120 or 128 GB SSD for Mac Pro

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Lucagfc, Oct 16, 2010.

  1. Lucagfc macrumors 6502

    Sep 23, 2008

    I' m waiting for my base Mac Pro in replacement of iMac 27" i5 for the yellow tint problem so i decided to switch to Mac Pro. When i ordered my iMac I' ve choose for the SSD option and I was very pleased with the computer performance.

    I want to buy a 2,5 SSD (and use an adapter to install the disk in the Mac Pro 3,5 disk bay) to put in my Mac Pro.

    I would like some advice from you because searching on google gives back some different result:

    - Intel X25 G2 SSD seem to be the fastest drive but there's only 120 or 160 GB option for a very high price

    - Crucial C300 128GB seem to be really fast but also seems to have problem with no TRIM Operative System so it is no a good choice for Mac user

    - OCZ Vertex 2 or 2E (there some difference between the two?) seems to be a bit slower than Intel an Crucial

    Probably the best compromise is the Crucial drive but I' m worried about the performance degradation in NO TRIM SO.

    Can anyone help me in this difficult choice? thanks a lot!
  2. Hellhammer Moderator


    Staff Member

    Dec 10, 2008
    OCZ Vertex 2 (or other SandForce based SSDs) are the fastest ones on the market. I would definitely get OCZ Vertex 2, 120GB goes for 240$ in NewEgg IIRC. Here is Intel vs OCZ
  3. johnnymg macrumors 65816


    Nov 16, 2008
    I have both the OCZ Vertex 2 (in my MP) and a C300 in my MBP. Both are excellent SSD's. I haven't seen a performance change in the 6+ months I've used the C300. The C300 has native GC which seem to work OK............ at least when the drive isn't packed. There have been reports of drive performance hits when the drive is packed.

    The OCZ is slightly faster and is available in a 3.5" form factor which will make installing it in the MP a little easier. i.e. no adapter needed.

    Anyway, you can't really go wrong with either drive.
  4. Lucagfc thread starter macrumors 6502

    Sep 23, 2008
    actually the availability of 3,5 is important. The SSD fit perfect in the Mac Pro bay without adapter but the 2,5 version can fit also in a MacBook Pro. If in the future i need a bigger SSD i can install the old one in my MBP.

    Another advantage of the 2,5 model is price:

    Here in Italy I can found a 2.5 120 Gb Vertex 2 at 230 € and the 3.5 version cost 295 €. A big difference for two drive with the same capacity!
  5. Inconsequential macrumors 68000

    Sep 12, 2007
    There is no 120Gb Intel, only 80 and 160 :p And it also doesn't have trim.

    But the SSD should be used as a boot and apps disk, so you won't be writing to it much, so it doesn't really matter if it has trim or not.

    Secondly, i'd buy an Intel 160Gb, picked one up off ebay for 50% of new which was a steal. I then have a 160Gb Partition on another internal disk which I can boot from to wipe the SSD and Secure Erase it every so often. Whole process takes about an hour.
  6. Lucagfc thread starter macrumors 6502

    Sep 23, 2008
    Intel disk is out of my budget.

    I can afford the 80 Gb but for a similar price I can buy a 128 SSD (OCZ or Crucial) so i prefer to buy a bigger drive with a little bit slower speed!

    I don't understand the part were you talk about secure erase. You have another partition to move the data in the SSD to boot the system and "formatting" the SSD whit "overwrite with zero" option to simulate a TRIM?
  7. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Nov 30, 2008
    Never overwrite a SSD with zeros!

    What Concorde Rules is referring to, is to run the Intel Toolbox from a Windows partition on the Intel SSD. This requires it to be formatted to NTFS first, though, so all your data is gone (bootable clones with CCC are quite handy for such tasks).

    However, I did this once on my 160GB Intel G2 (after 1 year use) and test results before and after were exactly the same, which is why I don't see the point of this hole operation.
    Intel SSD's don't degrade over time, and so do the Sandforce drives, so don't bother.
  8. WardC macrumors 68030


    Oct 17, 2007
    Fort Worth, TX
    I have the OWC Mercury Extreme Pro 120GB SSD drive in my Mac Pro. It's Sandforce based, very fast, and I can say it's a great drive. I paid $299 for it, but you can get it for cheaper now. I think the OWC drives have a slight edge over the Vertex 2 (they are a tad faster) but the Vertex 2 is also Sandforce-based and not a bad drive either. Either drive would be a good one for a Mac Pro.
  9. Einz macrumors regular


    Feb 14, 2008
    All 2nd Gen Intel SSDs have TRIM . The problem is that current Mac OS does not support TRIM.
  10. disconap macrumors 68000


    Oct 29, 2005
    Portland, OR
    This is another reason to go with OCZ. All OCZ Sandforce drives (and possibly all Sandforce, not sure) have native TRIM that runs when idle. Not as immediately useful, of course, as being able to run TRIM directly, but much like GC before it, works perfectly.

    I also highly HIGHLY recommend the Vertex 2. I have a 60gb Vertex 2, 4 32gb Vertex Turbos, a 32gb Patriot ps100, and a Kingston V series 64gb. The OCZs have been nothing short of spectacular, and the Vertex2 has been the best in show, matching a pair of the Turbos in RAID0 for performance.
  11. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Nov 30, 2008
    Actually, the OCZ Vertex 2 is marginally faster than the OWC drive and can be found a little cheaper, so the decision shouldn't be that hard. ;)

    Check out anandtech for reliable benchmarks and reviews.
  12. VirtualRain macrumors 603


    Aug 1, 2008
    Vancouver, BC
    TRIM effectively marks previously used NAND blocks that are no longer holding relevant data as "free". It operates at a layer lower than the data. A Secure Erase command similarly instructs the drive's controller to mark all NAND blocks as "free". As you can see, this is much different than writing/overwriting data to the NAND.

    More info here on secure erase and why "formatting" or "overwrite" operations aren't going to help SSD performance...

  13. Inconsequential macrumors 68000

    Sep 12, 2007
    Sorry, I meant IGC.

Share This Page