Crucial's m4 SSD Tested At 64, 128, 256, And 512 GB

[aliened]

Make a review of the new Kingston HyperX SSD to make a comparison with the m4!!

 

[acku]

[citation][nom]cadder[/nom]1. The recommended 128GB size has a lot of negative feedback on newegg, specifically freezing periodically.http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 68201484422. I wish Toms would come up with some real world benchmarks for testing SSD's. How long does it take for the computer to boot? How long does it take to load Excel? How long does it take to load Crysis? Things like that. I've seen tests other places that showed how fast a computer would boot, and the difference between the slowest hard drive and the fastest SSD wasn't all that much. I would like to see real world tests of these drives. While the artificial benchmarks show big differences, I'm betting in the real world the differences are very small.[/citation]

I, Anand, and others have commented on the real-world aspect of SSDs. There's a limit to SSD performance, where adding a faster and faster SSD won't cut down your bootup, game loading, or level loading time. That's what PCMark 7 reflects.

On a Vertex 3 240 GB, the disk busy time is like 2 secs when you load Crysis 2, but total game loading time is ~30 secs. Why? Because you're doing things beyond querying the disk for data. There is CPU processing, loading data into memory, loading into CPU cache, loading GPU textures, etc... etc...

That won't change much when you downgrade you go to a 64 GB m4. Busy time may be +3 secs but the overall effect on game loading isn't going to change very much beyond say 33 seconds. Compared to a HDD, there's a world of difference, but very little between SSDs when you look at one specific case.

However, that doesn't tell the full story, because moving up to a faster SSD does help system responsiveness when you look at the BIG picture. If you were to measure disk responsiveness over the course of a week doing different tasks, you will feel the total effect of having a faster SSD.

That's why we focus on LONG traces. The Storage Bench v1.0 is a two week trace, which provides a better measure of disk responsiveness. As a trace, which we explained in the review, it is considered a real-world test.

Cheers,
Andrew Ku
TomsHardware.com

 

[beenthere]

If your mobo doesn't have Sata III then it's all moot anyway.

 

[radium69]

Dear, Andrew Ku
I would like to see bootup times and (real) real world benchmarks.
Not just simulated or synthetic benchmarks. I know it will cost extra time and money, but it would make the article much more understandable.

Also I'd like to see sata 3 performance even though they may not saturate the entire bandwith. Anand did a article on that but it's good to have many sources

Also, the Crucial M4 makes more sense over a vertex standpoint. I've seen good reviews of the M4 and Vertex. But reliability which is PRIORITY #1!!!
Does not always speak for themself.

I had a few Sandforce drivers (vertex 2 and 3) freezing firmware bugs and complete malfunctioning. I really like the fact that Crucials M4 SSD based on a Marvell controller are more reliable then a sandforce controller.

Especially the Corsair Force drives. (Bad reviews on newegg all over the place)

I just hate the fact that they crown Vertex 3 a "must" buy. While reliability is a HUGE concern.
The M4 wins in reliability combined with price and performance.
Crucials M4 drives also are "cough" bang for the buck. (if you look at comparable ssds)

I really do like the fact that you recommended the 128gb drive, now it only needs an award from a consumer standpoint.

I applaud all the good work you guys do, keep it up!
Cheers,
Kevin

 

[urchin]

If you split a 256gb into two 128gb or four 64gb partitions, will the partitions retain the speed of the 256gb or be similar to equally sized drives?
While this is a specific question for clarity, what I would actually like is a general reply for across the board partitioning.

 

[acku]

[citation][nom]urchin[/nom]If you split a 256gb into two 128gb or four 64gb partitions, will the partitions retain the speed of the 256gb or be similar to equally sized drives?While this is a specific question for clarity, what I would actually like is a general reply for across the board partitioning.[/citation]

It doesn't matter how you partition the 256 GB drive. It will behave like a 256 GB drive. That applies across the all brands and all SSDs.

Cheers,
Andrew Ku
TomsHardware.com

 

[hangfirew8]

[citation][nom]radium69[/nom]Dear, Andrew Ku I would like to see bootup times and (real) real world benchmarks.[/citation]

Kevin, does a tested boot time spread from 33.1 seconds to 33.2 seconds between the fastest and slowest SSD's really matter?

 

[c0ldfusion]

would 2 64gb in raid 0 be faster than a single 128gb?

 

[KuchyKoo]

I got this M4 128GB version a couple of months ago and it is STUNNING. After previously having a Corsair Force 3 (totally crap) and the previous generation Crucial 64GB version I am WELL HAPPY with the M4 128GB.

 

[youssef 2010]

I went with Vertex 3 MI and completely ditched the m4 line. Now, I know that I made the right decision.

 

[protocall]

The results for the Crucial m4 256GB in 4k random reads is in stark contrast to the results in a similar article:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sf-2200-sandforce-ssd,2987-6.html

4kB random reads, q=1, 16GB LBA -
m4 256 in this article: 72MB/s
m4 256 in roundup article: 214MB/s

Only difference is the version of IOMeter. The 256GB m4 either leads the pack or trails it, but not both. What am I missing? What is IOMeter doing differently to make the 8k native page size irrelevant in the other article?

 

[redwolfe_98]

i am posting late, to the thread, but i appreciate this article, comparing the performance of the different sizes of the m4's..

usually you see a big difference between 128 GB and 256 GB SSD's, but not with the m4's.. and the price is right, too, compared to other SSD's.. it doesn't have the same performance as the more expensive SSD's, but the others are too expensive, for me..

it would have been nice if one of the higher performance SSD's was included in the tests, for comparison..

 

[Guest]

Crucial m4SSD it is. I AM SOLD! Thanks, Tom!