SSD Buying Guide

[MCAsan]

Hopefully the SSD would outlive its SATA 1/2 host machine. So then you can put it in an external enclosure via USB 3 or TB. That is when you for sure want it to be a SATA 3 capable drive. So I would not purchase a SSD that only does SATA 2. I would plan on using the SSD for at least 5 years with at least 2 different Macs.

 

[0111587]

Why buy M500 when you can buy EVO ?

 

[MagicBoy]

Why buy M500 when you can buy EVO ?

If your Mac isn't SATA 6Gbps it's plenty fast enough and cheaper.

 

[Hexley]

If your Mac isn't SATA 6Gbps it's plenty fast enough and cheaper.

Here, take my like.

 

[jalyst]

It's looking more & more like the stupid SATA II controller on my Mac (nV MCP79) has issues with all/most 3rd-party 6G drives, whereby it throttles them down to 1.5G.
I'm still awaiting a decent response from Sandisk, alas it's now too late to cancel my Amazon order, & by the time Sandisk finally determines their official answer the drive prolly will have arrived, so I may as well test it myself!
I'll be very pissed if it turns out that it only does 1.5G with this drive, the drive was already mostly overkill, but at 1.5G it'll be complete was of $.

If it turns out to be locked to 1.5G, I guess I'll get the EVO, or the Extreme, or similar... >.>

No advice/ideas from others? TY.

 

[MarvinHC]

$/GB

M500 would never saturate a SATA 6Gb/s like the 840 Evo or 840 Pro but it will saturate a 1.5Gb/s or 3Gb/s link.

You can of course go with a Samsung on a slower SATA link but it would never reach its potential.

M500 is more economical than either Samsungs.

Thanks for the explanation. Where I am living there is not much of a price difference between the 840 Evo and the M500 (when you make a GB like for like price).

 

[Hexley]

Thanks for the explanation. Where I am living there is not much of a price difference between the 840 Evo and the M500 (when you make a GB like for like price).

If the price gap is insignificant then go for the Samsung.

I've read counter arguments that I should go with the 840 Evo or 840 Pro to "future proof" the SSD. Assuming I transfer to a Mac with SATA 6Gb/s link by that time there will be far better SSDs than the Evo or Pro that would exceed 600MB/s reads/writes.

According to http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/ the fastest effective speed of any SSD is 586MB/s. This was achieved by a 840 Evo.

After applying the OS X Mavericks 10.9.2 Update I timed the boot times of two Macs.

I have a iMac7,1 with the original 250GB WDC WD2500AAJS-40RYA0 on a SATA 3Gb/s link. From cold boot to login screen in 59 seconds.

I also have a MacBookPro7,1 with the upgraded 240GB Crucial M500 on a SATA 3Gb/s link. From cold boot to login screen in 15 seconds.

Even with the slowest recommended SSD you can see that it will best any standard HDD in production.

Now if I put in a Samsung I bet I would only shave 1-2 seconds on the 15 seconds. Not nearly as significant an update.

Now, if you were to RAID 0 a Mac with two SATA 6Gb/s links then you could exceed 1,172MB/s. In theory I could make it cold boot to login screen in less than 4 seconds.

Keep in mind I did not consider possible overhead or other bottlenecks.

 

[iKonstantinos]

Ssd

Hello everyone!

I have a Macbook Pro 5.3 (15" Mid 2009) @3.06 CPU.
So i decided to upgrade RAM and hard drive to SSD.
However I am lost on what SSD to choose...
Some say SATA 3 is not supported but you'll be fine as they are new generation hard drives and they are more reliable.
Some others say no you will have problems pick a SATA 2...

I am between OWC, OCZ, Samsung and Crucial M500.
My criterion is reliability first and then performance and even later the cost.

Any suggestions please?

Kind regards
Konstantinos

 

[MCAsan]

Your current machine may not support SATA 3, but SATA 3 drives will work with SATA 2 at SATA 2 speeds. So it is not about something not working.

When you replace the 5,3 machine, it would likely be to a machine that either has SATA 3 inside where you could use the SSD at higher SATA 3 speeds. If you get a new MBP that is all solid state, you could use the SSD as an external drive in an enclosure via USB 3 or TB. Via TB a SATA 3 SSD would be wicked fast.

To me a slightly lower cost per GB for SATA 2 SSDs is maybe not a good long term strategy. A good SSD should last 3-5 years. You will usually get at least a 3 year warranty.

 

[iKonstantinos]

Thank you very much for your quick response!
Do you advise any specific model or brand for the longest (possible) lifespan according to your experience?

Thanks for your time and your help!
Konstantinos

 

[iKonstantinos]

Anyone Please

 

[Weaselboy]

I am between OWC, OCZ, Samsung and Crucial M500.
My criterion is reliability first and then performance and even later the cost.

Any suggestions please?

My opinion...

OWC tends to be overpriced while really offering nothing as far as features or performance to justify their premium pricing.

OCZ just went bankrupt and was bought out by Toshiba, so scratch OCZ off your list.

This leaves Samsung and Crucial from your list. I assume you are looking at the Samsung 840 EVO and Pro series.

The 840 Pro uses MLC NAND chips that last longer, but unless you are involved in A LOT of heavy write activity the EVO (TLC NAND) will likely outlast your computer anyway. See this and this. The Pro is a little faster, but depending out your usage, you may not even notice the difference.

Crucial M500 is just fine also, but a little slower in benchmark tests. Again, depending on usage, outside of running a test utility, you are very unlikely to notice any speed difference among these drives even on a newer machine with SATA III.

The Sandisk Extreme II and Seagate 600 drives mentioned earlier in the thread are good choices also.

 

[iKonstantinos]

Thank you very very much!
Your post is very helpful!

Konstantinos

 

[MCAsan]

Last Saturday I put a Samsung 840 EVO 500GB into my niece's 2010 white MB 7,1. I dropped boot time by more than half and also made opening apps much faster. It was a simple thing to do. It just takes time, maybe an hour, for the MB to clone the Macintosh HD drive onto the SSD. You just need Phillips and Torx screwdrivers to remove the back and the drive.

 

[jalyst]

I installed my Extreme II without issue & despite my fears* the SATA II controller (MCP79) hasn't handshaked to 1.5G, it's connected at 3G & so far I'm noticing a big difference.

Can anyone recommend some excellent SSD benchmarking tools for OSX & Windows? (I'll be installing the latter on the same machine soon).
Once Windows is installed I'll install the drive's management software, which look quite interesting...

Cheers!
*& contrary to Sandisk's claims

 

[Hexley]

OWC banks on Mac users who want zero-hassle and zero-research on what works and what doesn't work. That's the premium of "spoon-feeding".

The custom "blade"-type SSDs of Apple allows OWC to be able to charge double that of mSATA and SATA SSDs of same size and speed.

I noticed also that those of us upgrading their Macs' tend to have computers that are sold between 2006-2012 As such will use their Mac until it falls apart and probably buy a Mac with a PCIe SSD built-in as I forecast for the 2014-future Macs.

For simplicity's sake here are the current SATA SSDs you should consider and what SATA links your Mac falls under

SATA 1.5Gb/s = Crucial M500 120GB or larger
iMac G5-2006 iMac
2006-2007 Mac mini
2006-Early 2008 MacBook
2006-Early 2008 MacBook Pro without Retina Display
Power Mac G5

SATA 3.0GB/s = Crucial M500 240GB or larger
2007-2010 iMac
2009-2010 Mac mini
Late 2008-2010 Macbook
Late 2008-2010 Macbook Pro without Retina Display
2006-2012 Mac Pro*

*As Mac Pros have PCIe slots you should really consider getting a PCIe SSD instead as it allows the potential of speeds higher than SATA 6.0Gb/s

SATA 6.0GB/s = Samsung 840 Pro or 840 Evo
2011-2013 iMac
2011-2012 Mac mini
2011-2012 Macbook Pro without Retina Display

Xserve G5 & newer are stipulated to have "SATA"

Source: http://everymac.com/systems/by_capability/mac-hard-drive-interface-type.html

My opinion...

OWC tends to be overpriced while really offering nothing as far as features or performance to justify their premium pricing.

OCZ just went bankrupt and was bought out by Toshiba, so scratch OCZ off your list.

This leaves Samsung and Crucial from your list. I assume you are looking at the Samsung 840 EVO and Pro series.

The 840 Pro uses MLC NAND chips that last longer, but unless you are involved in A LOT of heavy write activity the EVO (TLC NAND) will likely outlast your computer anyway. See this and this. The Pro is a little faster, but depending out your usage, you may not even notice the difference.

Crucial M500 is just fine also, but a little slower in benchmark tests. Again, depending on usage, outside of running a test utility, you are very unlikely to notice any speed difference among these drives even on a newer machine with SATA III.

The Sandisk Extreme II and Seagate 600 drives mentioned earlier in the thread are good choices also.

 

[jalyst]

SATA 6.0GB/s = Extreme II, Samsung 840 Pro, 840 Evo* & a few others.
2011-2013 iMac
2011-2012 Mac mini
2011-2012 Macbook Pro without Retina Display

*256GB+ to get performance closer_to/better_than 128GB Pro

Fixed that for you

----------

I installed my Extreme II without issue & despite my fears* the SATA II controller (MCP79) hasn't handshaked to 1.5G, it's connected at 3G & so far I'm noticing a big difference<SNIP>

*BUMP*

Thank-you.

 

[Hexley]

Fixed that for you

----------



*BUMP*

Thank-you.

I guess you could go with the others if Samsung isn't available.

SATA I was released on January 7, 2003
SATA II was released on ?
SATA III was released on May 27, 2009

I just mention the above to show how slow Intel & Nvidia are with deployment.

Apple/IBM/Motorola is more advance. gawd!!!

 

[jalyst]

840 Pro doesn't take priority automatically any more, certainly some latest gen. 6G drives (from the last ~9mth) are as good to slightly better perf/reliability-wise. 840 Pro is ~18mths+ old now, the difference isn't much, & in many applications won't be noticeable, but it's definitely there.

This of course assumes the user has a 6G interface, or will have usage patterns occasionally similar to the real-world usage tests in many reviews (e.g. Anandtech), which demonstrate how/why Extreme II (& ~2 others) now have an edge. N.B. Sandisk isn't like Ocz/Corsair/Patriot etc, it's one of only 4 NAND foundries for the entire world: Micron/Crucial, Samsung, Sandisk, & Toshiba.

SATA I was released on January 7, 2003
SATA II was released on ?
SATA III was released on May 27, 2009
I just mention the above to show how slow Intel & Nvidia are with deployment.
Apple/IBM/Motorola is more advance. gawd!!!

Sorry, but I don't get what you're trying to say there? Perhaps due to lack of sleep on my part.

----------

I installed my Extreme II without issue & despite my fears* the SATA II controller (MCP79) hasn't handshaked to 1.5G, it's connected at 3G & so far I'm noticing a big difference.

Can anyone recommend some excellent SSD benchmarking tools for OSX & Windows? (I'll be installing the latter on the same machine soon).
Once Windows is installed I'll install the drive's management software, which look quite interesting...

Cheers!
*& contrary to Sandisk's claims

Anyone?

Thank-you.

 

[Hexley]

840 Pro doesn't take priority automatically any more, certainly some latest gen. 6G drives (from the last ~9mth) are as good to slightly better perf/reliability-wise. 840 Pro is ~18mths+ old now, the difference isn't much, & in many applications won't be noticeable, but it's definitely there.

This of course assumes the user has a 6G interface, or will have usage patterns occasionally similar to the real-world usage tests in many reviews (e.g. Anandtech), which demonstrate how/why Extreme II (& ~2 others) now have an edge. N.B. Sandisk isn't like Ocz/Corsair/Patriot etc, it's one of only 4 NAND foundries for the entire world: Micron/Crucial, Samsung, Sandisk, & Toshiba.



Sorry, but I don't get what you're trying to say there? Perhaps due to lack of sleep on my part.

Some people feel comfortable using older tech for reliability purposes.

I pointed out the spec release vs how soon it gets delivered onto PowerPC, Intel and nvidia.

Another laggard is usb 3 when it was released in 2008 but only appeared in 2011 on the mac via Intel.

In 2013 usb 3.1 was introduced but as of today no mac has it.

 

[jalyst]

Some people feel comfortable using older tech for reliability purposes.

True, there's a chance the fw is slightly more hardened/optimised compared to slightly newer devices.
It prolly doesn't mean much in RWT, but the comfort is there for those who want it...

I pointed out the spec release vs how soon it gets delivered onto PowerPC, Intel and nvidia.
Another laggard is usb 3 when it was released in 2008 but only appeared in 2011 on the mac via Intel.
In 2013 usb 3.1 was introduced but as of today no mac has it.

Ah, I see what you were talking about now, any comment on my post?
(i.e. great SSD analysis/benchmark/diagnostics tools, + thoughts on the drive management sw)

Cheers.

 

[Hexley]

Ah, I see what you were talking about now, any comment on my post?
(i.e. great SSD analysis/benchmark/diagnostics tools, + thoughts on the drive management sw)

Cheers.

I find it annoying that in terms of I/O Macs lagged a great bit. Who wouldn't want a SATA 3Gb/s with the very first Intel Macs or SATA 6Gb/s & USB 3 with the very first Intel Core 2s in 2009.

Not into the i.e. you mentioned. What is important to me is that my Mac is now faster than when it used a HDD.

I do not think you can RMA because it's slower than what reviewers or other users have.

A reason why I endorse the Crucial M500 is that is saturates SATA 1.5Gb/s and 3.0Gb/s and has a class-leading $/GB.

Even with SATA 6.0Gb/s I'd still push the Crucial M500 as I feel that any SSD marketed in the past 24 months will best any HDD in terms of read/write speeds an power consumption. Again $/GB is what mainstream users want in their SSD.

 

[jalyst]

I find it annoying that in terms of I/O Macs lagged a great bit. Who wouldn't want a SATA 3Gb/s with the very first Intel Macs or SATA 6Gb/s & USB 3 with the very first Intel Core 2s in 2009.

Indeed, but this is something I've learned to live with on my Macs, begrudgingly.

Not into the i.e. you mentioned. What is important to me is that my Mac is now faster than when it used a HDD..

I see, we have different interests then, that's cool, perhaps someone else will care to offer their input on this.

A reason why I endorse the Crucial M500 is that it saturates SATA 1.5Gb/s and 3.0Gb/s and has a class-leading $/GB..

Actually it doesn't in every way/shape/form, there are certain I/O patterns that aren't saturated even on 3G using the latest/greatest 6G drive. If you're talking sustained R/W, sure, but that's not representative of all usage patterns, it's amongst the most common, but it's not the only one.

Even with SATA 6.0Gb/s I'd still push the Crucial M500 as I feel that any SSD marketed in the past 24 months will best any HDD in terms of read/write speeds an power consumption.

True, but there are most definitely situations that there are noticeable differences between the bottommost SSD's & the uppermost, they're marginal cases & depend entirely on the usage scenario, but they're there. In my situation on a 3G interface, even there they can be noticeable, again, marginal but there.

Again $/GB is what mainstream users want in their SSD.

Indeed that's true...
So as to not digress this thread further, perhaps some others can offer their input on this & then we can be done.

Thank-you.

 

[Weaselboy]

Can anyone recommend some excellent SSD benchmarking tools for OSX & Windows?

BlackMagic for OS X. Can't help you on the Windows side.

 

[jalyst]

Thank-you Weaselboy,

I'll research elsewhere for Windows sw & some other OS X alternatives...
And I'll just try the drive management sw to see how it compares to the same type of sw from other OEM's.
I think I'm done here now, happy "SSD purchase chat" folks, unsubscribed.

Amazon, Extreme II 480GB ($287USD + free shipping -depends on location):
http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Extreme-2-5-Inch-Solid-SDSSDXP-240G-G25/dp/B00COF7E3K
I just decided to resubscribe, what the heck, it's a useful thread...