Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Notebooks > MacBook Pro

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jul 3, 2011, 12:08 AM   #26
Alexjones
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2010
Thanks Weasel. You saved me a couple of hundred dollars.
Alexjones is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 3, 2011, 02:38 AM   #27
Nostromo
macrumors 65816
 
Nostromo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Deep Space
How large a difference would an SSD make when you edit video?

And what would the speed comparison be to 7200 and 5400?
Nostromo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 3, 2011, 11:43 AM   #28
Weaselboy
macrumors P6
 
Weaselboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nostromo View Post
So for video editing an SSD would be a great advantage...
Yes. If part of your workflow involves say opening a 4GB video file into FCP and editing the video you will notice a large difference in how quickly the app launches and the file is imported and ready to work with. Any task that involves large amounts of data I/O with the disk will see an improvement with an SSD.

Take a user like me at the other end of the spectrum though. This morning I came to my sleeping (2010) 27" iMac and woke it up with all my apps already running. I then used Mail app to read/reply to a few emails, then used NewsRack to read over some RSS feeds, then have been browsing web sites with Safari the last hour or so. For what I just described as my morning computer usage an SSD is going to make very little difference at all. Again this is with all apps already loaded.

By comparison the same activities on my 2011 MBP with an SSD are about the same speed. The only time a can tell a speed difference with the SSD equipped MBP is when loading graphics laden web pages. I think the page is cached to the SSD faster than a HDD and this makes some speed difference.
Weaselboy is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2011, 07:12 PM   #29
Trentolol
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Right here
Thank you.
Trentolol is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2011, 11:47 AM   #30
orfeas0
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Athens, Greece
So, if you have a 2011+ model MBP, which as a 6gbps port, can you use a 3gbps drive for reliability? I prefer to have a little slower ssd than having problems with it.
orfeas0 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2011, 03:33 PM   #31
Weaselboy
macrumors P6
 
Weaselboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by orfeas0 View Post
So, if you have a 2011+ model MBP, which as a 6gbps port, can you use a 3gbps drive for reliability? I prefer to have a little slower ssd than having problems with it.
Yes you can and many including myself went that direction. Altough the latest EFI update for the 2011 MBPs seemed to have fixed many of the problems users were have with SATA III SSDs.
Weaselboy is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2011, 07:54 PM   #32
The Final Cut
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
i want this SSD in my laptop

http://www.buy.com/pr/product.aspx?sku=223179029

clone it with this cheap enclosure

http://www.buy.com/pr/SellerListings.aspx?sku=216545125

am i good to go? or is this wrong.
The Final Cut is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2011, 05:37 AM   #33
theSeb
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Poole, England
HH, I hope you don't mind me sticking an old post of mine where we discussed SSD performance. If you do, then feel free to delete this.

Original thread link: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1197959
---------------------------------

There is no question that the Apple supplied SSDs are overpriced and that is not what I am discussing, but if the drive is user upgradeable do you really need to pay more for a Vertex 3 when an Intel 320 is fast enough for most users and workflows? Never mind the reliability can of worms.

Anand summarises it best in one of his SSD reviews so I'll quote it here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by www.Anandtech.com

The majority of our SSD test suite is focused on I/O bound tests. These are benchmarks that intentionally shift the bottleneck to the SSD and away from the CPU/GPU/memory subsystem in order to give us the best idea of which drives are the fastest. Unfortunately, as many of you correctly point out, these numbers don't always give you a good idea of how tangible the performance improvement is in the real world.

Some of them do. Our 128KB sequential read/write tests as well as the ATTO and AS-SSD results give you a good indication of large file copy performance. Our small file random read/write tests tell a portion of the story for things like web browser cache accesses, but those are difficult to directly relate to experiences in the real world.

So why not exclusively use real world performance tests? It turns out that although the move from a hard drive to a decent SSD is tremendous, finding differences between individual SSDs is harder to quantify in a single real world metric. Take application launch time for example. I stopped including that data in our reviews because the graphs ended up looking like this:



All of the SSDs performed the same. It's not just application launch times though. Here is data from our Chrome Build test timing how long it takes to compile the Chromium project:



Even going back two generations of SSDs, at the same capacity nearly all of these drives perform within a couple of percent of one another. Note that the Vertex 3 is even a 6Gbps drive and doesn't even outperform its predecessor.

In doing these real world use tests I get a good feel for when a drive is actually faster or slower than another. My experiences typically track with the benchmark results but it's always important to feel it first hand. What I've noticed is that although single tasks perform very similarly on all SSDs, it's during periods of heavy I/O activity that you can feel the difference between drives. Unfortunately these periods of heavy I/O activity aren't easily measured, at least in a repeatable fashion. Getting file copies, compiles, web browsing, application launches, IM log updates and searches to all start at the same time while properly measuring overall performance is near impossible without some sort of automated tool.

Now this, unfortunately, is where Anand and I differ in thought when it comes to his "storage bench" suites. I understand what he is doing and I respect the site and Anand's work. But the problem here is that certain impressionable people see the benchmarks and do not realise what they're actually saying to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anandtech.com
The best we can offer is our Storage Bench suite. In those tests we are actually playing back the I/O requests captured of me using a PC over a long period of time. While all other bottlenecks are excluded from the performance measurement, the source of the workload is real world in nature.

What you have to keep in mind is that a performance advantage in our Storage Bench suite isn't going to translate linearly into the same overall performance impact on your system. Remember these are I/O bound tests, so a 20% increase in your Heavy 2011 score is going to mean that the drive you're looking at will be 20% faster in that particular type of heavy I/O bound workload. Most desktop PCs aren't under that sort of load constantly, so that 20% advantage may only be seen 20% of the time. The rest of the time your drive may be no quicker than a model from last year.

The point of our benchmarks isn't to tell you that only the newest SSDs are fast, but rather to show you the best performing drive at a given price point. The best values in SSDs are going to be last year's models without a doubt. I'd say that the 6Gbps drives are interesting mostly for the folks that do a lot of large file copies, but for most general use you're fine with an older drive. Almost any SSD is better than a hard drive (almost) and as long as you choose a good one you won't regret the jump.
Here is a description of the test

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anandtech.com
Not too long ago I tweeted that I had created what I referred to as the Mother of All SSD Benchmarks (MOASB). Rather than only writing 4GB of data to the drive, this benchmark writes 106.32GB. It's the load you'd put on a drive after nearly two weeks of constant usage.. And it takes a *long* time to run.

1) The MOASB, officially called AnandTech Storage Bench 2011 - Heavy Workload, mainly focuses on the times when your I/O activity is the highest. There is a lot of downloading and application installing that happens during the course of this test. My thinking was that it's during application installs, file copies, downloading and multitasking with all of this that you can really notice performance differences between drives.

2) I tried to cover as many bases as possible with the software I incorporated into this test. There's a lot of photo editing in Photoshop, HTML editing in Dreamweaver, web browsing, game playing/level loading (Starcraft II & WoW are both a part of the test) as well as general use stuff (application installing, virus scanning). I included a large amount of email downloading, document creation and editing as well. To top it all off I even use Visual Studio 2008 to build Chromium during the test.
And finally here is the disk busy time chart, which tells us everything we need to know. Clearly some drives are faster than others. Looking at the chart, without considering what it's actually saying, the Vertex 3 and other new SandForce-based drives look very impressive indeed. They are clearly the quickest by far! But hold on a moment… take a look at the chart and consider this benchmark….



It is run using an automated tool and it's playing back a recording of work done by a real user over a couple of days. It's clearly not something that a normal person would be looking to do within a couple of minutes.

Now, as much as I like to think I am pretty good, and I earn decent money doing it, no matter how hard I try I cannot edit images, play games, surf the web, compile my code, copy stuff and install applications all at the same time or one after another within 700 seconds.

There are times when I do a lot and then I do something like actually read the web page, or edit a document or edit my code or swear at the computer in frustration. I am not always doing something where the drive needs to do intensive work. This chart tells us that the difference between the fastest and the slowest drive tested is 869.7 seconds, which is equivalent to nearly 14.5 minutes. Therefore, I've managed to save 14.5 minutes by buying the fastest drive on a workload that is equivalent to a couple of days from a human perspective. Think about that for a moment. So how much time have I really saved?

The point remains, unless you're doing 50 things at the same time and running 5 automated build servers on 5 different virtual machines, which compile lots of code and runs lots of automated tests and downloading, copying, editing photos, and editing a movie on the side too, you, as a real user, are the bottleneck; not the SSD drive.

There are instances and workflows where the fastest SSD is justifiable, but even the "slow", "crappy" drives are fast enough for 98% of you.

Last edited by theSeb; Oct 25, 2011 at 06:31 AM. Reason: Added link to original thread
theSeb is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2011, 08:26 AM   #34
Hellhammer
Thread Starter
Moderator
 
Hellhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Send a message via MSN to Hellhammer
Quote:
Originally Posted by theSeb View Post
HH, I hope you don't mind me sticking an old post of mine where we discussed SSD performance. If you do, then feel free to delete this.

Original thread link: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1197959
It's fine, and very useful. If I had time, I would add this to the OP along with other stuff but I'm way, way too busy nowadays.

In fact, I went with Samsung 470 for my PC (Z68 so 2xSATA 6Gb/s). It was the cheapest SSD in Finland, and also my favorite.
__________________
SSD Editor for AnandTech
You can also follow me in Twitter!
Hellhammer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2011, 05:26 PM   #35
johnnyturbouk
macrumors 65816
 
johnnyturbouk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Manchester, UK
having been through the wildfire, owc, crucial M4 and intel 510 v(thank god amazon) - none played well with my MBP

Now, with latest version of Lion and a vertex 3 max iops - outstanding performance - blows me away how fast this SSD is.

Previously, i felt there was little difference between SL + my owc sata-2 SSD
The vertex 3 knocks the socks of the owc, boot-times are less than half 98-12secs vs 14-21 secs) all apps load instantly - and the real performance gains are made with sequential writes - incompressible data
__________________
An fanboi since in-utero
johnnyturbouk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2011, 02:30 PM   #36
yanki01
macrumors 68000
 
yanki01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Texas
good info. might take the leap when applecare is done.
__________________
Flickr || MacBook Pro || iPhone 6 || Apple TV || iPod nano || iPod shuffle
yanki01 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2011, 03:09 PM   #37
ioibindu
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyturbouk View Post
having been through the wildfire, owc, crucial M4 and intel 510 v(thank god amazon) - none played well with my MBP

Now, with latest version of Lion and a vertex 3 max iops - outstanding performance - blows me away how fast this SSD is.

Previously, i felt there was little difference between SL + my owc sata-2 SSD
The vertex 3 knocks the socks of the owc, boot-times are less than half 98-12secs vs 14-21 secs) all apps load instantly - and the real performance gains are made with sequential writes - incompressible data

What problems do you had with the SSD's? I had the Wildfire and the Crucial M4 in my MacBook Pro and had hard issues.

The Wildfire is unrecognized and the Crucial M4 it is impossible to use (very low, freezes, beach balls).
ioibindu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2011, 01:12 PM   #38
AppleGoat
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by ioibindu View Post
What problems do you had with the SSD's? I had the Wildfire and the Crucial M4 in my MacBook Pro and had hard issues.

The Wildfire is unrecognized and the Crucial M4 it is impossible to use (very low, freezes, beach balls).
Have you downloaded the latest EFI update?
AppleGoat is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2011, 03:42 PM   #39
ioibindu
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGoat View Post
Have you downloaded the latest EFI update?
I had downloaded the EFI update from late september. I saw, that apple has a new update for the MBP 2011.
ioibindu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2011, 02:25 PM   #40
TrevorBaum
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2011
I'm definitely considering an SSD for my next MBP, and have narrowed it down to the following options:

OCZ Vertex 3
Crucial M4
Intel 510

Apple SSD (native TRIM support, no voided warranty)

Which of these performs best, and has the least issues with an MBP/Lion?

Thanks!
TrevorBaum is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2011, 02:53 PM   #41
Hellhammer
Thread Starter
Moderator
 
Hellhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Send a message via MSN to Hellhammer
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrevorBaum View Post
I'm definitely considering an SSD for my next MBP, and have narrowed it down to the following options:

OCZ Vertex 3
Crucial M4
Intel 510

Apple SSD (native TRIM support, no voided warranty)

Which of these performs best, and has the least issues with an MBP/Lion?

Thanks!
Crucial m4 should be the safest choice. It's relatively fast and affordable, yet trouble-free. Upgrading the HD does not void warranty either.
__________________
SSD Editor for AnandTech
You can also follow me in Twitter!
Hellhammer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2011, 08:49 AM   #42
saback
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellhammer View Post
Crucial m4 should be the safest choice. It's relatively fast and affordable, yet trouble-free. Upgrading the HD does not void warranty either.
What about Chronos deluxe 240GB Solid State Drive - MKNSSDCR240GB-DX
Capacity: 240GB
Read Speed: up to 560MB/sec
Write Speed: up to 520MB/sec
Interface Type: SATA 3.0 (6Gb/s)
IOPS: 90,000 (4K random write, 4K aligned)
US$ 404,00
saback is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2011, 10:26 AM   #43
Hellhammer
Thread Starter
Moderator
 
Hellhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Send a message via MSN to Hellhammer
Quote:
Originally Posted by saback View Post
What about Chronos deluxe 240GB Solid State Drive - MKNSSDCR240GB-DX
Capacity: 240GB
Read Speed: up to 560MB/sec
Write Speed: up to 520MB/sec
Interface Type: SATA 3.0 (6Gb/s)
IOPS: 90,000 (4K random write, 4K aligned)
US$ 404,00
SF-2281 based SSD, just like OCZ Vertex 3. There have been some issues with SF drives in general but the new FW might have fixed them (though only OCZ offers in atm).
__________________
SSD Editor for AnandTech
You can also follow me in Twitter!
Hellhammer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2011, 12:44 PM   #44
Maschil
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Mississippi
Ok guys... have a simple question... already have a 1tb in my macbook pro..... only 135 gbs left.... thus my computer is running slow.... (have 8gbs of ram aswell)..... i found a optibay thingy for 60 on b and h photo... and i want to put a ssd in my macbook.... just for apps... and use the 1tb as storage....

so i only need a 30gb or 60 gb ssd... can a find a good one under 100 bucks?????

i have a 2011 13 inch macbook pro base model with 8gb of ram and 1tb.... thanks!
Maschil is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2011, 02:16 PM   #45
AppleGoat
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maschil View Post
Ok guys... have a simple question... already have a 1tb in my macbook pro..... only 135 gbs left.... thus my computer is running slow.... (have 8gbs of ram aswell)..... i found a optibay thingy for 60 on b and h photo... and i want to put a ssd in my macbook.... just for apps... and use the 1tb as storage....

so i only need a 30gb or 60 gb ssd... can a find a good one under 100 bucks?????

i have a 2011 13 inch macbook pro base model with 8gb of ram and 1tb.... thanks!
I don't know how many apps you have, but based on what percentage of the Terabyte drive you've used, you may have at least 60 gigs worth of apps. I would go with the Samsung 830 64GB, which may get down to 100 dollars while on sale.
AppleGoat is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2011, 08:40 PM   #46
Maschil
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Mississippi
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGoat View Post
I don't know how many apps you have, but based on what percentage of the Terabyte drive you've used, you may have at least 60 gigs worth of apps. I would go with the Samsung 830 64GB, which may get down to 100 dollars while on sale.
MP4s mostly... about 300 gb worth... etc.... prob got 16 gb's in apps

your reply is greatly appreciated..... thats what i needed... Thanks man i owe ya...
Maschil is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2011, 10:45 AM   #47
PirateMonkey
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Hi everyone I just thought I would give a heads up about a SSD I found on buyer.com sorry I can't provide a link for the US market but I'm sure someone here will be able too, http://www.ebuyer.com/268693-corsair...ssd-f120gb3-bk

Seems like a good drive for price to space plus performance ratio, if anyone knows of any reason why I shouldn't upgrade my old 64GB SSD Kingston to this one let me know as I intend to buy this next week.
PirateMonkey is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2011, 10:56 AM   #48
svkrzn
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
I'm unsure, i'm going to buy an SSD for my MacBook Pro 5.3 with 3GBit Link connection and an 1.5Gbit Hitachi HDD.

Firstly, do i need a SATA II or i also can put a SATA III into my mac?
These was my choices.
OCZ Vertex 3
OCZ Agility 3
OCZ Vertex 3 MAX IOPS
Crucial M4
Intel 320/510
svkrzn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2011, 11:12 AM   #49
Weaselboy
macrumors P6
 
Weaselboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by svkrzn View Post
I'm unsure, i'm going to buy an SSD for my MacBook Pro 5.3 with 3GBit Link connection and an 1.5Gbit Hitachi HDD.

Firstly, do i need a SATA II or i also can put a SATA III into my mac?
These was my choices.
OCZ Vertex 3
OCZ Agility 3
OCZ Vertex 3 MAX IOPS
Crucial M4
Intel 320/510
All you need is a SATA II. A SATA III will work since they are backward compatible but you will not see any speed increase using a SATA III over a SATA II plus they usually cost more.

If I were you I would go with the SATA II Intel 320 or Samsung 470. Users here have found those both very compatible and reliable drives.
Weaselboy is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2011, 12:27 PM   #50
Hellhammer
Thread Starter
Moderator
 
Hellhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Send a message via MSN to Hellhammer
We might see a huge price cut early next year if the stuff I have been hearing lately is correct. Should have a confirmation on Monday, so stay tuned.
__________________
SSD Editor for AnandTech
You can also follow me in Twitter!
Hellhammer is offline   1 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Notebooks > MacBook Pro

Tags
macbook pro, ssd

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GUIDE: SSD Tweaking Guide Orlandoech MacBook Pro 187 Oct 24, 2014 05:26 PM
Buying Mac Mini (Late 2012) - FD or SSD from Apple or add own SSD voiding warranty? Solos79 Mac mini 34 Mar 29, 2013 04:22 AM
GUIDE: MacBook Air SSD Tweaking Guide Orlandoech MacBook Air 1 Feb 1, 2013 07:40 PM
Win7 Buying Guide Michael73 Windows, Linux & Others on the Mac 1 Dec 31, 2012 08:35 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:19 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC