Games Messageboard: Re: While I ain't disagreeing with you by BlackAdder

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Re: While I ain't disagreeing with you BlackAdder Send a noteboard - 11/12/2010 08:49:28 AM

Yeah, deterioration is to be expected, but I guess I am surprised. Still, to be honest, the read speeds seem to hold up fairly well and for my purposes that's much more important than write speeds. And the amount of stress they put on the drive is much more than I expect to do (write-wise).

Finally while Crucial C300 is a good drive, the bigger a SSD is the better it will perform. The Crucial C300 256gb was the best result in your incompressible data sequential writes, but the worst one in your incompressible data sequential writes is the smaller 64gb which has the same controller but just smaller storage. Ironic huh

Are they really the same controller? The write speeds for the 64 and 128 GB versions are spec'd much lower than the 256GB. I considered the C300 first because it used sata3 and reads were very fast, but the writes seemed really slow (64GB version).

Is your statement also true for intel? Like the 160GB is faster than, say, the 80GB?

Reply to message

So I finally managed to get all the parts for a new computer build (kind of random and rambles) BlackAdder - 09/12/2010 04:39:49 AM 788 Views

Sounds like you've done your research. Now I can't wait until I build mine! *NM* Fox and Ravens - 09/12/2010 04:16:29 PM 242 Views

Yeah, that was half the fun, really.

BlackAdder - 10/12/2010 01:16:31 AM 661 Views

After next summer or fall Fox and Ravens - 10/12/2010 01:33:51 AM 488 Views

Neat! BlackAdder - 10/12/2010 01:51:01 AM 655 Views

We have no clue what is going to be out about fall of 2011 Roland00 - 10/12/2010 02:11:08 AM 539 Views

Re: We have no clue what is going to be out about fall of 2011 Fox and Ravens - 10/12/2010 02:44:31 AM 540 Views

wow, that's pretty neat! BlackAdder - 11/12/2010 08:58:28 AM 711 Views

Intel is going to be splitting the market into three sockets Roland00 - 11/12/2010 03:52:52 PM 706 Views

One note about the Sandforces Jragghen - 11/12/2010 12:59:25 AM 569 Views

While I ain't disagreeing with you Roland00 - 11/12/2010 07:39:07 AM 554 Views

Re: While I ain't disagreeing with you BlackAdder - 11/12/2010 08:49:28 AM 679 Views

Re: While I ain't disagreeing with you Roland00 - 11/12/2010 03:26:33 PM 566 Views

Well, after thinking about it some more BlackAdder - 13/12/2010 11:08:45 PM 711 Views

Both drives were good choices Roland00 - 14/12/2010 05:30:50 PM 560 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="178740">
Yeah, deterioration is to be expected, but I guess I am surprised. Still, to be honest, the read speeds seem to hold up fairly well and for my purposes that's much more important than write speeds. And the amount of stress they put on the drive is much more than I expect to do (write-wise).

<quote id="178736">Finally while Crucial C300 is a good drive, the bigger a SSD is the better it will perform.  The Crucial C300 256gb was the best result in your incompressible data sequential writes, but the worst one in your incompressible data sequential writes is the smaller 64gb which has the same controller but just smaller storage.  Ironic huh ;)</quote>
Are they really the same controller? The write speeds for the 64 and 128 GB versions are spec'd much lower than the 256GB. I considered the C300 first because it used sata3 and reads were very fast, but the writes seemed really slow (64GB version).

Is your statement also true for intel? Like the 160GB is faster than, say, the 80GB?
</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password