Crucial Unveils Cheap v4 SSDs

[dmoney1980]

Crucial has unveiled a new series of SSDs that are relatively cheap and aimed at older computers running 3Gb/s SATA ports. The new line of SSDs is called the Crucial v4 and they come in 32 GB, 64 GB, 128 GB, and 256 GB capacities. Pricing is $49.99, $69.99, $99.99, and $184.99 respectively from Newegg.

With the Crucial v4 SSD, we've come up with a product that's designed to bring the most value out of a SATA 2 system without paying for extra performance that can't be used."
Crucial promises read speeds of up to 230 MB/s and write speeds of up to 190 MB/s.

My opinion- they need to sell these drives way below msrp for it to make sense. I can pick up a 256gb M3 now for $189 at Micro Center.


article link: http://www.dailytech.com/Crucial+Unveils+Cheap+v4+SSDs/article25308.htm

 

[ronbo613]

I just bought a Samsung 128G and a Kingston HyperX 120g 6Gp/s for a couple SATA II systems for less than the "cheap" Crucial v4.

 

[WilliamM2]

Those are retail prices, I'm sure they will be available for less.

 

[dmoney1980]

newegg is selling them at the retail price

 

[MontyAC]

Kind of strange they are making SSDs for older motherboards. Why buy this when you can get faster ones that can be later moved to 6Gb boards?

 

[WilliamM2]

I'm sure they will keep them at retail forever then.

 

[dmoney1980]

All I'm saying is that they could have been more aggresive with the retail pricing

 

[hhhd1]

Horrible pricing.

they need to reach half of their current price since they also have that lower performance compared to the current available SSDs

hoping to see affordable SSDs for storage soon.


Crucial M4 128gb was for $90 , yesterday at amazon
Crucial M4 128GB with Transfer Kit for $100 at newegg today

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Horrible pricing.

they need to reach half of their current price since they also have that lower performance compared to the current available SSDs

hoping to see affordable SSDs for storage soon.


Crucial M4 128gb was for $90 , yesterday at amazon
Crucial M4 128GB with Transfer Kit for $100 at newegg today

Agreed. They need to retail for 2/3 rd of their m4 counterparts.

 

[Coup27]

Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense tbh. And man, those random read/write scores, ouch.

On top of that its a new controller nobody has used before, so it has to be treated with the usual caution.

 

[bryanW1995]

Meh. The m4 is a LOT better drive and costs about the same as the v4's msrp. I agree that the street price on v4 needs to be about 2/3 of the m4 to make sense.

 

[BFG10K]

These are like Crucial’s version of the Intel 320.

 

[VirtualLarry]

These are like Crucial’s version of the Intel 320.

You mean, without the performance of such, right?

 

[Hellhammer]

These are like Crucial’s version of the Intel 320.

Except Intel 320 is almost a year and a half old and is mainly aimed for enterprises nowadays (extreme reliability, power loss protection, great garbage collection etc.).

 

[BFG10K]

You mean, without the performance of such, right?

Crucial's read speed is lower but its write speed is superior at 64GB (vs 80GB) and 128GB (vs 120GB) capacities.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Crucial's read speed is lower but its write speed is superior at 64GB (vs 80GB) and 128GB (vs 120GB) capacities.

I think you need to look again. Look at the random read/write IOPS listed at Newegg for these v4 drives. The specs are pretty pathetic. Yes, we know Intel 320 has slow sequential write speed, but otherwise, it has great random IOPS., which is what really matters for an SSD.

 

[jacktesterson]

I have 3 SSD's currently.... Crucial M4 128GB, Kingston V+200 128GB, and a Intel 320 80GB

No real noticeable difference in everyday usage. Guess I don't noticed the write speeds often as all 3 are being used as Boot/App drives.

 

[BFG10K]

I think you need to look again. Look at the random read/write IOPS listed at Newegg for these v4 drives. The specs are pretty pathetic. Yes, we know Intel 320 has slow sequential write speed, but otherwise, it has great random IOPS., which is what really matters for an SSD.

IOPS is a worthless synthetic metric like 4KQD32. Sequential is more relevant for determining real-world things like file copying, as shown below:

The Crucial runs away from the Intel because of higher sequential write speed.

Heck, in the same test the VelociRaptor scores 47MB/sec, basically matching the Crucial M4 and also easily beating the Intel 320:

Obviously the Raptor doesn’t have more IOPS than the Intel 320, so it must be sequential performance causing this. Specifically with writing, which the 320 series is weak in.

And these are small files too (39.4KB average), so it’s not like sequential performance only affects big files where there’s no data seeking.

 

[beginner99]

IOPS is a worthless synthetic metric like 4KQD32. Sequential is more relevant for determining real-world things like file copying, as shown below:

The Crucial runs away from the Intel because of higher sequential write speed.

Heck, in the same test the VelociRaptor scores 47MB/sec, basically matching the Crucial M4 and also easily beating the Intel 320:

Obviously the Raptor doesn’t have more IOPS than the Intel 320, so it must be sequential performance causing this. Specifically with writing, which the 320 series is weak in.

And these are small files too (39.4KB average), so it’s not like sequential performance only affects big files where there’s no data seeking.

IMHO heavy file copying liek this isn't a real-world scenario either. IMHO there is no real-world scenario that is benchmarkable that shows why I like ssd. With normal HDD you just get these random short hangs like when right-clicking on files or sometimes just in the middle of writing a forum post. It's not benchmarkable because those hangs are not reproducible.

 

[BFG10K]

IMHO there is no real-world scenario that is benchmarkable that shows why I like ssd.

The metric you're looking for that explains this is random access (ms).

With normal HDD you just get these random short hangs like when right-clicking on files or sometimes just in the middle of writing a forum post. It's not benchmarkable because those hangs are not reproducible.

I'm not denying that an SSD is more snappy than an HDD for OS use. I’m just saying that this Crucial drive looks similar to Intel’s 320 series (similar sequential, SATA 2 interface, etc). I expect it’ll perform similarly in real world tests.

 

[hhhd1]

The v4 IOPS are far below the IOPS of the intel 320, i would expect much worst performance in real world test.

Waiting for reviews and benchmarks.

 

[Hellhammer]

Waiting for reviews and benchmarks.

Just chiming in to say that Crucial is sending us a review sample next week.

 

[mrpiggy]

I'm thinking the main purpose for this product is simply so Micron has another lower end consumer ssd product in the retail channel. Sure it's priced wrong at the moment, but the main point is to get it out there and then adjust to market force prices accordingly later. Without it, the only competitive consumer ssd product micron has is the m4. You don't want to continually race-to-bottom pricing on your premier product. The fact that micron has, is mainly because they have had nothing else to bargain with beyond the m4. Great for consumers but probably terrible for company profit.

Imagine if apple decided to sell its iPhones for hardware cost to drive out all the lower end android phones. Well that would probably work fine in being the top of the low-cost mountain, but what would happen later? Once the product is sold at a certain very low price, you can't push the price back up to what it needs to be to actually make money because customers expect it to be the new low price regardless of why.

With this lower end product, micron can now use it to drive the low cost/performance ssd prices instead of having to use its better product that is already selling at a probably too-low profit margin.. Basically you don't want use your Cadillac model to drive the prices on the Camry segment.

Just guessing...and yes the price on this v4 is borked at the moment.

 

[VirtualLarry]

So, let's say for a moment that your theory is correct.

What about Samsung? They mfg their own NAND too, and have the majority of the market share of NAND producers, something like 40-odd percent.

Say Crucial "market adjusts" their prices, with their lower-end v4 slotting in where the m4 is today, and the m4 sit at a higher pricing tier than that. What good will that do, if Samsung's flagship 830 drive is priced where the v4 is? Wouldn't Crucial simply lose market share due to this?

IOW, during a price war, is not the time to prop up prices, if the goal is market share.

 

[StarTech]

In my opinion these drives have a clearly defined target consumer, and I think it plays capitalism at its best. There are millions of PCs out there that have older SATA speeds. The owners hear that an SSD is the best upgrade for the buck, which is true. If the economy was good, they may go for a new machine. So they are confronted with the "which one will work with my old machine".

Now, lets think how many times we have someone asking if a SATA x will work in their computer. So what is the best assurance for a regular Joe looking for that SSD? The one that says "It works best with old hardware". Relative price of higher performing prices does not matter. What matters is that it is the one labeled "best for old hardware".

If this works, they will keep their price.