SSD Benchmark: What do you use? Comparing Crucial C300 128gb & Corsair F115 115gb

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by vladgur, Apr 9, 2011.

  1. vladgur macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    #1
    I just tried several SSDs with my 2010 Macbook Pro with i7 cpu and Sata 2 controller and im trying to decided which one is a keeper.
    Right now im torn between Corsair F115 with sandforce Sata 2 controller and Crucial C300 128gb with Sata 3 controller.
    All things considered, trim support in OSX is actually available due to latest third party developments(see macrumors), so sandforce controller has minimal advantage and I actually got C300 for less and got more space to boot. Id really like to keep it.

    BUT

    BENCHMARKS :)

    Im running two tools for OSX that I found: XBench and AJA Systems Test

    As you can see from the screenshots below, with XBench, C300 wins on all counts, whereas with AJA Systems, the read speeds reported are half of those of Corsair F115.

    Has anyone run into similar results with these same SSDs?
    Whats a good consistent SSD benchmark for OSX?




    I attached images of the OSX Profiler when these SSDs were plugged in.

    Corsair AJA Test:

    [​IMG]


    Crucial AJA Test: Notice half as fast write speed

    [​IMG]

    Corsair X-Bench

    [​IMG]

    Crucial X-Bench: Numbers show it being faster than Corsair at writes as well as reads

    [​IMG]


    Corsair Profiler to show Sata Link speed, etc

    [​IMG]

    and with Crucial SSD:

    [​IMG]


    Note: I posted same question on Crucial SSD forums, but my Corsair results were removed by moderators rendering my question sort of meaningless.
     
  2. NikFinn macrumors 6502a

    NikFinn

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    MA
    #2
    Any reason why you bought two in the first place?
     
  3. vladgur thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    #3
    They were on sale and both were bought at a place with a generous return policy.
     
  4. NikFinn macrumors 6502a

    NikFinn

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    MA
    #4
    Ah. What do you mainly use the computer for? Do you need the increased write speeds?
     
  5. vladgur thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    #5
    I understand the notion of perceived speed and I dont do videocapturing and such. What I wonder is if anyone came across similar problem with C300 on their macbooks as it seems that its only visible in a one application -- AJA.
    Having a write speed at 50% of read speed is a weird situation imho.
     
  6. NikFinn macrumors 6502a

    NikFinn

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    MA
    #6
    As far as I know all 64GB C300s are like this, and apparently so are the 128GBs. It's generally not a problem unless you do something that constantly requires writes. For me, I use it as a boot drive, so writes make little to no difference.
     
  7. johnnyturbouk macrumors 68000

    johnnyturbouk

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Location:
    on the yellow [oled] brick road to tech nirvana.
    #7
    i'd go with the crucial c300.. especially now with the trim hacks

    im really not familiar with the corsair drives.. besides having a sandforce controller, how good are they at updating f/w; how good is there tech support?
     
  8. vladgur thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    #8
    This sounds strange as XBench doesnt represent that. Its weird because this guy with a 2011 Macbook and sata3 (mine is 2010 with sata2) has write speeds that are equal to read speeds on C300...although its 256Gb
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12253587&postcount=180
     
  9. NikFinn macrumors 6502a

    NikFinn

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    MA
    #9
    For the most part, the bigger the drive, the faster the specs are. Here's my 64GB Xbench score.
     

    Attached Files:

Share This Page