Apple 256 SSD vs 3rd party SSD

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by dgitalchaos, Apr 8, 2011.

  1. dgitalchaos macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2011
    #1
    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?
     
  2. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #2
    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.
     
  3. DaSal macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #3
    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:
     
  4. BeachChair macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2008
    Location:
    Copenhagen, Denmark
  5. dgitalchaos thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2011
    #5
    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.
     
  6. kdoug macrumors 6502a

    kdoug

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Location:
    Iowa City, IA USA
    #6
    This is exactly why I shipped my computer back to Apple and returned my C300 drive to Newegg for the factory Apple SSD.
     
  7. apolloa macrumors G3

    apolloa

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Location:
    Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
    #7
    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.
     
  8. kdoug macrumors 6502a

    kdoug

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Location:
    Iowa City, IA USA
    #8
    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.
     
  9. dgitalchaos thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2011
    #9
    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!
     
  10. iMackPro macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    #10
    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
     
  11. apolloa macrumors G3

    apolloa

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Location:
    Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
    #11
    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?
     
  12. adnoh macrumors 6502a

    adnoh

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2010
    #12
    I would stick with the apple ssd since it seems to integrate better with osx and supports trim.
     
  13. kdoug macrumors 6502a

    kdoug

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Location:
    Iowa City, IA USA
    #13
    I'm fairly certain Hitachi makes the Drive for Apple, not Samsung.
     
  14. adztaylor macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    Preston, UK
  15. kdoug macrumors 6502a

    kdoug

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Location:
    Iowa City, IA USA
    #15
    You're right, I was thinking Hard Drives.
     
  16. DaSal macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #16
    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?
     
  17. Al Coholic macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    Location:
    Under the I-470 Freeway
    #17
    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).
     
  18. johnnyturbouk macrumors 68000

    johnnyturbouk

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Location:
    on the yellow [oled] brick road to tech nirvana.
    #18
    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
     
  19. apolloa macrumors G3

    apolloa

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Location:
    Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
    #19
    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?
     
  20. lavrishevo macrumors 68000

    lavrishevo

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Location:
    NJ
    #20
  21. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #21
    The OS is not very relevant, it's totally up to the drive and how well it does garbage collection. Intels have pretty much no firmware GC so their performance will degrade rather quickly without TRIM, even in OS X.
     
  22. Macsavvytech macrumors 6502a

    Macsavvytech

    Joined:
    May 25, 2010
    #22
    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)

    Mostly just the C300, crucial has even removed the 2011 MBP as a officially supported machine.
     
  23. aoaaron macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
  24. TheUndertow macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    #24
    I'm curious to see if the 256GB drive is faster than the 128GB (due to NAND quantity and config).
     
  25. johnnyturbouk macrumors 68000

    johnnyturbouk

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Location:
    on the yellow [oled] brick road to tech nirvana.
    #25
    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

    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
     

Share This Page