Crucial C300 SSD Performance Degradation?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Avenger, Jan 30, 2011.

  1. Avenger macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    #1
    I've been looking into getting an SSD for my late 2008 Unibody 15" Macbook Pro (the first unibody model). I had previously investigated SSD's for my Windows 7 PC and bought a C300 128GB for it. When I look at the product forums, newegg and amazon reviews for the sandforce based SSD's I see so many issues with them going bad either immediately or a period of time. Even if you read all the posts here abt the OWC drives, you'll find there are issues there as well.

    So is a Crucial C300 really a bad choice for a Macbook Pro? I read abt. the possible performance degradation due to it not having a sandforce controller but in every day use, has anyone experienced it? I've been scanning through posts here and people seem to be happy with it. If someone who has used one for a while in their macbook pro can comment on this, I'd appreciate it.
     
  2. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #2
    The C300 is one of the best SSDs on the market and it is in the same ballpark, speed wise, to the SandForce 1200. The C300 has been tested to write/re-write upwards of 100 terabytes, and is still going. Certain SandForce driven models have more issues than others. Capacity wise, our original 64GB SSD on our 2008 MBA has lost almost no space. It really isn't as much of an issue as it often is made to sound like.
     
  3. axu539 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    #3
    Actually, I'm pretty sure he was asking about performance degradation, and not the actual degradation of capacity. He is probably more concerned with decreased write speed after the drive has been used for a while, since no modern SSDs have to worry about true degradation within 5-10 years, unless they're being used for more intensive purposes like a scratch disk.
     
  4. Avenger thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    #4
    Correct. I was interested in read/write speed degradation over time. I've seen an article or two about performance degradation on the web but in practice I haven't found anyone complaining abt. it in reference to the C300. It seems to be a fairly reliable drive (and I have one for my Windows 7 PC) so I was wondering if anyone can comment if the speed decreases over time in real life scenarios.
     
  5. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #5
    Ooops! I think you are right and I misread it. The original 64GB SSDs we have are slower, but they aren't crazy slow or anything, and they have seen hell.
     
  6. axu539 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    #6
    I've heard some pretty bad things about C300s on Macs. I have an Intel X-25 M in my Mac though (which are apparently the most thoroughly tested on the market, albeit a bit slower in writes than the rest), and after about 4 months of usage (8+ hours a day), I can say that I am seeing no change in the read/write speeds. Personally, I would wait another couple weeks for Intel to show off their G3 SSDs, which should shave off a pretty good bit of the SSD cost. If you're for some reason set on Crucial, you should also just wait for the C400s to come out, which are also significantly cheaper.
     
  7. Avenger thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    #7
    I was really looking on getting one now. I would go with the Intel X-25 M but was looking for a model with around 240GB of space. I narrowed it down to the OCZ Vertex 2, the OWC Mercury Extreme, and the Crucial C300. I see so many posts abt problems with the first two, either with firmware or reliability though those are supposed to be the best. That's why I was looking at the C300 more closely.
     
  8. axu539 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    #8
    I guess you really have no choice then. I'm sure the C300 is just fine for regular use, and read/write degradation usually only affects write speeds. So, worst case scenario is that your drive ends up writing as fast as a regular HDD, but still reading magnitudes of order faster. Doesn't sound too bad at all, and it really should only be noticeable to those looking for problems.
     
  9. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #9
    The C300 will actually last longer than the C400. The OWC has minimal issues except the sleep issue. I have an OWC and it makes my computer fast.
     
  10. bilg macrumors member

    bilg

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2011
    #10
    Could this be because Snow Leopard doesn't yet support trim?
    I've been casually researching the c300's and it would seem that they would have the best performance, regardless of time used.
     
  11. Avenger thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    #11
    Yes. I was wondering abt. the degradation under Mac OS X which doesn't support TRIM. On a Windows 7 PC, it wouldn't be an issue since TRIM is supported there.
     

Share This Page