mSATA: lowest idle power for large size?

I'm trying to decide between Crucial M4 256GB mSATA -vs- Mushkin Atlas 240GB mSATA.

Both seem to be good units, with the Mushkin Atlas being a bit over 10% more expensive.

Anybody know which uses the lowest idle power?

 

Crucial M4 256GB mSATA: Idle power consumption: <85mW

Mushkin Atlas 240GB mSATA: Idle power consumption: <70mW

Enjoy, the Mushkin is faster and uses less power... although it is 16GB short from the Crucial

 

Cant really say one is faster than other since they are apple and orange.

 

Oh and the M4 uses a Marvell controller and the Mushkin a SF-2281 controller so performance will greatly differ on compressible and incompressible data.

 

AND...

15mW of difference is not going to get you even one extra minute of extra run time on battery power in any real world usage.

M4 all the way.

 

Thank you for the response.

Odds are the Mushkin value of "<70mW" (that you took from your above newegg ref) is from Mushkin.

The reviews I've seen (so far) either didn't provide power measurements or only reviewed one product.

Thinking about it, I'll have to check both anandtech and tomshardware.

And with regard to the 240GB value of the Mushkin size, it wouldn't surprise me if it's really 256GB and they deliberately hold back 16GB. That's one thing I've seen a few of the regulars here mention. Namely if you've got a 256GB SSD drive to only partition 60-to-80% of it in order to get better performance and to avoid early problems.

 

True true.

It is.

Although the M4 is better, the Mushkin provides faster access speeds for the average users. But nothing noticeable and the idle power doesn't do anything either lol

 

I checked both...

anandtech did a review of "Micron C400 mSATA (128GB) SSD Review" on 4/10/2012 at: AnandTech - Micron C400 mSATA (128GB) SSD Review

and "Intel Explains 20nm NAND Endurance Concerns on the SSD 335" on 11/17/2012 at: AnandTech - Intel Explains 20nm NAND Endurance Concerns on the SSD 335

and "Update on Samsung SSD 840/840 Pro Failures" on 11/28/2012 at: AnandTech - Update on Samsung SSD 840/840 Pro Failures

and "Crucial v4 (256GB) Review" on 11/22/2012 at: AnandTech - Crucial v4 (256GB) Review

toms did "Hands-On: A Second mSATA-Based SSD Emerges" on July 15, 2011 at: Hands-On: A Second mSATA-Based SSD Emerges : SSD Form Factors, Explored

and page 11 of 12 titled "Should You Care About Over-Provisioning On A SandForce-Based SSD?" on November 23, 2012 at: Should You Care About Over-Provisioning On A SandForce-Based SSD? : Time To Upgrade: 10 SSDs Between 240 And 256 GB, Rounded Up

= = = = =

Hardly makes me an expert on mSATA SSD.

Screw the whole thing, I'm going with the Crucial M4 mSATA 256GB at $200 from amazon.

 

My mSATA M4 256GB has been going strong for about a month now so far, it's been rock solid, but i haven't used for very long.

 

I've got 3 crucial M4 drives, a 512GB 2.5", 256GB 2.5", 256GB mSATA. Been using for at least 6 months no issues. And published idle power consumption isn't necessarily true for actual idle power consumption either. Best to look at reviews that measure that. SSDReview.com is a good source for comparing that info but they don't have a huge number of SSD's.

 

Nice set of 3 large Crucial M4 SSD drives.

Are you using all of them as boot drives?

Have you noticed any difference with your use of the 512GB Crucial 2.5" SSD unit?

 

I am using my mSATA for boot, 512GB for storage/scratch/games. The 256GB 2.5" is a boot drive in another laptop.

 

You skirted around the essence of my question.

Given usage in different notebook computers, to you the performance of these 3 Crucial M4 SSD drives is roughly the same?

 

Yes, roughly the same. No noticeable improvement or degradation between them other than my mSATA is on a SATA II controller instead of SATA III but only notice in benchmarks not in real world performance.