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

$300: Vertex 120GB or X25-M?

M

m0no

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jan 8, 2009
222
0
I can pick up either of these drives for ~$300. I'm not sure which to go with. Both are obviously popular and great drives but it seems the Intel is currently the best and has less troubles with OSX. However, lots of people seem to have great success with the OCZ and it's also bigger.

Can anybody offer some advice to help me decide? Thanks!

Edit: X25-M is the 80GB
 
It's basically size vs. speed. Both are great SSDs and have proven to be. Would you prefer a Porsche Cayman or Cayenne? One is faster where as the other is larger.
 
I would stick with Intel. It has some clever algorithms to prevent slowdowns when its full of data. The other ones have it too but its not as good as Intels
 
I think I'll go for the Intel and since the particular drive is an open box item, maybe I can talk them down in price.
 
Harrelson said:
I would stick with Intel. It has some clever algorithms to prevent slowdowns when its full of data. The other ones have it too but its not as good as Intels
Click to expand...

I have a Vertex (actually 2, see sig) and it is running great. :D

Like Sneakz said, it's your choice: A little more speed or 40GB extra space.
 
FieryFurnace said:
TRIM is important to keep the SSD running at full speed after using it for some time.
I'm not an expert on Intel's SSD, but as far as I read here in the forum and elsewhere, you should go for a G2.
Click to expand...

It was a G1 and I decided to not give in to my instant gratification and pass on it. I'll wait until I can find a G2 available online for a good price.
 
FieryFurnace said:
Why not get a Vertex then? :D
Click to expand...

Ha, well...I haven't completely decided against it. I just kind of set my mind on the Intel. But then again, if the performance difference isn't too noticeable I might go ahead and get the Vertex and have the extra storage.

Although, now I'm thinking about springing for the Intel G2 160 and get the space and speed. Ahh...decisions!:D
 
If you are leaning towards the Vertex, you can also consider the OCZ Agility. It still uses the indilinx controller and it's nearly just as fast as the Vertex, but it's a bit cheaper.

Just don't use ones with jmicron controllers. The SSDs that use them stutter a bit.
 
MacMini2009 said:
I have a question, on OCZ's website, it says 120GB (128GB), so does this mean the OCZ SSD's that are 120GB are really 128GB?

http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/solid_state_drives/ocz_agility_series_sata_ii_2_5-ssd
Click to expand...

I have a Summit 120GB (128MB cache). It's "size" is read as "120GB" and "128GB", depending on the system hardware detection program being used. 120Gb is really available.
The Agility and Vertex lines have a 64MB cache; the Summit line a 128MB cache. I thought the () might indicate the cache size, but it doesn't. According to OZC, http://www.ocztechnology.com/produc...ocz_vertex_series_mac_edition_sata_ii_2_5-ssd, their SSD's have a reserve amount of around 5% set aside for self-maintenance issues - "formatting and redundancy for wear leveling", and "the naming convention reflects this and the 30 is equivalent to 32GB, the 60 is equivalent to the 64GB and so on". So a 120GB SSD also has another 8GB "hidden' from use - so it is "120GB (128)"; similarly a 60GB SSD has another 4GB "hidden" - "60GB (64)", the 250GB an extra 6Gb "hidden" -"250GB (256)". Seems like some SSD families are advertised as 60, 120 and 250 GB; others as 64, 128 and 256 GB. OZC uses the former (smaller amount) in advertising. A little confusing...To confuse matters further (for me, at least), Intel advertises its new SSD family as "80GB" and "160GB" - but explains in its technical brief that the "usable capacity" will be smaller than the "physical size" as some space is set aside for "management and maintenance purposes" http://download.intel.com/design/flash/nand/mainstream/322296.pdf. So it would seem that the "60GB" and "160GB" that Intel advertises are smaller than the OCZ's equivalent sizes according to their naming convention. i.e. they are smaller in actual size than their advertized size? - unlike OCZ, who advertize the usable size (i.e. after maintenance amount is subtracted). Perhaps someone could confirm that or not?
 
antskip said:
Intel advertises its new SSD family as "80GB" and "160GB" - but explains in its technical brief that the "usable capacity" will be smaller than the "physical size" as some space is set aside for "management and maintenance purposes" http://download.intel.com/design/flash/nand/mainstream/322296.pdf. So it would seem that the "60GB" and "160GB" that Intel advertises are smaller than the OCZ's equivalent sizes according to their naming convention. i.e. they are smaller in actual size than their advertized size? - unlike OCZ, who advertize the usable size (i.e. after maintenance amount is subtracted). Perhaps someone could confirm that or not?
Click to expand...

The Intel X25-M G2 drives use 16 GB NAND Flash chips, so the 80 GB one would have 5 and the 160 GB 10 of those. So those are their real sizes and it's unknown how much less the usable capacity is.
 
Some bench with my brand new X25-M G2 (160Go), installed in a mid 2009 MacBook Pro :p

Does it looks good? :D

Results 230.19
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.6.1 (10B504)
Physical RAM 4096 MB
Model MacBookPro5,5
Drive Type INTEL SSDSA2M160G2GC
Disk Test 230.19
Sequential 155.77
Uncached Write 139.94 85.92 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 113.04 63.96 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 138.10 40.42 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 408.82 205.47 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 440.75
Uncached Write 695.71 73.65 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 169.98 54.42 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 1457.67 10.33 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 935.60 173.61 MB/sec [256K blocks]
 
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
Back