Comments on: Crucial C300 64Gb RealSSD Review https://www.thessdreview.com/our-reviews/crucial-c300-64gb-realssd/ The Worlds Dedicated SSD Education and Review Resource | Fri, 08 Feb 2013 14:32:47 +0000 hourly 1 By: Nightwolf https://www.thessdreview.com/our-reviews/crucial-c300-64gb-realssd/#comment-3274 Fri, 10 Dec 2010 15:03:24 +0000 https://thessdreview.com/?p=2134#comment-3274 I can tell you something else about this drive and other C300 drives and it’s not good, the drivers for Marvell SATA 6G aka SATA 3 controllers like the 9123 and the 9128 which are both common on motherboards and add in cards, have stability problems. These stability problems happened so sudden last week, that after I shut my system down to fix something on my case, and powered back up, I could no longer boot Windows 7 off my C300 128 connected to an ASUS U3S6 combination USB3/SATA6G(SATA3) controller card.

I took the card in to the shop, I bought it from, thinking it needed to be rmaed, which it didn’t, as I discovered over last weekend it was Marvell’s drivers that messed up my Windows 7 install. I did a temp install of Win 7 last weekend, that wasn’t activated, and copied my important files off the SSD.

Needless to say, on Monday I got my card back, reinstalled Windows on my C300 128 connected of course to the Intel Controller, then I hooked my C300 128 up to my U3S6 card, then I was back in action, after letting Windows install the generic Microsoft AHCI driver for my SATA 6G controller.

My system and SSD have been working fine ever since Monday with just the generic Microsoft AHCI driver in place for the Marvell 9123 controller on my ASUS U3S6 card.

I did read the review and thought I would post above what happened to me with Marvell’s SATA 6G drivers.

SITE RESPONSE: We appreciate your taking the time to write and sympathize with your experience. Our reviews are posted as we test and there are no outside influences whatsoever and, unfortunately, anomalies such as this can happen with any SSD for different reasons. I have two 64GB Crucials, one which has been in my system on SATA III since the test. I have experienced no problem with them as single drives, however, scores are lest than glowing for RAIDed drives, this being the fault of the mobo Marvell SATA 3 and not the drive itself. Thanks again for writing and glad you did get it all sorted out.

]]> By: poohbear https://www.thessdreview.com/our-reviews/crucial-c300-64gb-realssd/#comment-424 Thu, 07 Oct 2010 14:19:11 +0000 https://thessdreview.com/?p=2134#comment-424 Les , nice review, i bought this ssd based on ur advice in RFD, but there is one VERY crucial thing u didnt mention, and i really think it needs to be emphasized. between this and sandforce based SSDs, it does not have its own garbage collection mechanism (which the sandforce based SSDs do). this is supposed to be all well & good in Win7 since it has TRIM, but only if you’re using an Intel chipset because their AHCI drivers support TRIM. to the large number of AMD users out there, we’re basicly screwed because the AMD AHCI drivers dont support TRIM, so we’re left w/ the much slower MS AHCI drivers if we want garbage collection to occur. This would’ve been a deal breaker for me, as i now have this c300 SSD running on my AMD rig and wont install the AMD drivers lest i lose TRIM. This needs to be emphasized and i totally blame AMD as they’re so far behind intel in this regards. They need to be called out for being so lazy on this issue.

ADMIN: There is presently some controversy regarding this and I am expecting the official answer from Crucial in the next day or so. Myself, I believe something is occurring as my performance with the drive today is exactly the same as day one and I can guarantee it has been written over much more than the average user. Can I ask a favour? Can we post a forum topic on this and carry on which then allows for alot more exchange than the comment page? If so, can you post some scores now compared to the initial scores?

]]>