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.

"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki