I had two M4s in a dual Xeon E2687W build (3.1GHz 8 core monsters) and the drives were noticeably slower than just about every other SSD I have ever used, except for the uber cheap OCZ'S Petrol 128GB drive that's in my wife's laptop until her new 256GB OCZ Agility 4 arrives. I even tested the M4s sequential read speed on several other PCs just to remove any system issues from the equation. I was shocked to see them testing at approximately the same speed as a 2TB Seagate Barracuda. I just can't recommend them. If you want a bargain, try the newer Agility 4 for not much more than the 3 I linked earlier.

The Crucial M4 use to be the king of the hill (speed/reliability) but that was a year or so ago when it was competing mainly against early Sandforce SSD's. As you all know early SF controllers had issues.

 

Comparing the M4 to current gen SF and the new Indilinx controller it has started to show its age. I placed a M4 in my rig on Tuesday with my Pyro SE and Vertex 4 FW 1.4 and ran a few benches.

 

IOmeter, Sandra, HDTune and HD Tach:

 

Read speeds were all pretty close with fastest to slowest being Vertex 4, Pyro SE, and M4.

 

Write speeds were the biggest shocker. The Vertex 4 and Pyro SE were twice as fast as the M4.

 

 

Each Vertex 4 firmware update added additional speed and OCZ has stated another speed increase is expected with the next release.

 

So in my opinion I would no longer recommend the M4 for gaming. The M4 are great for work laptops due to low energy use but no for longer gaming.

 

If you need a gaming SSD I would go Vertex 3, Vertex 4 or Pyro SE.

Good info on this thread. It gives me a lot to chew on. Here's a question: Being that this computer will primarily be used for FSX initially, I was wondering if would make sense to get a 60 GB SSD for the OS and Microsoft office, and then the 240 GB SSD for FSX and FSX add-ons. Basically those would be my only 2 drives. I found an OCZ Agility 3 60GB SSD for 50.00. In the future I can always add another hard drive when needed. Or... just buy the 240 GB SSD for FSX, all add-ons, and the OS and a HDD for all other programs. Would 240 GB be enough space for FSX, Active Sky 2012, UTX, GEX, Orbx sceneries, several airports, a few aircraft, and Windows 7? If it is more than enough, then the HDD would make more sense as a second drive for my needs right now. Just trying to find a balance between budget and performance.

 

Todd

A 240GB drive would satisfy your needs.

Yeah, 240-256GB should be enough, but once again, avoid asynchronous NAND SSD's like Agility 3 or Corsair Force 3.

Yeah, 240-256GB should be enough, but once again, avoid asynchronous NAND SSD's like Agility 3 or Corsair Force 3.

 

What for? Performance isn't that different, you're still light years ahead of mechanical drives. Don't get me wrong , the synchronous NAND SSDs are super fast, I really like my Vertex 4. They're also still pretty expensive. Price drops on asynchronous drives have made them a justifiable expense for many more enthusiasts on a budget lately.

What for? Performance isn't that different, you're still light years ahead of mechanical drives. Don't get me wrong , the synchronous NAND SSDs are super fast, I really like my Vertex 4. They're also still pretty expensive. Price drops on asynchronous drives have made them a justifiable expense for many more enthusiasts on a budget lately.

 

The difference for example from an Agility 3 and a Vertex 3, or a Corsair Force 3 vs a Corsair GT is about $10 - $20 in newegg right now.

Yes, asynchoronous NAND SSD's are still much faster than mechanical drives, but performance suffers a lot as they're filled up

I'll keep an eye on my wife's new 256GB Agility 4 compared to my 512GB Vertex 4 as time goes by. So far so good though, similar speed when testing, and even at half full already it still feels super fast at everything. I'm not sure about your stated price differences though. I just paid an even $200 for this 256GB drive, I don't recall any similarly priced drives of equal size and greater speed being anywhere near that price.

 

Right now a 256GB Vertex 4 is $40, or 20% more and a Samsung 830 is $70, or a whopping 35% more. Not insane prices by any means, but a larger price difference than you mentioned.

Right now a 256GB Vertex 4 is $40, or 20% more and a Samsung 830 is $70, or a whopping 35% more

 

Well yeah, if you cherry pick the two pricier Sync ones out there obviously it's going to look like they're a lot more expensive.

Vertex 4 are new, and the Samsung 830 series have been the fastest in most reviews for quite a while, and also the most stable along with Crucial M4. No wonder they're gonna be expensive.

 

Here's the article about Async NAND and real life tests showing how performance really suffers even with just a 25-50% of the drive full

 

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/08/07/nand_flash_faces_off_synchronous_vs_asynchronous/4

 

With each drive half full we see massive gaps in performance, a lot more than what you’d expect from products that "only" differ on how they deal with compressed files. In some cases the synchronous flash model doubles the performance of the asynchronous one. It should be noted that these software applications are those that get used daily by a majority of PC users, not just power users and enthusiasts.

 

Since the SandForce SF-2281 turns all data into compressed data, performance is affected across the board

I'd like to see more than just two Sandforce drives tested before making such a conclusion. Who knows how an Indilinx Everest 2 based drive like the Agility 4 would perform under similar conditions? Again, I wasn't impressed with the performance of the M4s I've tested and used. Solid drives I'm sure though. As for my price comparison choices: go look at the available 256 GB SSDs on Newegg and find some other choices that meet the pre-defined criteria and make the comparison yourself using actual price figures and not mere guesses, let us know what you find.

 

Not trying to be rude, I've just had my hands on a fair few SSDs lately and I'm thoroughly impressed by the price and performance of the new Everest 2 based drives mentioned.

I'd like to see more than just two Sandforce drives tested before making such a conclusion. Who knows how an Indilinx Everest 2 based drive like the Agility 4 would perform under similar conditions? Again, I wasn't impressed with the performance of the M4s I've tested and used. Solid drives I'm sure though. As for my price comparison choices: go look at the available 256 GB SSDs on Newegg and find some other choices that meet the pre-defined criteria and make the comparison yourself using actual price figures and not mere guesses, let us know what you find.

 

Not trying to be rude, I've just had my hands on a fair few SSDs lately and I'm thoroughly impressed by the price and performance of the new Everest 2 based drives mentioned.

 

well, 256GB... there's only the M4 of course, because the rest of the Synchronous SSD's are 240GB (the Sandforce 2281 based ones) and they all go for some 200-210 bucks as well.

I have no idea why your M4's didn't perform as expected, but they are definitely blazing fast man

It seems the prices of these drives fluctuate daily on Newegg. Almost like deciding when to buy an airline ticket. The crucial m4 prices are now up over $200 again. Just saw on Microcenter, however, that the Agility4 240GB SSD is $189.00.

 

Another question - while the OCZ drives are supposedly faster than the Crucial drives, in terms FSX performance, will I actually be able to see any difference or advantage with one SSD vs the other? If not, then it really comes down to price (which we already know fluctuates day to day) and stability, correct?

 

Todd

I actually be able to see any difference or advantage with one SSD vs the other

 

.From one speed to the other of SSD's, I dought if you notice with your eyes, maybe testing wise. Good question.