Apple SSD vs 3rd Party

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Seraphex, Mar 20, 2011.

  1. Seraphex macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    #1
    So..

    What's better the SSD that comes as an upgrade option (only £70) vs the 3rd party SSD's that are significantly more expensive?

    Sounds like the apple SSD is slower than 3rd party ones but significantly quicker than the stock 5400/7200RPM drives.

    Is the extra £70 worth the performance upgrade? Or is it worth shelling out extra for a 3rd party one.

    Also I asked in the apple store yesterday and the "genius" seemed to think fiting a 3rd party SSD voided the warranty?

    Cheers
     
  2. NikonD3s macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2011
    #2
    Apple uses Toshiba SSDs that have been thoroughly tested for that computer and they have TRIM support for them only. Apple must think 3rd party SSDs may effect the performance negatively at this time probably because they haven't gone thru their rigorous testing, for one reason or another. By the time Lion comes out, they may have tested a lot more and allow TRIM support for them.
     
  3. Weaselboy Moderator

    Weaselboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Location:
    California
  4. tbobmccoy macrumors 6502a

    tbobmccoy

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #4
    Lion will also be integrating TRIM support, so that'll help all the 3rd party SSDs out there out in the summer.
     
  5. johnnyturbouk macrumors 68000

    johnnyturbouk

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Location:
    on the yellow [oled] brick road to tech nirvana.
    #5
    its £80 on apple uk website, but this is in substitution of the default 750gb drive

    i was considering this optin, then thought i would need to spend 60-90GBP on a second HDD.... and i would most likely cop the v3 some time soon

    ideally a ultrafast next gen 120gb (v3), and stock hdd in optibay is what im aiming for
     
  6. Seraphex thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    #6
    Hmm .. so it seems get the stock drive (probably go for the 7200rpm 500gb_ then get a decent 128gb ssd in optibay slot when lion comes out with trim support and new, quicker drives should hopefully be available?!

    I guess it's an initial price save
     
  7. Woodcrest64 macrumors 6502a

    Woodcrest64

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    #7
    My wife got the 256gb ssd option from Apple for her 2011 MacBook pro and I cannot tell the difference between it and my vertex 2 ssd in my machine for booting and launching applications. However the vertex 2 gets better high speed transfer rates for very large files but how often her and I do that is close to never.




     
  8. Seraphex thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    #8
    Ahh brilliant ... I'm leaning towards just getting the 128gb Stock Apple SSD then buying an external HDD for all my other needs. In the long term I will probably get a bigger SSD when they come down in price.

    Thanks a lot.
     
  9. 2Turbo macrumors 6502

    2Turbo

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    #9
    I really trying to decide if I should get apples 128 or go for vertex 3. :confused:
     
  10. alph45 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    #10
    i would personally go for the apple ssd if getting a new mbp. I always toss the factory platter anyways (they're worth what, $50?) and $100 isn't much to add for the performance. The benchmarks someone linked above aren't really compelling enough to consider 3rd party until Lion and a revision or two in the SSD world.
     
  11. paulrbeers macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #11
    I went with the Apple 128GB SSD. For only $92 (w/ my company discount) for the SSD, it was waayyy cheaper than a 120GB SSD. Plus I already had several 500GB hard drives that I will eventually put in the optical bay. Even if you buy a 750GB drive, it is still cheaper to get the Apple SSD and buy a 750GB hard drive separately.

    As previously stated, my Sandforce 1200 based SSD (120GB) drive in my 2009 MBP doesn't feel any faster than the Apple SSD (128GB) in my 2011 even though the benchmarks state the Sandforce drive is faster (maybe if I was transferring large files).
     
  12. adnoh macrumors 6502a

    adnoh

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2010
    #12
    OSX will support the trim feature with apple ssd's only. Also, its a decent ssd for the price and it saves you opening up your laptop.

    Also the difference in speed going from hd -> ssd is massive but the differences between ssd'd arent that noticeable. Its like comparing a 2.0 and 2.4 ghz core 2 duo
     
  13. legreve macrumors regular

    legreve

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Location:
    Denmark
    #13
    Don't understand why people are still talking about putting the ssd in the optibay instead of the main bay?

    - Main bay is SATA iii, optibay is sata ii....
    - You can get HD with build in free fall, so no need to use the main bay.
    - Don't know what prices you get, but in DK the price of Apple ssd 256 is only $70 less than the coming vertex 3.
     
  14. 2Turbo macrumors 6502

    2Turbo

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    #14
    Does anyone know of a 1TB HDD with the built in SMS? Or atleast a 750gb.
     
  15. legreve macrumors regular

    legreve

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Location:
    Denmark
    #15
    Apple ssd is inferior to crucial or vertex.
     
  16. Weaselboy Moderator

    Weaselboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Location:
    California
    #16
    As this test shows the Apple SSD is only slightly slower that the SATAIII Crucial C300. I seriously doubt anybody can tell the difference in normal usage.
     
  17. legreve macrumors regular

    legreve

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Location:
    Denmark
    #17
    Wd scorpio black...
     
  18. 2Turbo macrumors 6502

    2Turbo

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    #18
    What about 1TB? :D
     
  19. johnnyturbouk macrumors 68000

    johnnyturbouk

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Location:
    on the yellow [oled] brick road to tech nirvana.
    #19
    Vertex 3; is by far better than the apple ssd!
    Or any other ssd on the Market.
    C400 and corsair performance looks ok2

    SF2000 Sata III on sandy-bridge :)
    Of these ocz has exclusive access to the controller for a period of time and 1st picks on firmware
     
  20. 2Turbo macrumors 6502

    2Turbo

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    #20
    My question is, how long will it take apple/ocz to get it working smoothly with the '11 MBP on sata III?

    Right now it seems there are way to many problems with the Intel 510, so I think the apple ssd is a safer bet.
     
  21. paulrbeers macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #21
    Because, last we knew with 100% certainty, the only bay that will protect a mechanical hard drive from drops was in the hard drive bay. No one knows for sure if you put a mechanical hard drive in the optibay that OSX will park the heads of the hard drive if dropped/bumped/etc. You could lose an entire drive just because you wanted a little more performance from the SATAIII connection (which can only be utilized by the newest SSD's that so far have been hit or miss in Macs).
     
  22. johnnyturbouk macrumors 68000

    johnnyturbouk

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Location:
    on the yellow [oled] brick road to tech nirvana.
    #22
    i hear what you saying!

    i enquired over at the ocz forums, in between all the 50x100xa trillion raid configs the beta tester were doing.. they confirmed that there has been extensive testing on the imac, as boot
    there are quite a few mac enthusiastic over there
    given, that the MBP latest offering has native sata-3, im sure the %of ocz ssd customers are about to increase drastically!

    they have not tested the V3 on a MBP11 - i told the mods@ocz if they wanted to test the v3 on a MBP 2011 - i would kindly oblige:D

    my thoughts were owc 240gb - solid drive for storage/windows solution
    then v3 as boot drive

    or v3 as boot drive now, stock as second hdd, and upgrade owc 240gb mercury extreme in 6-12 months
     
  23. seek3r macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    #23
    That drive is an older controller, even though it does have a SATA III interface it doesn't really do SATA III speeds. One of the upcoming (few days I believe till official commercial release) Vertex 3s or new Intel drives will easily wipe the floor with it, and the SSDs Apple is currently shipping. The benchmarks for the Vertex 3 drives (the drives are already available to reviewers) are double and triple that of the C300 in barefeat's tests.
     
  24. Weaselboy Moderator

    Weaselboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Location:
    California
    #24
    [​IMG]

    According to the above chart from this test, which Anand says is the best test of real world usage, the C300 is only slightly slower than the Vertex 3 and actually a little faster than the Intel 510. The C300 certainly does do SATAIII speeds. If you want a Vertex 3, have at it, but don't be expecting three times the speed in normal usage.
     
  25. johnnyturbouk macrumors 68000

    johnnyturbouk

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

    If I go for apple drive now then up
    Upgrade to sata-3 drive in 3-6months, what do I do with the apple drive, would have little no use for it
     

Share This Page