Crucial Launches 64GB RealSSD C300 at $149.99

With Windows 7 Ultimate, I've found that 64GB (no more than 60GB usable) isn't quite big enough; it may be for Home Premium, but not Ultimate.

Newegg will probably charge $225 for it.

I think I'll wait till 128mb @ $150 to upgrade. 64GB is too small for Windows 7.

eerr 128gb lol

Sata 3 gig or Sata 6 gig ???????????????????????

Do I here Raid 0

Its 6Gig Sata
http://www.crucial.com/store/parts [...] 064MAG-1G1

this is very enticing, after reading some reviews i will make my decision.

one step at a time guys...

I think I will keep to my traditional HD in my gaming rig and wait the couple extra seconds to boot.

I regret buying my 256 SSD. It's faster yes, but it's not that much of a difference in performance if you already have top of the line hardware.

My boot is faster, but when you have to wait for BIOS anyway it's not that much of a plus.

I recall in a review that toms told us to stay away from this drive because firmware or hardware problems. So whats the update on that?

This is perfect for a laptop. I think SSDs make a larger noticeable difference on older machines with run down hard drives and slower laptops with 5400rpm drives. I too am waiting for 128GB at the 150ish price before jumping for the a desktop boot drive.

Buy 2x, RAID 0, that's plenty of space for Windows 7 regardless of what flavor you use.

I stopped using Windows because of the unreal bloat. My entire system (openSUSE) including ALL of my data from the past 10 years (@work) is smaller than Win7 Home Premium with only an Anti-virus installed. It's smaller by about 5 GB with everything installed, unbelievable!

Crucial has since fixed that. The firmware they have now for these SSDs is functioning correctly and they are performing as they are s'posed to.

Really? Hmm...I have Ultimate installed, Office 2010, CS5 and Elements 8, 3 PC games, all the misc programs (Foobar2000, KMplayer, Firerox, Chrome, etc.) so basically a fully loaded system to which I might only add a few more small programs, and yet my drive reads 420 GB free of 465. So, 45GB for a fully loaded system drive... I offset all other files to dedicated drivers. Anyways, no, I think 64GB is big enough!

Holy **** balls, did I read that right?? 355MB/s on a single drive! And I thought my Intel 40GB V Drive was quick. I will actually consider one of these drives, considering its only about $30 more than the Intel.

Hmmm... decent speeds. Let see, if I throw my AVCHD files on it as a source and use 2 traditional hard drives in RAID 0 then I bet I could shave a bit off of rendering times. Since its a scratch disk and should be cleaned up when a project is done, the space should be adequate. I wonder how an SSD upgrade would compare to an upgrade from an AMD quad core to an i7 (which is CPU + motherboard > $500).

Also, I think 64 GB is fine for a system drive - just have a second drive for all your data (with notebooks you can use an external usb drive or eSata enclosure with a USB power supply).

It's finally putting SSD drives on price point with USB flash drives. They will get cheaper but this is a main stopping point in price decreases IMHO. If the price is right for you, this is a good time to jump into SSD.

Converting my blu ray movies into compressed 4th digital files takes alot of space as well as 700mb and more DVD files. 64gb isn't nothing these days. When I see a 1tb SSd drive for $300 then I'll get one. My 2 velociraptors and 1 terabyte drive work for now. Thanks.

You don't need an SSD for storing data, they will work fine on traditional HDDs. These types of SSDs (30GB, 40GB, 64GB) are meant primarily as boot drives, you put your OS on there and maybe few important programs and that is it, it speeds up boot time and OS load times. It's not like you need these types of read speeds to play a video, I have regular HDDs and even starting up a 6.4GB video, I click and a sec later program opens and starts playing, SSD not needed for that.

The 64GB is too small as a boot drive, but as an application drive, it would be nice. In Windows, you could put just the apps you want on it, in separate partitions, then map the partitions to specific NTFS folders instead of drive letters. The apps wouldn't know they're on separate partitions.

The 128GB version of this is only $30 more than what I spent on my 120GB OCZ Vertex, and it's 50% faster. I know what my hard drive upgrade will be in 10 months. (February is my CPU upgrade time, April is hard drive upgrade time, June is video card upgrade time, and October is case upgrade time. By the end of the year, I usually have a fully new system.) Maybe the pricing will go down enough for me to get a 256GB version.

I just don't see the hard disk as much of a bottleneck nowadays. I have plenty of RAM for a large cache and I rarely turn my computer off. I'd buy a SSD because it's quiet (big thing for me) but I'll probably wait for 200 GB for $100.

I've been seeing a lot of decent ssd prices these days but with 25nm nand on the horizon I think I'm just going to sit tight.

For some nutcases up here, Windows 7 could install on a 6GB drive, don't tell me, I tried!
Although 8 to 10 GB is recommended as minimum specs.
If you want to install plenty of programs, you probably will not pass the 20GB limit.
64 is plenty enough. Some computers in the past sold Win7 with bloatware and only had 24GB SSD space.
If you have an external HD, and SDHC cardslot, you don't really need the several hundreds of GB's.

I notice they (even on Crucial's site linked to above) don't mention write speed at all. If read speed is really over 300MB/s and the price is this (relatively) low for 64GB, the write speed must be abysmal.

Great! Please keep us posted, we're all very interested in your life.

Given how SSD works to read and write data it's hard to imagine the write speed being "abysmal" and still seeing those high read speeds.

Where they can sacrifice write in favor of speed helps position this as the primary OS boot drive that it seems well suited for on price, performance and capacity. Even if writes take twice as long as reads it will be speedy enough for this target.

I'd be happy with an "abysmal" performing SSD that still blows away platter drives and is affordable.

write speed is 70 MB/s.

ive got 42 programs (including adobe cs4 master collection and office07) on my pc and its using a whopping 22.2gb so 64 is plenty. Remember with an SSD you dont have to worry about filling it too full and causing bit flipping or using a swap file. So if you fill it up it will still operate just like it was 10% full.

Also as far as I know there are no raid devices that allow trim support so you dont want to raid these unless you dont care about keeping the drive running at optimum performance.

I was gonna ask if the speeds on this drive is the same as the bigger brother but I guess it is based on the comments.

The thing is, since it has fewer nand chips, that usually means the controller has less memory to go parallel with so usually that makes the smaller drives slower, as is the case with Intel's SSDs.

Is that the case here, or does it truly have the same speed as the bigger brothers?