It's something of a mystery why the Crucial drive is so much faster than the Patriot when the two drives share the same controller and firmware but Crucial definitely has an advantage. Or rather, the 256GB Crucial has an advantage over the 128GB Patriot. Crucial is launching the M225 SSD with capacities of 64GB, 128GB and 256GB, and the three models have differing read and write speeds. The 256GB M225 Crucial has a 250MB/s read speed and a 200MB/s. The 128GB model has the same 250MB/s read speed and a slower, 190MB/s write speed, while the 64GB limps along at 200MB/s ead and 150MB/s write.
2GB File Transfer Results
Time in Seconds (s)
Shorter bars are better
By this stage in the proceedings we were feeling warm and affectionate towards the 256GB Crucial. But those emotions can often be shattered when the subject of money is raised. You can currently buy the 128GB Patriot Torqx for £287 which works out at £2.25 per Gigabyte, while a budget Kingston SSD Now V costs £1.45 per GB.
Imagine our surprise when we found that Crucial lists the CT256M225 for £421 at its own web store - £1.70 per GB - and we’ve found it on sale elsewhere at £380 which is £1.48 per GB. To put that in perspective, the second-gen Intel X25-M, which is much cheaper than its predecessor, costs £334 for 160GB which works out at £2.09 per GB.
There’s no denying that the thick end of £400 is a hefty price to pay for storage, but Crucial is delivering superb value for money and a level of performance that is quite astounding.
The 256GB Crucial M225 delivers in every department and shows that you can get performance and decent capacity at a reasonable price. ®
More SSD Reviews...
SSD Now V
Crucial CT256M225 256GB SSD
Very nice, but still early days
I have one, also at 1571 firmware in a Macbook Pro; silent and fast. It sometimes has problems on Macbook Pros, the later firmware has even more problems, and there will certainly be upgrades to the firmware needed. I need to run with hibernate mode disabled (never did like it anyway). Check Crucial and Apple support forums before you take the plunge. I suspect Indilinx will iron out the problems eventually.
Note also the potential problem of flash drives slowing down with use.
Just bought one
I've just bought one of these based on this recommendation and others. I have a lot of programs installed and vast numbers of photographs (or which I've got many 10's of thousands), I got it, simply because I'm fed up of the lengthy boot time and lack of responsiveness when things like virus scanners (and heaven knows what else) kick in.
Programs like Lightroom maintain highly dynamic databases and generates vast numbers of small files for previews (on my setup, Lightroom has generated over 26,000 preview photos). Such things are poisonous to performance on hard drives. There are lots of others like this too, not least of which is what happens on the system disk and what browsers do with cookie files and the like. Random performance is the king, and a drive that can (realistically) do a few thousand random IOPs rather than, maybe, 140 on a 7200 RPM disk make a massive difference.
The solid state disk has absolutely transformed the usability of the machine. It is not, of course, cost-effective for the bulk of photographic and video needs, but even under the heaviest system load, the (4 core) machine remains highly usable.
The way it is configured is with the SSD partitioned into a system partition (80GB) and a data partition (where I keep use account space). As there is no requirement to re-drag an SSD, I could have probably reduced the system partion to 60GB. Bulk storage is provided by mounting hard drive partitions into the appropriate part of the MyDocs file structure (so there are archive partitions in MyPictures, MyVideos, MyDocs etc.). The SSD makes an excellent place to hold things like the Lightroom DB and thumbnails and for working space - once that is done, a simple matter to drag the relevant files and directories across to the archive area.
On reflection, I could have probably (with more work) have managed with a 128GB SSD and the same system, but as my old system disk was 256GB this made the move easier.
Some programs that you might not expect to also gain - Outlook steams along with small emails coming down in one tenth of the time. That's probably a reflection on the fact a .pst file is, in effect, a small database all on its own.
I don't quite get the 200MBps of the benchmarks - more like 120-150MBps, but that is sutained pretty well what the access pattern.
So anybody building a new PC - consider putting at least a 128GB SSD in place for the system and the top level of your data. If you have a complex setup, then you really won't regret it. What's needed is a laptop manufacturer to provide for both a 1.8" SSD and a 2.5" "bulk" storage device with an appropriate configuration.
(nb. a filing system that could work transparently across both using caching or data profiling would be a wonderful innovation),
Can I get something to mount this interface and form factor in my 3.5" 80pin SCSI bays?
Some of us use equipment on a long life cycle....
"""A destructive reformat is something I would consider tolerable for a beta product, but not for a commercial product I have paid money for. If that`s the best a manufacturer can do, then they'll not be getting any of my money."""
Since the changes the firmware brings generally affect the way data is stored in the flash memory, you can't get speed benefits without a reformat. And officially you're not supposed to be flashing the things at all - on some brands that use the same controller flashing will void your warranty.
Where are the cheaper ones?
"SSDs are not used as storage drives"
It does seem that SSDs are competing against HDDs for storage capacity.
But I want to run my OS from a SSD and store my data on my home server. I don't want 256GB. I don't even want to pay for 64GB (the smallest new Crucial). I would love a couple of fast (SLC) 8GB drives to run my OS in RAID0 but can't seem to find any.