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

Apple 256 SSD vs 3rd party SSD

D

dgitalchaos

macrumors member
Original poster
Mar 2, 2011
54
0
So I bought a Crucial C300 256GB and it's an amazing drive with fast speeds.
I also have an official Apple SSD 256GB with native TRIM support.

In all bench marks, the C300 beats the Apple SSD by far, however, when actually using the drives with CS5 and typical operations such as web surfing, and using typical apps, the Apple drive "feels" quicker.

Both drives were installed from a blank state, with the same data. The C300 felt the same with TRIM enabled as without - which is really fast compared to a regular hard drive, but as I said before: the Apple drive feels like it runs quicker and smoother than the C300. Anyone else notice this, or is it all in my head?
 
Raw numbers aren't all what matters. Apple SSDs may have a better firmware integration with OS X. E.g. the MBA boots faster than any other Mac, no matter what SSD is in it, even though the SSD in MBA is slow in raw benchmarks.
 
dgitalchaos said:
So I bought a Crucial C300 256GB and it's an amazing drive with fast speeds.
I also have an official Apple SSD 256GB with native TRIM support.

In all bench marks, the C300 beats the Apple SSD by far, however, when actually using the drives with CS5 and typical operations such as web surfing, and using typical apps, the Apple drive "feels" quicker.

Both drives were installed from a blank state, with the same data. The C300 felt the same with TRIM enabled as without - which is really fast compared to a regular hard drive, but as I said before: the Apple drive feels like it runs quicker and smoother than the C300. Anyone else notice this, or is it all in my head?
Click to expand...

Chances are it's in your head. However, you could always run some "real world" benchmarks. How about recording both drives booting up and then opening a bunch of apps. Then play back both videos simultaneously and see which is quicker? :cool:
 
DaSal said:
Chances are it's in your head. However, you could always run some "real world" benchmarks. How about recording both drives booting up and then opening a bunch of apps. Then play back both videos simultaneously and see which is quicker? :cool:
Click to expand...

I don't have a cam, but I did use a stop watch for both drives.

From complete power off to Safari (timer started as soon as power button pressed):

C300 - 18.03 Seconds / Shutdown - 1.25 Seconds
Apple SSD - 19.43 Seconds / Shutdown - .75 Seconds

Fresh boot, open all 70 apps (minus FrontRow) / Close all apps

C300 - 7 Seconds / 15 Seconds
Apple SSD - 5 Seconds / 8 Seconds

Shutdown once all apps closed

C300 - 27 Seconds
Apple SSD - .79 Seconds

Alternate test:

Scrolling 1000 high-res images in Adobe CS5 Bridge

C300 - 55 Seconds
Apple SSD - 35 Seconds

Opening 2GB .PSD file

C300- 6.30 Seconds
Apple SSD - 10.39 Seconds

When running these tests, it seamed as if though the C300 would run super fast, pause a couple of split seconds, and continue. It did this on all tests except opening the Photoshop file.

When using the OS regularly, I got the pauses from the C300, whereas the Apple drive ran smoothly without pauses.

Well, I guess it's not all in my head, at least not with my drives.

Anyone else with the C300 or 3rd party drives experience these "pauses?"

The C300 shipped with firmware 0006, and it felt the same with TRIM enabled.
 
dgitalchaos said:
I don't have a cam, but I did use a stop watch for both drives.

From complete power off to Safari (timer started as soon as power button pressed):

C300 - 18.03 Seconds / Shutdown - 1.25 Seconds
Apple SSD - 19.43 Seconds / Shutdown - .75 Seconds

Fresh boot, open all 70 apps (minus FrontRow) / Close all apps

C300 - 7 Seconds / 15 Seconds
Apple SSD - 5 Seconds / 8 Seconds

Shutdown once all apps closed

C300 - 27 Seconds
Apple SSD - .79 Seconds

Alternate test:

Scrolling 1000 high-res images in Adobe CS5 Bridge

C300 - 55 Seconds
Apple SSD - 35 Seconds

Opening 2GB .PSD file

C300- 6.30 Seconds
Apple SSD - 10.39 Seconds

When running these tests, it seamed as if though the C300 would run super fast, pause a couple of split seconds, and continue. It did this on all tests except opening the Photoshop file.

When using the OS regularly, I got the pauses from the C300, whereas the Apple drive ran smoothly without pauses.

Well, I guess it's not all in my head, at least not with my drives.

Anyone else with the C300 or 3rd party drives experience these "pauses?"

The C300 shipped with firmware 0006, and it felt the same with TRIM enabled.
Click to expand...
This is exactly why I shipped my computer back to Apple and returned my C300 drive to Newegg for the factory Apple SSD.
 
apolloa said:
So is the same true for all 3rd party SSD's? I am interested in getting a Intel 510 when I get a 2011 MB Pro but what your saying is making me think twice.
Click to expand...

It seems all SSD's are hit and miss on the new 2011's. It seems particularly true of the C300 256gb. I'd play it safe and order with Apples SSD.
 
kdoug said:
This is exactly why I shipped my computer back to Apple and returned my C300 drive to Newegg for the factory Apple SSD.
Click to expand...

Well, sounds like it's not an isolated incident, so I suppose it probably is best to stick with Apple SSD in an Apple notebook. They may not be rated as fast, but their performance is very "Apple" like. Time to sell my C300!
 
i have the apple 128 and ill never think about buying a 3rd party. i only paid 180 bucks for it and its more than fast enough, i didnt have to install anything. And best of all, it supports trim!!

i feel like 90% of the people that buy 3rd party SSD just want bragging rights, or they just feel better because of the benchmarks. Im pretty sure most people, again most, not ALL people wont be able to tell the difference. There are always those select few that really push their SSD so hard they can tell. But again im 90% sure that most people dont need anything besides the apple SSD
 
What make is the Apple SSD? I did search on here but there are so many posts and none are very clear as last year people were stating different makes for different SSD drive sizes?

Is the 256GB one really a Samsung drive? If so is it the same drive as they advertise on there website but with an Apple sticker and custom firmware?
 
I would stick with the apple ssd since it seems to integrate better with osx and supports trim.
 
apolloa said:
What make is the Apple SSD? I did search on here but there are so many posts and none are very clear as last year people were stating different makes for different SSD drive sizes?

Is the 256GB one really a Samsung drive? If so is it the same drive as they advertise on there website but with an Apple sticker and custom firmware?
Click to expand...
I'm fairly certain Hitachi makes the Drive for Apple, not Samsung.
 
dgitalchaos said:
I don't have a cam, but I did use a stop watch for both drives.

From complete power off to Safari (timer started as soon as power button pressed):

C300 - 18.03 Seconds / Shutdown - 1.25 Seconds
Apple SSD - 19.43 Seconds / Shutdown - .75 Seconds

Fresh boot, open all 70 apps (minus FrontRow) / Close all apps

C300 - 7 Seconds / 15 Seconds
Apple SSD - 5 Seconds / 8 Seconds

Shutdown once all apps closed

C300 - 27 Seconds
Apple SSD - .79 Seconds

Alternate test:

Scrolling 1000 high-res images in Adobe CS5 Bridge

C300 - 55 Seconds
Apple SSD - 35 Seconds

Opening 2GB .PSD file

C300- 6.30 Seconds
Apple SSD - 10.39 Seconds

When running these tests, it seamed as if though the C300 would run super fast, pause a couple of split seconds, and continue. It did this on all tests except opening the Photoshop file.

When using the OS regularly, I got the pauses from the C300, whereas the Apple drive ran smoothly without pauses.

Well, I guess it's not all in my head, at least not with my drives.

Anyone else with the C300 or 3rd party drives experience these "pauses?"

The C300 shipped with firmware 0006, and it felt the same with TRIM enabled.
Click to expand...

Interesting. The Apple drive may very well be faster because it's better integrated with the OS somehow.

Out of interest, did you do the tests with TRIM turned on or off?

There's some people saying that turning TRIM on causes beach balls and performance issues, which are resolved when it's turned off. Perhaps your C300 would perform better with TRIM turned off as well?
 
Pay the SSD Apple Tax

Another vote for getting the Apple SSD's. Don't fight the inflated extortion fees for these things. Just pay it and enjoy the peace of mind that comes with an extra 2 years of Apple Care. (No need to deal with a 3rd Party SSD maker for warranty).
 
i sent my CTO ssd back and got a CTO with 7200 rpm with and owc ssd 120gb
no regrets

from my experience i would say the owc bltz's the apple ssd in bechmarks and in real world... i had almost filled the drive to capacity and it would still not slow down.. also the owc drive boots in 7-9secs and everything feels snappier when compared to when i had the apple ssd!

i have experienced x3 isolated episodes of random beachballing.. this only occured after i enabled the trim hack - which i still am not convinced is absolutely paramount for a sandforce drive
 
So reading this forum it seems the Vertex drive has some issues and you can't use TRIM with it. Does the OCZ have sleep issues? Or the Intel 510?

And just how risky is it to hack OSX to turn TRIM on for non Apple SSD's?
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; 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)

kdoug said:
apolloa said:
So is the same true for all 3rd party SSD's? I am interested in getting a Intel 510 when I get a 2011 MB Pro but what your saying is making me think twice.
Click to expand...

It seems all SSD's are hit and miss on the new 2011's. It seems particularly true of the C300 256gb. I'd play it safe and order with Apples SSD.
Click to expand...

Mostly just the C300, crucial has even removed the 2011 MBP as a officially supported machine.
 
lavrishevo said:
There are some great articles out there showing how OSX does NOT NEED TRIM. All this hoopla about TRIM.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/apple/2010/07/01/mac-ssd-performance-trim-in-osx/7
Click to expand...

If my memory serves me correct, that test was for an apple SSD in a MBA - would love to see the reproducibility of this test in a sandforce drive in a MBP, with and without trim in OSx

TheUndertow said:
I'm curious to see if the 256GB drive is faster than the 128GB (due to NAND quantity and config).
Click to expand...

Yes, depends on the die size density and channels emplyed
Hence the 120GB benchamarks slower than the 240gb V3s - how this pans out in real world test would be interesting
 
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