Corsair 60GB SSD 2.5" SATA-II Read 285MB/s Write 275MB/s £109.98 @ Ebuyer (Free Delivery) - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
Product Description
Corsair 60GB Force SSD 2.5" SATA-II Read 285MB/s Write 275MB/s - Inc 2.5 To 3.5 Bracket

The Corsair Force Series SSD product line offers the highest performance in Read/Write speeds of up to a maximum read speed of 285MB/s and write speed of 275MB/s. If speed is what you are looking for and what you expect from your performance or gaming system the Corsair Force Series SSD's are the perfect choice.
Your system will start-up faster, applications and games will load quicker and you will see a huge improvement in overall system responsiveness. The Corsair Force Series SSD is the ultimate SSD for your demanding storage requirements Features

* Maximum sequential read speed 285 MB/second
* Maximum sequential write speed 275 MB/second
* Random 4K write performance of 50,000 IOPS (4K aligned)
* Latest generation SandForce controller and MLC NAND flash for fast performance
* Internal SATA II connectivity
* TRIM support (O/S support required)
* No moving parts for increased durability and reliability and quieter operations over standard hard disk drives
* Decreased power usage for increased notebook or netbook battery life
* 2.5" form factor for your portable computer needs
* Included 2.5" to 3.5" bracket for installation on your desktop computer
* Three year warranty
Deal Tags:
More From Ebuyer:

All Comments

(38) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
Excellent deal. Just about to submit it myself just before I saw this thread. Heat added.
#2
Cruical C300 is better, only a few pounds more, and bigger capacity by 4gb.
Heat added though!
#3
budmanuk
Cruical C300 is better, only a few pounds more, and bigger capacity by 4gb.Heat added though!

not really, only if you've got a sata 3.0 port and then thats only for the read speeds, the write speads on the c300 don't come close to touching the sandforce based drives
#4
marshalex
budmanuk
Cruical C300 is better, only a few pounds more, and bigger capacity by 4gb.Heat added though!


not really, only if you've got a sata 3.0 port and then thats only for the read speeds, the write speads on the c300 don't come close to touching the sandforce based drives


I would of thought with the size of this drive it would be enough for os and some programs making it a ideal boot drive. So after installing everything your not gonna need write speeds or am i missing something.
#5
Borat
marshalex
budmanuk
Cruical C300 is better, only a few pounds more, and bigger capacity by 4gb.Heat added though!
not really, only if you've got a sata 3.0 port and then thats only for the read speeds, the write speads on the c300 don't come close to touching the sandforce based drives
I would of thought with the size of this drive it would be enough for os and some programs making it a ideal boot drive. So after installing everything your not gonna need write speeds or am i missing something.

it depends, with a drive that small your not going to be able to keep a wealth of games on there which would mean constant uninstalling and reinstalling if you want to play games off the ssd, where the write speeds would come into play. the read speeds of the c300 are only good providing you have a sata 3 card or port. on a sata 2 port they drop to below that of the sandforce drives.
#7
Indeed .. show me 2 posts of people having problems with a Corsair SSD and ill show you 100 from OCZ. Meaningless links.

This is one of the best deals around for this kind of write/read speed.
#8
Don't get me wrong it is a good drive but in some ways the C300 is better. As I said Heat added. But at this price, I'd buy the C300 for a few pounds more, thats all. The'll change by next week anyway!! :)
#9
When it comes to purely reading speed then yes the c300 is better.
#10
I have ordered one of these, I'm going to try it out
#11
budmanuk
The'll change by next week anyway!! :)


Is this a general statement that prices flucutate? Or do you know something else that we don't? :)
#12
no I meant the speeds of the drives lol
banned#13
budmanuk - Aug 20, 2010 07:27
Cruical C300 is better, only a few pounds more, and bigger capacity by 4gb.
Heat added though!


there is an extra cost in buying a C300, then there is a cost of buying a sata 3 compatible card to run it. The upshot here is you spend money for the myth of added speed, my thought was, how much faster do you want to go than a 20second boot up. I mean that is fast, isn't it?

I am sure Sata 3 will become more affordable, but Estimated 80% boards out there are not capable of Sata 3 so I am guessing C300 Faster read/writes that are listed everywhere are not actually as true as they read, that drive is for the more higher end customer over the mainstream, home and gamer? Correct me if I am wrong because I am pretty intrigued?
#14
STRAVIS
budmanuk - Aug 20, 2010 07:27
Cruical C300 is better, only a few pounds more, and bigger capacity by 4gb.
Heat added though!


there is an extra cost in buying a C300, then there is a cost of buying a sata 3 compatible card to run it. The upshot here is you spend money for the myth of added speed, my thought was, how much faster do you want to go than a 20second boot up. I mean that is fast, isn't it?

I am sure Sata 3 will become more affordable, but Estimated 80% boards out there are not capable of Sata 3 so I am guessing C300 Faster read/writes that are listed everywhere are not actually as true as they read, that drive is for the more higher end customer over the mainstream, home and gamer? Correct me if I am wrong because I am pretty intrigued?


It's not just the cost of the card, you need a motherboard that supports pci-e x4. I have a gigabyte 965p-ds3 for example and there would be no point putting a pci-e sata 3 (6Gb) in one of it's pci-e x 1 slots as it they don't have the bandwidth to support Sata 3 (6Gb). The spec for an Asus U3S6 for example states pci-e x4 or higher slot. So my mobo is one of the "80%" non compatible with Sata 3 (6Gb).

I'd also favour a sandforce based SSD over the C300. Nothing wrong with the C300 but I prefer the better 4K performance from the Sandforce based SSDs.


Edited By: fishmaster on Aug 20, 2010 18:54: sandy balls
#15
ive got a sata3 add on card in a space full speed pcie slot, but now cant decide which SSD to buy to get the most use out of it.
#16
I PREFER TO WAIT UNTIL 120 GB OCZ REVO DRIVE PRICE DROPS A BIT AND THEN...................................................................................THEN I AM GOING TO BUY IT!!!! LOL
#17
hus52
ive got a sata3 add on card in a space full speed pcie slot, but now cant decide which SSD to buy to get the most use out of it.


The C300 is the only consumer SSD that can utilise Sata 3 (6Gb) bandwidth as far as I know, and far from fully utilise it, so there's your choice. Or forgo the Sata 3 (6Gb) card and buy a PCI-E based SSD such as the Revo, you lose TRIM but it doesn't seem to matter too much with Sandforce controllers.

If you want a discussion regarding C300 versus Vertex 2E see this thread >

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18167100

I don't see any reviews yet regarding this drive. I presume it will run on par or similar to the OCZ Vertex 2E. I think I would pay a little more and get the OCZ personally as their support seems to be better. This is still a good deal as it looks to be the cheapest Sandforce based SSD in the UK in this capacity and therefore I voted it hot.



Edited By: fishmaster on Aug 20, 2010 19:12: why not
#18
budmanuk
Cruical C300 is better, only a few pounds more, and bigger capacity by 4gb.Heat added though!
an SSD this size is going to be used as a boot drive (for 90%+ of people who buy it) and when u are using the SSD as a boot drive, the sequential read or write speeds don't matter as much as the 4k performance (like stated before) and this SSD or most of the NEW sandforce based SSD's will smash the C300 in the 4k performance. therefore this SSD or at least a NEW sandforce based SSD would be better than the C300
#19
Have a look at this link guys for them who dont already know the news about intels new ssd drives coming very soon apparently.

http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/8/16/intel-ssd-roadmap-revealed/
#20
copystuff
Have a look at this link guys for them who dont already know the news about intels new ssd drives coming very soon apparently.


http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/8/16/intel-ssd-roadmap-revealed/


looks promising any idea of read/write speeds?
#21
STRAVIS
there is an extra cost in buying a C300, then there is a cost of buying a sata 3 compatible card to run it.

A SATA 6GBit card isn't required to use the C300, it'll work fine and still perform very well on a SATA II port. I'm looking for a new SSD myself and am leaning toward the C300 atm, because it's going into a laptop that has only one 2.5" bay and I suspect a very fast 64GB drive will be more useful than a very, very fast 60GB one, given that the system is likely to be CPU bottlenecked most of the time even with the C300. I'm also considering those 96GB Indilinx-based OCZ drives that are going for about £140. Not the fastest drives in the world, but the £-per-GB ratio is very tempting.
#22
fishmaster
STRAVIS
budmanuk - Aug 20, 2010 07:27Cruical C300 is better, only a few pounds more, and bigger capacity by 4gb.Heat added though!
there is an extra cost in buying a C300, then there is a cost of buying a sata 3 compatible card to run it. The upshot here is you spend money for the myth of added speed, my thought was, how much faster do you want to go than a 20second boot up. I mean that is fast, isn't it?I am sure Sata 3 will become more affordable, but Estimated 80% boards out there are not capable of Sata 3 so I am guessing C300 Faster read/writes that are listed everywhere are not actually as true as they read, that drive is for the more higher end customer over the mainstream, home and gamer? Correct me if I am wrong because I am pretty intrigued?
It's not just the cost of the card, you need a motherboard that supports pci-e x4. I have a gigabyte 965p-ds3 for example and there would be no point putting a pci-e sata 3 (6Gb) in one of it's pci-e x 1 slots as it they don't have the bandwidth to support Sata 3 (6Gb). The spec for an Asus U3S6 for example states pci-e x4 or higher slot. So my mobo is one of the "80%" non compatible with Sata 3 (6Gb).I'd also favour a sandforce based SSD over the C300. Nothing wrong with the C300 but I prefer the better 4K performance from the Sandforce based SSDs.

Uhhhh total mis interpretation.

6Gb is the maximum transfer rate of the SATA3 bus. These drives will nowhere near saturate it. You'd prolly need 4 of them in RAID0 to do so.

You definately don't need a 4x PCI-E slot no matter what the recommendation is.
#23
Copied from wikipedia...

Per lane:

v1.x: 250 MB/s
v2.x: 500 MB/s
v3.0: 1 GB/s
16 lane slot:

v1.x: 4 GB/s
v2.x: 8 GB/s
v3.0: 16 GB/s

Hardly anyone spending this sort of money is going to be using a v1 slot...virtually every mobo made in past 2-3 years is a v2.
#24
robo989
fishmaster
STRAVIS
budmanuk - Aug 20, 2010 07:27Cruical C300 is better, only a few pounds more, and bigger capacity by 4gb.Heat added though!
there is an extra cost in buying a C300, then there is a cost of buying a sata 3 compatible card to run it. The upshot here is you spend money for the myth of added speed, my thought was, how much faster do you want to go than a 20second boot up. I mean that is fast, isn't it?I am sure Sata 3 will become more affordable, but Estimated 80% boards out there are not capable of Sata 3 so I am guessing C300 Faster read/writes that are listed everywhere are not actually as true as they read, that drive is for the more higher end customer over the mainstream, home and gamer? Correct me if I am wrong because I am pretty intrigued?
It's not just the cost of the card, you need a motherboard that supports pci-e x4. I have a gigabyte 965p-ds3 for example and there would be no point putting a pci-e sata 3 (6Gb) in one of it's pci-e x 1 slots as it they don't have the bandwidth to support Sata 3 (6Gb). The spec for an Asus U3S6 for example states pci-e x4 or higher slot. So my mobo is one of the "80%" non compatible with Sata 3 (6Gb).I'd also favour a sandforce based SSD over the C300. Nothing wrong with the C300 but I prefer the better 4K performance from the Sandforce based SSDs.


Uhhhh total mis interpretation.

6Gb is the maximum transfer rate of the SATA3 bus. These drives will nowhere near saturate it. You'd prolly need 4 of them in RAID0 to do so.

You definately don't need a 4x PCI-E slot no matter what the recommendation is.


Wrong. You won't get 355MB/s out of Sata 2 (3Gb) because of the bandwidth overhead. So you do need Sata 3 (6Gb) to get 355MB/s read. Nowhere did I mention it will saturate Sata 3 (6Gb) though! PCI-E x1 doesn't support Sata 3 (6Gb) bandwidth. A PCI-E x4 slot is needed for the Asus card I mentioned.
#25
Borat
copystuff
Have a look at this link guys for them who dont already know the news about intels new ssd drives coming very soon apparently.http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/8/16/intel-ssd-roadmap-revealed/
looks promising any idea of read/write speeds?


Im not sure yet but i bet faster Read/Write speeds than the old ssds i been waiting my self for a ssd but there capacity is too small for me to consider one yet but 300gig sounds ok.
#26
copystuff
Borat
copystuff
Have a look at this link guys for them who dont already know the news about intels new ssd drives coming very soon apparently.http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/8/16/intel-ssd-roadmap-revealed/
looks promising any idea of read/write speeds?



Im not sure yet but i bet faster Read/Write speeds than the old ssds i been waiting my self for a ssd but there capacity is too small for me to consider one yet but 300gig sounds ok.


You could couple a 60GB SSD with a Samsung F3 1TB for example, should suffice for most people's needs.
suspended#27
mdcdeve
When it comes to purely reading speed then yes the c300 is better.


not true, that is for sustained transfer speeds like 4.4gb files, the sandforce based drives like the ocz vertex 2e and corsair force do 50,000 IOPS, they can read small 4k files WAY faster than the crucial. Also write speed is also important which is way faster than the crucial.

This is a nice deal, its 13p cheaper @ Scan if u get free delivery or can collect btw.
#28
Good deal, but I'd rather spend a tenner more and get the DBs- the OCZ Vertex 2e!
#29
SO WHAT ABOUT 120GB OCZ REVO DRIVE THEN?

Read Speed: 540MB/Sec, Write Speed: 480MB/Sec, Flash: MLC, Controller: 2x Sandforce - Internal RAID 0.

4k writes up to 75,000 IOPS

http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Components/Hard+Drives+%28SSD%29/OCZ+RevoDrive+120GB+PCI-Express+SSD+?productId=40784
...will be in stock very soon.

Even now when it cost about 290 pounds (120GB version) it is very well price/performance ballanced. So once it gets cheaper it is going to be THE BEST SELLER i asume.

Or anyone else has other thoughts?

Some vids here :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVTRz3GSX08

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1_qDPGhdGw
#30
The Revo is a bit of an odd card. It uses an on-board RAID controller that's actually an old PCI-X design, so everything has to go through a PCI-X/PCIe converter chip - not sure I would trust my data to a converter and a RAID controller that seems to have been picked because it was available really, really cheap. It also doesn't support TRIM, so you have to periodically wipe the drive to maintain performance.
#31
fishmaster
copystuff
Borat
copystuff
Have a look at this link guys for them who dont already know the news about intels new ssd drives coming very soon apparently.http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/8/16/intel-ssd-roadmap-revealed/
looks promising any idea of read/write speeds?
Im not sure yet but i bet faster Read/Write speeds than the old ssds i been waiting my self for a ssd but there capacity is too small for me to consider one yet but 300gig sounds ok.
You could couple a 60GB SSD with a Samsung F3 1TB for example, should suffice for most people's needs.

Yes i could but i already have 4 f3s in my pc and another one its way for my c drive but i still want to wait for bigger ssd as windows 7 takes 22gig of space so not much left on a 64gig ssd and i can fill the left over space within a few hours.
1 Like #32
DownHill911
I PREFER TO WAIT UNTIL 120 GB OCZ REVO DRIVE PRICE DROPS A BIT AND THEN...................................................................................THEN I AM GOING TO BUY IT!!!! LOL

I like to imagine your avatar shouting out this post.

THIS... IS... SATA!

:: kicks computer down a hole ::

Edited By: Loonytoad on Aug 20, 2010 23:27: brain fart
#33
copystuff
fishmaster
copystuff
Borat
copystuff
Have a look at this link guys for them who dont already know the news about intels new ssd drives coming very soon apparently.http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/8/16/intel-ssd-roadmap-revealed/
looks promising any idea of read/write speeds?
Im not sure yet but i bet faster Read/Write speeds than the old ssds i been waiting my self for a ssd but there capacity is too small for me to consider one yet but 300gig sounds ok.
You could couple a 60GB SSD with a Samsung F3 1TB for example, should suffice for most people's needs.


Yes i could but i already have 4 f3s in my pc and another one its way for my c drive but i still want to wait for bigger ssd as windows 7 takes 22gig of space so not much left on a 64gig ssd and i can fill the left over space within a few hours.


Agreed the space isn't fantastic, however do you have vital apps that would fill the rest of that space? For me it's enough. I use Office, Win 7 64 bit and a few Steam games. I'd still have enough left over for vital apps. The rest I'd stick on the F3. It depends on what you deem vital to be installed on the SSD. I could live with it, you might well not be able to. I could fill it easily but I'd just prioritise which stuff I needed.
#34
copystuff
f3s in my pc and another one its way for my c drive but i still want to wait for bigger ssd as windows 7 takes 22gig of space so not much left on a 64gig ssd and i can fill the left over space within a few hours.

A full install of Windows 7 takes up a lot less than 22GB. Most of that space is used up by the hibernation and paging files. On a machine with 4GB of ram disabling hibernation and shrinking the pagefile down to 512MB saves about 10GB of disk space.
#35
Loonytoad
DownHill911
I PREFER TO WAIT UNTIL 120 GB OCZ REVO DRIVE PRICE DROPS A BIT AND THEN...................................................................................THEN I AM GOING TO BUY IT!!!! LOL

I like to imagine your avatar shouting out this post.

THIS... IS... SATA!

:: kicks computer down a hole ::


WTH WE COULD MAKE A FULL SATA 300 PARODY. Just need to call to HOLLY_WOOD LOLO
#36
I feel we will get 100GB SSDs for 100 GBP by the end of the year, it can wait.
#37
scan currently have it for the same price as ebuyer with free next day delivery providing your a hexus/av forums member!
#38
DrRamtop
STRAVIS
there is an extra cost in buying a C300, then there is a cost of buying a sata 3 compatible card to run it.

A SATA 6GBit card isn't required to use the C300, it'll work fine and still perform very well on a SATA II port. I'm looking for a new SSD myself and am leaning toward the C300 atm, because it's going into a laptop that has only one 2.5" bay and I suspect a very fast 64GB drive will be more useful than a very, very fast 60GB one, given that the system is likely to be CPU bottlenecked most of the time even with the C300. I'm also considering those 96GB Indilinx-based OCZ drives that are going for about £140. Not the fastest drives in the world, but the £-per-GB ratio is very tempting.


i have a similar need to your in that i would like a SSd in my netbook/netvertible. obviously big bottleneck in terms of cpu in netbooks.... but would like a quick boot, less noise, slightly longer battery life and something to make the netbook that little bit snappier when opening browser or itunes.

my netvbook/tablet is lenovo s10-3t.....currently i have a 250gb hd in there...... would you recommend this drive for it.... or would a slower drive be suitable as netbook bottleneck?

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!