Apple bto ssd vs vetex 3

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by henrikrox, Apr 21, 2011.

  1. henrikrox macrumors 65816

    henrikrox

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    #1
    So a friend of mine who is getting the 15 high end 2,2ghz with 6750m. Asked me the difference between apple bto ssd and a vertex 3

    So i have no knowledge of the write/read speeds compared to vertex 3.

    The price for the ssd on the high end 15 is just some dollars. Cmpared to a 300 dollsr vertex 3
     
  2. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #2
    Apple uses Toshiba SSDs which offer speeds of 220MB/s and 180MB/s (read/write). While the Vertex 3 offers greater speeds in theory, it's unlikely that you would notice much difference between the two.
     
  3. Stuckster macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    #3
    Hey guys, sorry to hijack this thread.

    Thought it might be the only way of directing your attention back to an older thread about over clocking the iMac 5750 (5850m).

    I'm having some problems with my card and could really use your help as members who seem to know their *****.

    Thanks in advance for any help.
    Here is my current post from that thread. :)
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12482624&postcount=203
     
  4. mac jones macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    #4
    O thought that also, I even made a post about it in this forum. But after using a Vertex 3 240GB i'm not so sure. I feels very fast.

    The problem is it's subjective, and then of course the perception is unreliable (at best).

    who knows :rolleyes:
     
  5. hehe299792458 macrumors 6502a

    hehe299792458

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    #5
    Vertex 3 is faster. Period.
     
  6. mac jones macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    #6
    Do you own both?
     
  7. iMackPro macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    #7
    i have the 128 OEM SSD from apple. and i love it. its plenty fast, in every way. boot times, installs, waking from sleep. Personally unless you're doing some heavy computing and working with very large (10+ GB) files, i don't think you'll really notice the difference. HDD --> SSD is a vast difference, but SSD --> is not so much, i mean the very best compared to the very worst im sure you could tell, but between the two, i doubt it.


    Unless your friend just has some money laying around and can afford the V3. id suggest the apple SSD. As i said, its wicked fast. It also comes TRIM enabled, and its already inside of your computer and everything is loaded on it, which is very nice and clean.

    APPLE for the win! again! unless he really really needs the little speed increase, or if he just has the money to buy the best of the best. hope this helps.
     
  8. JasonH42 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #8
    Little speed increase? The Vertex 3 is more than twice as fast, and yes I own a couple of them. But I do agree with you that unless money is no issue for that friend the standard SSD will feel plenty fast enough compared to a hard drive.
     
  9. iMackPro macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    #9
    i stand corrected, you are right. They are faster than i thought i was looking at the wrong v3 when i was looking at benchmarks it was the (random data) not the (6GBs) one. sorry about that.


    but yeah, i don't think its double? mines 220 and v3 is 320. Yeah it is a definitely faster but i think its fair enough that we both agree that either/or will be a good choice :D. And i still say APPLE for the WIN!
     
  10. dusk007 macrumors 68040

    dusk007

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    #10
    In random workload the vertex 3 is wickedly fast while the Apple SSD is for an SSD really bad. sequential the difference is only 2x speed which is still quite something.
    I would still go for the Apple or some other SSD because the Vertex 3 has some power consumption issues. I wouldn't want that in my notebook. It would kill battery life. A firmware upgrade will help this in the future probably but it will still drink a little to much juice.
     
  11. iMackPro macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    #11
    really? im not at all not believing you but do you have a v3? or did you read this somewhere? i had no idea about that but i have noticed that my apple sad is great for battery vs power consumption. i think its great, i can run several things with full brightness and still get about 5, 5:30 hours, and if im not doing anything i can be getting 6:30-7
     
  12. dusk007 macrumors 68040

    dusk007

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    #12
    Read Anandtech or Storagebench.
    The vertex 3 seems to suck (at least with current firmware) about 2W idle more under load. The OWC SF-2200 is back down to 1.sometihgn W which is still to much IMO.
    The Kingston V+100 which has the same Toshiba controller Apple uses sucks 0.21W in Idle and thus should offer much better battery life. It is a huge difference if the notebook sucks 7 or 9 W in low usage. With a 60 Wh battery that is almost 2h difference in battery life.

    SSDs are good for battery because most used to suck less power when idel that a common HDD (about 0.8W) and they usually sit longer idle because they are done with work quicker. It doesn't help battery life if it sucks 2W Idle power that is more than the Vertex 2 need under full load.
     
  13. iMackPro macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    #13
    yeah, sound about right, i cant believe typical HDDs suck between 12-18W!!!! thats crazy! ill never go HDD again unless its external!
     
  14. adnoh macrumors 6502a

    adnoh

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2010
    #14
    The difference is speed between the 2 drives will not be noticeable in everyday use. OSX enables trim on the apple SSD without a hack and this will give you better longer term performance.
     
  15. JasonH42 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #15
    TRIM is just BS. All of these recent drives have their own data management. I filled a C300 and it performed just as well.
     
  16. JasonH42 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #16
    Vertex 3 gives me about 490/460 (sequential) read/write.
     

    Attached Files:

  17. Macsavvytech macrumors 6502a

    Macsavvytech

    Joined:
    May 25, 2010
    #17
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

    Vertex 3 and OWC 6G SSD are both ~480-510MB/s
     
  18. mac jones macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    #18
    I'm using a Vertex 3 240GB now and it's extremely fast.

    But I can't be sure. It's subjective and I don't trust myself.

    Certainly I don't trust anyone elses subjective opinion.

    The benches do though, confirm my experience.

    I'm not sure...yet. But certainly you can't go wrong with one of these.

    I recommend them, but lets just hope they don't all start failing (a real possibility) :D
     
  19. oButto macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    #19
    Instead of the Vertex 3, go with the OWC.

    The Apple SSD is nowhere near the speeds of a SATA III drive. Although it might be hardly perceivable, why not?

    Just enable TRIM hack and you're fine. The apple SSD is really nothing amazing. In my opinion, the upgrade to get the SSD from apple is heavily overpriced.
     
  20. Weaselboy Moderator

    Weaselboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Location:
    California
    #20
    May I ask why you make this recommendation? They use the exact same controller and from reviews I have seen the speeds are about the same. At least OCZ has offered a Linux boot CDRom ISO for Mac firmware updates. If you buy from OWC you better set aside another $99 for Windows because that is the only way for users to update their firmware.

    Why not? Because the Apple OEM SSD upgrade is $100 and the Vertex 3 120GB is $300. So why pay $200 extra for a SSD that has little if any perceivable difference?
     
  21. oButto macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    #21
    Based on all the crap about OCZ using terrible quality materials, that is why I recommended OWC over OCZ.

    If OP has the money to do it, why not? It's only $100 more to get a SATA III drive. If the $100 is really a problem, then I'd just buy a Kingston V+100 SSD or better yet an Intel 320. I just don't like the cheap stuff Apple puts in (Samsung SSD, nice application of thermal paste).
     
  22. JasonH42 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #22
    :eek: They paste the SSD in???

    Definitely get a Vertex 3 or OWC 6G then. :)
     
  23. legreve macrumors regular

    legreve

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Location:
    Denmark
    #23
    Theorectically... say you're moving 20g worth of files. The apple ssd will handle that in around 60 seconds. The Vertex will do it in 40 seconds.

    "Little difference"?

    In raw approx. stats (from what people has reported during the last few weeks) the vertex is 78% faster than the apple. And with the sata III ability, it's also worth more future wise, since you might be able to utilize sata III in the 2nd bay on the next refresh. Or, the resale value is higher...

    so... that's why people would pay 200 dollars more for it.
     
  24. Weaselboy, Apr 30, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2011

    Weaselboy Moderator

    Weaselboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Location:
    California
    #24
    If you are referring to the OCZ switch from 34nm NAND to 25nm NAND while keeping the same product name, OWC has done the same thing. The OWC slime about off spec RAM was debunked by Anandtech. Personally, I am not a fan of either OCZ or OWC because of the way they handled the NAND spec change.

    It is $200 more, not just $100... and for what we seem to agree is little or no difference in normal usage.
     
  25. mac jones macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    #25
    Actually, there is a difference in normal usage. It's just not nearly as great as the move from rotational (which is huge). But there is a difference.

    And after a while, when the new standard sets in, the older drives will not cut it.

    But $200 is a a lot of $$$. The costs of these is substantial, and it can easily get out of hand. Best to go slow.
     

Share This Page