Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

128 GB SSD versus 750 GB SATA

Keukasmallie

Keukasmallie

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jan 30, 2011
329
36
WNY
Not the most astute MBP owner, but I'm considering upgrading to a SSD. I don't really pressure my current system, and all appears to work well to this point (early 2011 build).

In any event, why is a 128 GB SSD "better" than a 750 GB SATA?

Thanks for your thoughts!
 
P

paulrbeers

macrumors 68040
Dec 17, 2009
3,963
123
Keukasmallie said:
Not the most astute MBP owner, but I'm considering upgrading to a SSD. I don't really pressure my current system, and all appears to work well to this point (early 2011 build).

In any event, why is a 128 GB SSD "better" than a 750 GB SATA?

Thanks for your thoughts!
Click to expand...

Google some benchmarks of SSD's and compare them to benchmarks of Mechanical drives. The numbers are staggering. It's like going from a Toyota Yaris to a Corvette....
 
K

kohlson

macrumors 68020
Apr 23, 2010
2,425
736
The question you will ask yourself after after putting in an SSD is "why didn't I do this sooner?"
The 750 will rpobably be incrementally faster than your existing. The SSD will be significantly faster. App open within 1-2 seconds. Cold start times are reduced by 50%. You get the idea. For laptops, a real benefit is they are highly resistant to shock. That is, if you laptop bumps/falls/moves with an HDD, eventually you'll have a problem. No such issue with SSD. I've put them in both our MBPs -- very glad I did.
 
gnasher729

gnasher729

Suspended
Nov 25, 2005
17,980
5,565
Keukasmallie said:
Not the most astute MBP owner, but I'm considering upgrading to a SSD. I don't really pressure my current system, and all appears to work well to this point (early 2011 build).

In any event, why is a 128 GB SSD "better" than a 750 GB SATA?

Thanks for your thoughts!
Click to expand...

Start copying files to each drive.

The first 128 GB, the SSD drive is a good deal faster.
After that, it is infinitely slower.
 
Yebubbleman

Yebubbleman

macrumors 603
May 20, 2010
5,785
2,377
Los Angeles, CA
Keukasmallie said:
Not the most astute MBP owner, but I'm considering upgrading to a SSD. I don't really pressure my current system, and all appears to work well to this point (early 2011 build).

In any event, why is a 128 GB SSD "better" than a 750 GB SATA?

Thanks for your thoughts!
Click to expand...

SSDs are faster, but hold less and cost more per GB. If that's not a problem for you, then I say do it. If it is, then I say don't do it.
 
Jedi

Jedi

macrumors regular
Apr 28, 2008
183
9
As a new MBP-R owner ( about 5 weeks ) , I can say that not only is it faster , but you will no longer have to worry about the antiquated rotating mass , also know as a HDD !

Sounds like your looking at a MBP / BTO with 128 GB option ?

Might be just as well off to get a 15" Retina model , that is what I have.

Anyway , best of luck :)

Later :D

Gary 
 
California

California

macrumors 68040
Aug 21, 2004
3,885
90
Keukasmallie said:
Not the most astute MBP owner, but I'm considering upgrading to a SSD. I don't really pressure my current system, and all appears to work well to this point (early 2011 build).

In any event, why is a 128 GB SSD "better" than a 750 GB SATA?

Thanks for your thoughts!
Click to expand...

I did the 128gb SSD for a month or so, then ditched it for a fast 750gb 7200 RPM drive.

It's faster than my old 500gb 7200rpm drive and... much much more space than the puny 128gb. I still don't trust SSD's. Once they die, they DIE. At least with hard disk drives, you can play with a dying drive and get the info off it.

Also at a certain point, who cares how fast your machine boots or a program loads?

My Word processing programs are the same "speed" as they were in the year 2001 on my 1st Generation Titanium Powerbook.
 
Spink10

Spink10

Suspended
Nov 3, 2011
4,261
1,020
Oklahoma
California said:
I did the 128gb SSD for a month or so, then ditched it for a fast 750gb 7200 RPM drive.

It's faster than my old 500gb 7200rpm drive and... much much more space than the puny 128gb. I still don't trust SSD's. Once they die, they DIE. At least with hard disk drives, you can play with a dying drive and get the info off it.

Also at a certain point, who cares how fast your machine boots or a program loads?

My Word processing programs are the same "speed" as they were in the year 2001 on my 1st Generation Titanium Powerbook.
Click to expand...

Backup! :)
 
B

barkmonster

macrumors 68020
Dec 3, 2001
2,134
15
Lancashire
After losing a ton of stuff on one those infamous IBM Deathstar drives, I backup habitually to multiple drives.

I can't recommend SSDs as a boot drive enough and I've got no idea where that slowdown after 128Gb BS is based on.

They boot quickly, they have ultra fast access time, don't need defragmenting EVER and in the case of Sandforce based drives, don't even need TRIM because they handle it internally.

I can't think of a better setup than an SSD as the boot drive and the original drive as extra storage for iTunes etc... apart from maybe using a 7200rpm HDD alongside the SSD for the best of both worlds. I use multi-track audio so as a tie over, I'm currently still booting from the internal 5400rpm drive till I can get a firewire case for my 7200rpm drive. They're cheap now so if I was starting from scratch, didn't already have one and was using a laptop, not a Mac Mini, I'd just buy a fast SSD like a Vertex 3 to boot from, a fast 2.5" 7200rpm drive like the Western Digital Scorpio Black and an optibay or equivalent to mount the SSD in.

I use the optical drive from my Mac Mini externally with a £6 USB to optical cable and it's fine like that.
 
H

HarryKNN21

macrumors regular
May 25, 2012
234
0
Hong Kong
SSD will not always solve the performance issues, from my experience the major bottleneck of the performance of a MBP is the integrity of the caches and permissions within the OSX system.

I once changed the HDD to SSD in my MBP, but last week when I put the HDD back into my MBP and did a clean install (real clean install, I reinstalled every app again not from Time Machine backup) of OSX, also repaired permissions and fixed some Spotlight issues, then the fresh installed OSX on HDD is blistering fast, just as fast as it was on SSD.

BTW don't use MacKeeper to maintain the OSX system, it will not make OSX go any faster. What I would suggest is keep using the stock HDD, and maintain the system carefully to avoid permission issues.
 
Keukasmallie

Keukasmallie

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jan 30, 2011
329
36
WNY
Thanks for your thoughts!

A lot to consider from several points of view. Right now I'm of a mind to keep what I have until such time as I need to make some sort of change. If I had to make a decision right now, I'd go the SSD route.

Thanks to all responders!!
 
gnasher729

gnasher729

Suspended
Nov 25, 2005
17,980
5,565
barkmonster said:
I can't recommend SSDs as a boot drive enough and I've got no idea where that slowdown after 128Gb BS is based on.
Click to expand...

The thread starter asked about 128 GB SSD and 750 GB SATA. How long do you think does it take to copy the 129th Gigabyte onto the SSD drive? :D
 
monokakata

monokakata

macrumors 68020
May 8, 2008
2,035
582
Ithaca, NY
barkmonster said:
I can't recommend SSDs as a boot drive enough and I've got no idea where that slowdown after 128Gb BS is based on.
Click to expand...

So much for that famous British sense of humor.

Copying files to a 128 gb drive slows dramatically after 128 gb. In fact the transfer rate slows to zero. But with the 750 gb drive that's not the case. Except of course at 750 gb.

Right? Right.
 
B

barkmonster

macrumors 68020
Dec 3, 2001
2,134
15
Lancashire
I find it easier to use an SSD for the OS and a regular HDD for everything else. My whole OS install only comes in at about 35Gb and all the files for iPhoto, iTunes and any large media files are all running off the HDD. I'd suggest not a Hybrid like the Momentus XT or rolling your own Fusion drive but an SSD and a HDD by utilising the DVD bay with an adapter and putting the OS files on the SSD and your user data on the HDD.

monokakata said:
So much for that famous British sense of humor.

Copying files to a 128 gb drive slows dramatically after 128 gb. In fact the transfer rate slows to zero. But with the 750 gb drive that's not the case. Except of course at 750 gb.

Right? Right.
Click to expand...

and

gnasher729 said:
The thread starter asked about 128 GB SSD and 750 GB SATA. How long do you think does it take to copy the 129th Gigabyte onto the SSD drive? :D
Click to expand...

I shall now refrain from posting so early without the appropriate amount of coffee :D

I meant that if you boot from an SSD, once it goes over the 128, It won't slow down if it's part of a Fusion drive because it copies the least frequently used files to the HDD and uses the SSD as a giant cache for the OS and files you do use frequently so speed won't be affected.

I also for some reason assumed they meant if you got a larger than 128Gb SSD, it would slow down once it gets past the first 128Gb but as I've said, not enough coffee and didn't really explain where I was coming from with that ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom