Corsair Performance Series Pro (256GB) Review

41 Comments

View All Comments

• Kristian Vättö - Monday, May 14, 2012 - link

  I've had Plextor M3 Pro for a couple of weeks now and review should be up next week at the latest. I didn't have all data yet so couldn't include it in the charts, plus it might have stolen the spotlight so I decided to save all data for a dedicated review.

• Mathieu Bourgie - Friday, May 25, 2012 - link

  Any update on this? I'm dying to see a AT's review of the M3 Pro :D

• jwilliams4200 - Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - link

  Well, "next week" has come and gone.
  
  I see that you have the M3P data in the benchmark database, but where is the review article?

• Voldenuit - Monday, May 14, 2012 - link

  Hi Kristian,
  
  Thanks for the review. Could AT please post the physical measurements of the drive? Some laptops are moving to the 7mm thick form factor and will not accept standard 9.5mm thick 2.5" drives.

• Kristian Vättö - Monday, May 14, 2012 - link

  It's 9.5mm thick, like most 2.5" drives. I added it to the article so it's no longer unclear :-)

• Voldenuit - Monday, May 14, 2012 - link

  Thanks!
  
  How's that for awesome-fast service!

• GrizzledYoungMan - Monday, May 14, 2012 - link

  With the Samsung 830 going for nearly a dollar a gig at the critical 128 gig capacity, I really can't imagine why someone would buy a competitor's SSD. They're already way ahead of most on performance and reliability, for much less than the vast majority of alternatives.
  
  Interesting how that old Intel controller in the 320 is still kicking ass where it counts (random reads, latency, IOs at low queue depths). I really feel like most SSDs - all of them, really, besides the 830 and 320 - are designed more to score well in benchmarks than to meet the performance needs of desktop/workstation users.
  
  Really glad we have Anand and his colleagues working on understanding this stuff.

• zcat - Monday, May 14, 2012 - link

  Indeed. I finally sprung for the 256G Samsung 830 last Friday, since it was on sale for only $235 w/ free shipping, and because it's still "best in class" overall. The Crucial m4 was a close 2nd choice due to its reliability rep as well, but the write speeds suffer a bit. (Thanks for the SSD comparison benches AT!)

• GrizzledYoungMan - Monday, May 14, 2012 - link

  Trust me, you'll be really glad you didn't go for the M4. After my old Vertex (first gen, Indilinx! haha) was dying, I replaced it first with a 128gb M4, largely because of its reputation for reliability.
  
  Man, was that a mistake. I was on FW 0309 (which had been issued in a hurry to correct a BSOD issue created by the last FW update) and the thing had major issues. Stuttering, hanging, inability to resume from sleep and so on. The Windows event manager was lit up red like a Christmas tree, and this was with a fresh install on a Lynnfield based machine that worked beautifully with my old Vertex.
  
  Turns out the thing had major, unacknowledged (outside of some hard to find forum posts) compatibility issues with Intel's RST an a number of power management features in Windows 7. I guess Intel and Microsoft are really obscure little companies whose products don't merit compatibility testing? Beats me.

• zcat - Monday, May 14, 2012 - link

  Hah. I'm also replacing a 1st gen OCZ Vertex. :)
  
  SMART says it has only 39% of its (writable) life left after about 2.5 years of use:
  209 Remaining_Lifetime_Perc 0x0000 --- --- --- Old_age Offline - 39