2011 Macbook Pro Owners With SSD's - What Brand?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by trevtech, Feb 25, 2011.

  1. trevtech macrumors newbie

    Apr 20, 2010
    $250 for a 128gb SSD upgrade?! That's market value for most SSD's in that capacity. I'm impressed that Apple would sell any hardware upgrade for a reasonable price. RAM upgrades are almost falling down into rational pricing, too. So that leads me to ask: what brand SSD is Apple outfitting these new MBP's with? Any of you that have purchased a 2011 MBP, would you mind opening it up to check what's in there? My guess is Samsung only because it seems to be the only brand in 128gb that I could see Apple using. Everything else in that capacity is some off-brand that hasn't ever provided OEM parts to Apple before (as far as I can tell). Based on your answer I'd prefer to just buy the same SSD aftermarket, and pocket the stock HDD to be used as an extra external.

    Thanks for reading! =]
  2. bradone1 macrumors newbie

    Feb 26, 2011
    need to to know this too, big time

    Store opens in 20 mins!!! i would love to go and get one but i need this answer too before i go and spend the dough....

    i am debating on just getting the 750GB regular drive and possibly upgrading it to SSD myself if they arent fast enough. I would really like the 355/mbps like the crucial drives are at now, not the measly 200+ that the older drives have...

    if anyone has the answer as to what SSD drives are in the new 2011 MBP that would be great so I can go and buy one or not today,

    thank you all.

  3. dwhynman macrumors regular

    Jun 23, 2010
    I dont think you can get SSD drives in store. I am pretty much they are just CTO online. I could be wrong though.
  4. zub3qin macrumors 65816


    Apr 10, 2007
    Apple Store doesn't have new MBP with SSD as display units that we can play with? Why not?
  5. dwhynman macrumors regular

    Jun 23, 2010
    I don't know for sure if this is still true, But in the apple store I go to the only CTO options they stock are the CPU upgrades. Even RAM if you want to upgrade the RAM from the store you need to buy the RAM separate and they will put it in for you if you want to but it is much more expensive than it would be than if you upgraded online. at least they give you back your old RAM.
  6. adnoh macrumors 6502a


    Nov 14, 2010
  7. amoergosum macrumors 6502

    Oct 20, 2008
    I heard they are Kingstom SSDs.
  8. Bigmacduck, Feb 26, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2011

    Bigmacduck macrumors regular

    Feb 15, 2009
    Apple Stock SSD vs OWC SSD

    I have decided to go for a 512GB Apple SSD for my Built To Order 2011 MBP 15", 8GB RAM, Core i7 2.3GHz. It should arrive around February 11. As soon as I have it I will run the XBench and publish it here. Hope somebody who gets it earlier can publish it here.

    I have just changed my CTO order to the standard throw-away HDD and I ordered the 480GB Mercury Pro SSD from OWC. I rather spend 400 bucks more and get the very best instead of the cheaper and unknown / undocumented 512GB SSD from Apple. The OWC has "only" 480 GB because it is over- provisioned by 7%.

    The Apple SSD is very competitively priced. Some people in this forum called it a 'rip off', a statement which I absolutely don't agree with. The upgrade from the low cost 5400 rpm model to the 512 GB SSD costs you 1100$. That is still much less expensive than the OWC 480GB Mercury Extreme Pro SSD, which sells for 1580$.

    The OWC is probably a bit faster than Apple's stock 512GB MBP 2011 SSD, but I have not seen any benchmark comparisons on that to support this thesis.

    I upgraded in January 2011 the 128GB stock SSD in my mid 2009 MacBook Air (rev C) with an OWC 240GB Aura Pro MBA SDD. I did that because i needed more storage space and I wanted it also to be faster as I also use Windows under Parallels VM.

    I must say that I am extremely happy with my upgraded SSD in my MBA. The OWC SSD is significantly better performing than the Stock Apple SSD. See Xbench results below:

    Apple Stock SSD in MBA Late 2009:
    Results 145.38
    System Info
    Xbench Version 1.3
    System Version 10.6.6 (10J567)
    Physical RAM 2048 MB
    Model MacBookAir2,1
    Drive Type APPLE SSD SM128
    Disk Test 79.94
    Sequential 63.37
    Uncached Write 55.97 34.36 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Write 53.11 30.05 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Uncached Read 47.61 13.93 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Read 184.45 92.71 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Random 108.26
    Uncached Write 52.16 5.52 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Write 66.55 21.31 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Uncached Read 1458.67 10.34 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Read 484.80 89.96 MB/sec [256K blocks]

    OWC SSD 240GB Aura Pro MBA installed in January 2011:
    Results 155.83
    System Info
    Xbench Version 1.3
    System Version 10.6.6 (10J567)
    Physical RAM 2048 MB
    Model MacBookAir2,1
    Drive Type OWC Mercury Extreme Pro SSD
    Disk Test 198.22
    Sequential 115.46
    Uncached Write 173.05 106.25 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Write 147.87 83.67 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Uncached Read 52.58 15.39 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Read 324.32 163.00 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Random 699.94
    Uncached Write 1021.88 108.18 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Write 331.21 106.03 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Uncached Read 1737.71 12.31 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Read 876.07 162.56 MB/sec [256K blocks]

    Keep in mind that OWC is current state of the art technology compared to the 2009 Apple stock SSD. So I would not expect the same performance difference between Apple's current 2011 MBP SSD and the current OWC Mercury Pro.

    I am looking forward to your benchmark results with SSD's in MBP 2011.
  9. Bigmacduck macrumors regular

    Feb 15, 2009
    Crucial C300 problems in MBP

    As I already posted in another tread, stay away from Crucial C300 in your MBP.

    Check out the Crucial forum you find lots of entries about C300 problems. See: http://www.forum.crucial.com/t5/for...cation=Node:ssd&q=macbook+pro+i7#message-list

    Also you must know that the C300 is a power hog. The Sandforce based OWC has a significantly lower power consumption that the C300.

    If you don't go for the original Apple SSD, the the OWC is probably the best choice.

    I strongly recommend reading the diglloyd report on Real-World SSD Performance Considerations:
  10. axu539 macrumors 6502a

    Dec 31, 2010
    Both Apple stores near me do NOT carry any SSDs in store. I also tried asking a genius what brand they used, and he had no idea (mentioned Fujitsu, which sounds like a totally unlikely guess). We'll have to wait for someone to actually get one.
  11. bradone1 macrumors newbie

    Feb 26, 2011
    good info

    thanks you all, will go for the OWC.. I buy sh*ttons of memory from crucial all the time so I have a habit of trusting their brand. good to know about the addt'l power consumption and the fact that the OWC will provide a better experience all the way around.

    Yes you are right, any store in South Florida does not sell SSD's at all, proc upgrade is the only option. Asked business department about warranty void on replacing the internal 750GB with a 3rd party bought SSD and they said that the only thing that would not be warranted is the harddrive at that point. the rest of the machine is still good to go, no questions asked,

    good info to know, once again, thanks for the insight..


  12. johnnyturbouk macrumors 68000


    Feb 9, 2011
    on the yellow [oled] brick road to tech nirvana.
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

    Yes it's samsung
  13. Bigmacduck macrumors regular

    Feb 15, 2009
    I'll go with OWC

    I just changed my CTO order to a standard 5400rpm HDD. At same time I ordered the 480GB Mercury Pro SSD kit from OWC.
    http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other World Computing/DIYSSD480F8/

    As documented in post #8 above, I was so happy with the OWC in my MBA, so I do not want to experiment with the cheaper and probably inferior SSD from Apple (Samsung)

    Killer arguments for the OWC are:
    - lower power consumption
    - no write speed degradation degradation over time
    - 7% over-provisioning for data redundancy and error correction
  14. Hornzog macrumors member

    Jan 3, 2011
    How fast are the ones from OWC?
  15. Bigmacduck macrumors regular

    Feb 15, 2009
    OWC Benchmark and diglloyd report

    See my post #8 above which compares OWC with Apple stock SSD in my MBA.

    See OWC 120GB Benchmark in MBP 2010 in the following thread:

    To quote from the diglloyd report "Real-World SSD Performance Considerations"

    Rules of thumb for buying an SSD

    1. Don’t be suckered.

    2. The honeymoon might feel good, but 3/6/9 months later you might want a divorce! Many SSDs just don’t hold up with use. They can hold up just fine for casual use (web, email, etc), but become badly degraded in other scenarios.

    3. Don’t buy just any SSD. These things cost money! Do your research. Some are far slower than others (even when new), including those offered directly by Apple in new Macs.

    4. Many SSDs degrade in performance with use. They offer a quick “high”, with a hangover. But if you have such a drive, you can recondition it to bring performance up to a better level.

    5. Many SSDs have a limited lifespan. Some simply crap-out without warning, because they have no over-provisioning for bad blocks. Others suddenly go into read-only mode. Don’t waste your money on a future coaster for your martini.

    6. RAID-0 striping is not advisable with SSDs not rated for it (striping splits file blocks between drives, so failure of one drive is a complete failure). RAID-1 mirroring or spanning (JBOD) is OK because file data is not split across drives.

    7. Favor SSDs with over-provisioning. Over-provisioning (OP) sets aside extra storage for bad blocks and helps maintain performance. OP reduces usable capacity, but is worth it. Drives that have 0% over-provisioning (yes zero percent) are OK if your only use of the computer is light-duty (web, email, etc).
  16. aznguyen316 macrumors 68020


    Oct 1, 2008
    Tampa, FL
  17. billgates99 macrumors regular

    Apr 13, 2010
    I'm really surprised at both of these Xbench scores. They seem abnormally low for SSD. Is there some setting you need to adjust in OSX to tweak the read/write speeds for SSD? Or am I misunderstanding the data?

    According to OWC, the 240GB Mercury Auro Pro MBA sequential read should max out at 285 MB/s and sequential write at 275MB/s. [source]

    I get between 500-550MB/sec sequential read for dual Intel X18M in Raid0 in my windows laptop. I imagine it should be around 250 MB/s or so for each one individually.

    CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 (C) 2007-2010 hiyohiyo
    Crystal Dew World : Crystal Dew World
    * MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

    Sequential Read : 522.459 MB/s
    Sequential Write : 218.955 MB/s
    Random Read 512KB : 257.704 MB/s
    Random Write 512KB : 170.739 MB/s
    Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 10.747 MB/s [ 2623.8 IOPS]
    Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 53.788 MB/s [ 13131.7 IOPS]
    Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 250.638 MB/s [ 61190.9 IOPS]
    Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 145.501 MB/s [ 35522.7 IOPS]

    Test : 1000 MB [C: 18.7% (53.0/282.9 GB)] (x5)
    Date : 2011/01/30 15:20:52
    OS : Windows 7 Home Premium Edition [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)
    CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 (C) 2007-2010 hiyohiyo
    Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
    * MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

    Sequential Read : 514.681 MB/s
    Sequential Write : 220.451 MB/s
    Random Read 512KB : 263.836 MB/s
    Random Write 512KB : 179.628 MB/s
    Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 11.106 MB/s [ 2711.4 IOPS]
    Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 58.845 MB/s [ 14366.5 IOPS]
    Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 244.761 MB/s [ 59756.1 IOPS]
    Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 139.601 MB/s [ 34082.2 IOPS]

    Test : 1000 MB [C: 18.9% (53.4/282.9 GB)] (x5)
    Date : 2011/01/30 16:26:10
    OS : Windows 7 Home Premium Edition [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)
  18. Bigmacduck macrumors regular

    Feb 15, 2009
    Bear in mind that it is installed in an old MacBook Air 2.1 (Rev C) which was coming to the market in 2009. MBA is a slow machine. I am confident that it would be much faster in a state of the art machine. Anyhow you see that it is much faster than the original Apple SSD.
  19. Grouchy Bob macrumors regular

    Feb 24, 2011
    AssWipe, New Mexico
    This is why the only BTO option I'll ever get through Apple is the SSD.

    Are there better ones out there? Sure, but I know Apple will cover it for 3 years under AppleCare.

    I just don't want to worry about it.
  20. DustinT macrumors 68000


    Feb 26, 2011
    Any reputable SSD manufacturer would provide a warranty of 3 years or longer. I wouldn't give that a second thought. If you have problems with your laptop you can always pop back in the old drive before you take it in for service. Just keep it somewhere safe and you'll be fine.
  21. mtkagan macrumors member

    Sep 29, 2008
    do the sf based ssd's have sleep/wake issues with the mbp?
  22. StandardMeth0d macrumors member


    Jul 2, 2010
    I would like to know this as well. It seems that SandForce based SSDs still have hibernation issues with OS X on many people's machines. It also seems that it's a random problem, so I'm hoping the one I order doesn't have this issue.
  23. billgates99 macrumors regular

    Apr 13, 2010
    I have heard this mentioned frequently; however, the best that I can tell, the lifespan of the average SSD drive is significantly longer than the average traditional platter drive. (Although many older SSDs certainly degrade and become slower without TRIM or garbage collection.)


  24. Weaselboy Moderator


    Staff Member

    Jan 23, 2005
  25. Weaselboy Moderator


    Staff Member

    Jan 23, 2005
    It seems to be only certain MBP models. Some users here report no problems and others do. I put an OWC in my 2008 MBP 13 and only disabled sleep and never had a problem.

Share This Page