backtop


Print 37 comment(s) - last by Reclaimer77.. on Feb 3 at 12:49 PM


(Click to enlarge)

(Click to enlarge)

(Click to enlarge)
Beats Intel in all metrics

Micron announced the RealSSD C300 with 6Gbps SATA support early in December. It partnered with the Marvell Technology Group to create a new proprietary controller that will be used exclusively with Micron's latest generation of SSDs. The controller supports the use of ONFI 2.1 34nm NAND flash memory sourced from IMFT, Micron's joint venture with Intel.

The drive is able to reach a sustained sequential read speed of 355 MB/s, and a sustained sequential write speed of 215 MB/s. It is also much faster than Intel's 160GB X25-M as seen in the attached graphs. Testing was conducted by Calypso Systems, an independent third party tester, and shown to DailyTech today at Storage Visions.

“The C300 SSD not only delivers on all the inherent advantages of SSDs – improved reliability and lower power use – but also leverages a finely tuned architecture and high-speed ONFI 2.1 NAND to provide a whole new level of performance,” said Dean Klein, Vice President of Memory System Development for Micron in December.

Many consumers have heard of Lexar Media,  the consumer branch of Micron Technology which includes Crucial branded products. Crucial will be the first to launch the new SSD, branding it the Crucial RealSSD C300. It will start to ship to the channel in late January, and will be available for sale in early February.

“We’ve had tremendous response from the industry since we introduced the Micron RealSSD C300 drive in early December, and we’re eager to get it into the hands of consumers,” said Justin Sykes, Micron's Director of SSD marketing. “With its award-winning service and support, and global reputation for excellence, Crucial is the ideal brand to deliver our latest RealSSD consumer drive.”

The RealSSD C300 will be available in 128 and 256GB capacities, and will be packaged in the standard 2.5-inch form factor. A five-year limited warranty will be standard. Crucial is also considering bundling the drive with cloning software for those who wish to transfer their files and settings, and a desktop bundle may include a mounting bracket.

"The Crucial RealSSD C300 drive is the fastest drive we’ve tested to date," said Robert Wheadon, Lexar Media's senior worldwide SSD product manager. “The big 'wow' factor for consumers is a marked improvement in boot-up times – the Crucial RealSSD C300 drive is blazing fast, like no other SSD we’ve ever seen in the Crucial Performance Lab.”

While Crucial will focus on consumer sales, Micron itself will focus on the tough OEM SSD market currently dominated by Samsung, Toshiba, and Intel. OEM sales will focus on both 1.8-inch and 2.5-inch models for notebooks and netbooks, but the embedded market is also an option. Micron expects that its newest SSDs will available as option in computers by the time the busy back-to-school shopping season swings around.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Worst random performance than Intel
By pmonti80 on 1/5/2010 4:13:10 PM , Rating: 2
Worst random performance than Intel.




RE: Worst random performance than Intel
By Reclaimer77 on 1/5/2010 4:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. "Beats Intel in all metrics" Except the one that really matters ?


RE: Worst random performance than Intel
By Makaveli on 1/6/2010 6:18:41 PM , Rating: 2
I think this was just to get page hits because the intel drive is clearly faster in the random read and writes.


By vol7ron on 1/11/2010 11:07:53 AM , Rating: 2
Where are you getting this information?


RE: Worst random performance than Intel
By dumb on 1/5/2010 4:40:43 PM , Rating: 3
you both are dumb. It does beat intel on important block sizes. For the bottom two graphs, the blue line represents c300.


RE: Worst random performance than Intel
By jak3676 on 1/5/2010 4:48:58 PM , Rating: 5
what's dumb is that they changed styles on the different graphs. If you're going to release 3 charts on on 2 of them Red = company A and Blue = company B, when you get to the 3rd chart you should really stay with the same format.


RE: Worst random performance than Intel
By dumb on 1/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Worst random performance than Intel
By VaultDweller on 1/6/2010 9:17:20 AM , Rating: 4
I'd say he's right. Changing color conventions for the last graph is a pretty terrible decision.


RE: Worst random performance than Intel
By jimhsu on 1/6/2010 12:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
That graph looks wrong for some reason. I get about 30MB/s random write for synchronous I/O (iometer) with the X-25M. This is about 750 IO/s. For asynchronous I/O, this figure is closer to 60MB/s = 1500. The graph instead shows the Intel closer to 200 IO/s.

I need the following for the graph to make sense:
a) What is the "steady state" wearing method?
b) How much free space is on both drives?
c) Do both drives support GC/TRIM/some other form of cleanup?
d) Do the benchmarks use synchronous or asynchronous I/O?

Without that, the numbers are meaningless.


By lensman0419 on 1/6/2010 8:49:45 PM , Rating: 2
30 mb/sec is ~7500 IOPS, so you initial calculation is wrong. Again, for 60 mb/sec, it is ~15,000 IOPS.
The test conditions are after the drive has been filled to 2X it's stated capacity, so this is the WORST case scenario for both drives, there is no free space on the NAND after it has been filled 2X it's logical LBA size.
Under this kind of stress testing, there is no TRIM to alleviate the worst case, keep in mind so far only MS Windows 7 supports TRIM.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/2010 12:49:19 PM , Rating: 1
Yup I was just about to point this out.

Once again, Intel is still the best SSD out there in what really matters.


Price?
By DEredita on 1/5/2010 3:13:47 PM , Rating: 3
No price? WTF?




RE: Price?
By Adul on 1/5/2010 3:19:11 PM , Rating: 2
how long before Anand gets his hands on one?


RE: Price?
By ImSpartacus on 1/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Price?
By CommodoreVic20 on 1/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Price?
By JackQW on 1/5/2010 9:41:11 PM , Rating: 1
Damn straight, once he builds it.


RE: Price?
By ImSpartacus on 1/5/2010 11:23:04 PM , Rating: 1
Why did I get downrated for announcing the obvious? Have any of you actually read one of Anand's articles?


RE: Price?
By JSK on 1/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: Price?
By kyleb2112 on 1/8/2010 8:13:36 AM , Rating: 1
YOU are denser.
ImSpartacus's apostrophe is correct. And so's this one.

They're called contractions.
Edumacate yourself so's you don't look so dern ignernt when you correctify others' grammatificans:
http://blog.writersdigest.com/qq/Contractions+With...


RE: Price?
By Jansen (blog) on 1/5/2010 6:18:26 PM , Rating: 2
I was with Anand and the rep from Micron, and he will be getting his in a couple of weeks for testing.


RE: Price?
By Jansen (blog) on 1/5/2010 6:20:29 PM , Rating: 2
Pricing hasn't been set yet, both the Micron and Crucial people I spoke with said they would call me when it has been determined.


RE: Price?
By Cheesew1z69 on 1/5/2010 3:27:53 PM , Rating: 2
I would be willing to bet 500-1000+


RE: Price?
By ksherman on 1/5/2010 3:43:35 PM , Rating: 5
If you have to ask, you aren't excited enough. Lol.


RE: Price?
By therealnickdanger on 1/5/2010 4:14:02 PM , Rating: 2
So true.


RE: Price?
By quiksilvr on 1/5/2010 8:22:34 PM , Rating: 1
If you have to ask, its probably too much.


RE: Price?
By RU482 on 1/5/2010 4:00:34 PM , Rating: 2
the current C200 series (as of my last quote in Nov) sells for: ~$170 for 30GB, $230 for 60GB, and $450 for 120GB in low quantities


RE: Price?
By Cheesew1z69 on 1/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Price?
By tastyratz on 1/5/2010 9:55:38 PM , Rating: 2
good indicator... or at least the best one we have to work with right now. Were those launch prices?


Lower Sizes Also Please...
By Qapa on 1/6/2010 5:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
At least a 64Gb is useful for lots of people (32Gb, some people start to complain, even for boot drives (not me!)).

But it would be great, specially to make the older models of those sizes, drop prices, which is still what we need/want the most!

PS: Hope this quarter's SSD launches (this one and OCZ ones, etc) start to really bring the prices down, even if only on "old" models, like the soon to be "horrible" ;) Vertex... :P

PPS: How come OCZ doesn't announce any SATA 3 SSDs yet, since it seems their new drives are completely bottlenecked by SATA 2.

PPPS: We need more MBs with SATA 3 and USB 3!!




By lensman0419 on 1/6/2010 8:44:14 PM , Rating: 2
Because OCZ's controllers do not support SATA 6G, right now only the Crucial SSD supports it, I think it's going to be this way for the next 6 months


By lensman0419 on 1/6/2010 8:52:58 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't be surprised if the drive is launched with a lower price than most would expect, remember Micron is a NAND flash manufacturer, they have price advantage compared to OCZ and others.
With the kind of performance I see so far, even if it is at the same price as OCZ, I think 99% of the people would jump on the Crucial SSD.


Self Pre-conditioning?
By John Page on 1/6/2010 11:37:03 AM , Rating: 2
does any one have a clue on what is self pre-conditioning?




RE: Self Pre-conditioning?
By lensman0419 on 1/6/2010 8:57:47 PM , Rating: 2
SSD drive performance is different under empty and full conditions. Performance measurements can be deceiving if we only measure empty case. When the drive is full, it is at it's worst case corner, and THAT is really where we should measure it's true performance, minus any assists like TRIM. Normally we can fill the drive to 2X it's logical capacity, that should effectively put the drive in it's bad corner, so to speak.


How much?
By jak3676 on 1/5/2010 3:07:27 PM , Rating: 2
n/t




"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki