou

    kilou Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Just my opinion: hardware heaven gives awards to pretty much all drives..... I wonder if this is a reliable source honestly.
     
    kilou, Jun 5, 2011
    #165
  16. Brabostaan

    Brabostaan Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    238
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Will disabeling intellppm have any negative effect on the rest of the sysyem?
     
    Brabostaan, Jun 5, 2011
    #166
  17. Phil

    Phil Retired

    Reputations:
    4,415
    Messages:
    17,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    455
    Disabling intelppm is only cosmetic for your benchmarks. See if it improves. After that enable it again.

    The negative effects are heat and power consumption.

    I ignore the awards. I just look at the results.
     
    Phil, Jun 5, 2011
    #167
  18. Brabostaan

    Brabostaan Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    238
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Right, so on real time performance I wont be noticing anything. Will leave it enabled then. System is fast enough.
     
    Brabostaan, Jun 5, 2011
    #168
  19. Cloudfire

    Cloudfire (Really odd person)

    Reputations:
    7,279
    Messages:
    10,304
    Likes Received:
    2,878
    Trophy Points:
    581
    Turning off Intelppm disables the CPUs ability to idle = use more power and produce more heat like Phil said

    Personally I wouldn`t touch it
     
    Cloudfire, Jun 5, 2011
    #169
  20. dvegas

    dvegas Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    If I disable LPM for my SSD (boot drive). How does that affect my HDD 750gb 7200rpm (drive 2) power usage? - has music, photos, docs. Will it suck my battery quickly if i access lots of data from drive 2? Thanks
     
    dvegas, Jun 6, 2011
    #170
  21. Phil

    Phil Retired

    Reputations:
    4,415
    Messages:
    17,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    455
    I think it's possible to only disable LPM for port 1.
     
    Phil, Jun 6, 2011
    #171
  22. DustoMan

    DustoMan Notebook Guru

    Reputations:
    7
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    Depends on how you applied the fix. If you used a registry file that only disabled port0, then no. If you used a registry file that made sub-keys for port1 through 3 too, then yes.
     
    DustoMan, Jun 6, 2011
    #172
  23. aldam

    aldam Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    39
    Messages:
    446
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    30
    I've used m4 64gb for 2 days. I have m6500 so it's sata2. Should I also modify the reg file?
     
    aldam, Jun 7, 2011
    #173
  24. Honzik1

    Honzik1 Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    197
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Honzik1, Jun 7, 2011
    #174
  25. Mr_Mysterious

    Mr_Mysterious Like...duuuuuude

    Reputations:
    1,552
    Messages:
    2,383
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    56
    By the way, Honzik1, thank you so much for all of your help. :)

    Mr. Mysterious
     
    Mr_Mysterious, Jun 7, 2011
    #175
  26. Honzik1

    Honzik1 Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    197
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    your disk works well?
     
    Honzik1, Jun 7, 2011
    #176
  27. Mr_Mysterious

    Mr_Mysterious Like...duuuuuude

    Reputations:
    1,552
    Messages:
    2,383
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Yeah, I applied the registry fix and tested it for two days...Seemed stable.

    Mr. Mysterious
     
    Mr_Mysterious, Jun 7, 2011
    #177
  28. dvegas

    dvegas Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    So the following registry fix will just work on Port0, correct?


    [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\services\iaStor\Parameters\Port0]

    "LPM"=dword:00000000
    "LPMDSTATE"=dword:00000000
    "DIPM"=dword:00000000

    Thanks in advance...
     
    dvegas, Jun 7, 2011
    #178
  29. DustoMan

    DustoMan Notebook Guru

    Reputations:
    7
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    Yup. That one is only Port0.
     
    DustoMan, Jun 10, 2011
    #179
  30. meurglys0

    meurglys0 Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Sooo I received and installed my 256 GB Crucial M4. The OS and files all are very responsive now. I applied the reg fix and the few stalls I encountered disappeared...

    1. 26 seconds is the boot time. I remember seeing 16 seconds boot times for this drive in some reviews. Is there anything I can do to get faster boot times?

    2. Should I use AS SSD to test my drive? Any specific versions to search for?
     
    meurglys0, Jun 11, 2011
    #180
  31. Mr_Mysterious

    Mr_Mysterious Like...duuuuuude

    Reputations:
    1,552
    Messages:
    2,383
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    56
    You can delete everything in the start folder, remove most of the programs on msconfig folder, and get rid of your log-in screen.

    Mr. Mysterious
     
    Mr_Mysterious, Jun 11, 2011
    #181
  32. Phil

    Phil Retired

    Reputations:
    4,415
    Messages:
    17,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    455
    Phil, Jun 11, 2011
    #182
  33. Brabostaan

    Brabostaan Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    238
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Boot timer didnt work on my system so used bootracer.

    Got 11 sec. to login and 18 to desktop with my normal startup profile.
    Got the same time's when disabeling everything on startup in msconfig.

    18 sec. isn't bad at all. :)
     
    Brabostaan, Jun 12, 2011
    #183
  34. EnglishCoder

    EnglishCoder Notebook Geek

    Reputations:
    8
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    EnglishCoder, Jun 12, 2011
    #184
  35. Brabostaan

    Brabostaan Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    238
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Try bootracer.
     
    Brabostaan, Jun 12, 2011
    #185
  36. Phil

    Phil Retired

    Reputations:
    4,415
    Messages:
    17,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    455
    Disable UAC and try again.
     
    Phil, Jun 12, 2011
    #186
  37. Honzik1

    Honzik1 Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    197
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Honzik1, Jun 13, 2011
    #187
  38. EnglishCoder

    EnglishCoder Notebook Geek

    Reputations:
    8
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    OK. Disabling UAC worked.
    (BTW Nice review :))

    I should probably post this on your other thread, but it doesn't compete with current SATA II/III boot times. But, the results for my new M4 128GB SSD are not bad, considering I'm currently limited to SATA I on a thinkpad X61s, Core 2 Duo 1.6Ghz, 4GB (need to apply a modded bios to upgrade to SATA II - just need the courage to do it :))

    The performance increase from the standard hard drive to the M4 128GB (even on SATA I) is just amazing! (and obviously it will work even better when I upgrade to SATA II, and then a bit further down the line to SATA III)

    I've attached CDM and bootTimer results in case anyone is interested...
    (M4 128GB SSD on SATA I)
     

    Attached Files:

    EnglishCoder, Jun 13, 2011
    #188
  39. meurglys0

    meurglys0 Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    These are my CDM results (256 GB M4). I did it twice... So do they look alright?
     

    Attached Files:

    meurglys0, Jun 13, 2011
    #189
  40. Honzik1

    Honzik1 Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    197
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Honzik1, Jun 14, 2011
    #190
  41. Phil

    Phil Retired

    Reputations:
    4,415
    Messages:
    17,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    455
    Phil, Jun 14, 2011
    #191
  42. meurglys0

    meurglys0 Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Nice review!

    I noticed that all the values in the left columns in both of my CDM benchmarks are lower than your left column (read) scores. Why would that be?
     
    meurglys0, Jun 14, 2011
    #192
  43. tilleroftheearth

    tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...

    Reputations:
    5,398
    Messages:
    12,692
    Likes Received:
    2,717
    Trophy Points:
    631
    Phil, I too enjoyed reading your review.

    I don't get your conclusions though.

    This level of 'performance' is pretty embarrasing imo, considering that the 2 year old Intel 'tech' is in the same league (and even surpassing it at times).

    Battery life (one of the biggest reasons for an SSD on a notebook) is also pretty bad - less than the mechanical HDD in fact.

    My conclusion would have been to stay away from this particular product - I'm glad I wisely chose not to purchase it myself for my workstations (based solely on the C300 track record).
     
    tilleroftheearth, Jun 14, 2011
    #193
  44. Phil

    Phil Retired

    Reputations:
    4,415
    Messages:
    17,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    455
    On one hand the difference with Intel X25-m is not that big. On the other hand the Crucial is faster in 90% of the situations. It depends on what perspective you take. I've also benchmarked Corsair Force 3 and OCZ vertex 3. I think 'strong performance' is a valid statement.

    About the battery life, I mention that as a negative. For perspective: the Toshiba is a very low powered hard drive, possibly the lowest of all spinnig hard drives. So the Crucial M4 w/o LPM is on par with that. With LPM it does better.

    In general: anyone buying an SSD for battery life shouldn't buy SATA III drives.
     
    Phil, Jun 14, 2011
    #194
  45. meurglys0

    meurglys0 Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    meurglys0, Jun 14, 2011
    #195
  46. Phil

    Phil Retired

    Reputations:
    4,415
    Messages:
    17,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    455
    12-13 seconds looks fine to me. If applying the tweaks doesn't short it there's not much you can do.
     
    Phil, Jun 14, 2011
    #196
  47. EnglishCoder

    EnglishCoder Notebook Geek

    Reputations:
    8
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    The results looked OK to me...

    Intel x25m takes 50% longer than Crucial M4 to install a game
    35%-110% longer to copy program/media files
    42% longer to launch a game
    22%-28% longer to do some simple multitasking

    It will be interesting to see how the Crucial M4 128GB performs compared to production models of the Intel 320 120GB (not the 300GB which you see in most reviews), the intel 510 120GB, and the Vertex 3 120GB... any spoilers Phill?
     
    EnglishCoder, Jun 14, 2011
    #197
  48. Honzik1

    Honzik1 Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    197
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Honzik1, Jun 14, 2011
    #198
  49. Phil

    Phil Retired

    Reputations:
    4,415
    Messages:
    17,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    455
    Thanks. No I can't. The M4 is gone.
     
    Phil, Jun 14, 2011
    #199
  50. tilleroftheearth

    tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...

    Reputations:
    5,398
    Messages:
    12,692
    Likes Received:
    2,717
    Trophy Points:
    631

    Even with your stat's above, the results don't look any better to me.

    The X25-M 80GB is the slowest drive you can buy (I was offered and turned down the 160GB version that is even faster) - and - it is still 2 yr old tech.

    How slow was it for my use? Slower than a properly setup 2.5" mechanical HDD. (And before we get into a debate about how any SSD is faster than the fastest HDD; it was at least not worth the money slower, overall - okay).

    Definitely a bad showing for the M4. (Especially considering that the X25-M launched in 2008!!!).
     
    tilleroftheearth, Jun 14, 2011
    #200
← Previous pageNext page →