Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple SSD vs 3rd Party
- Thread starter Seraphex
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Unless you must go SSD NOW, I'd wait.
The technology is advancing rapidly, plus Lion is on the horizon. In the near future controllers will be better, TRIM & garbage collection will be refined, and the present difficulty with erasing an SSD will also be conquered.
The technology is advancing rapidly, plus Lion is on the horizon. In the near future controllers will be better, TRIM & garbage collection will be refined, and the present difficulty with erasing an SSD will also be conquered.
Here's something I don't get. And frankly I think it's terrible customer service from Apple...
But, why on earth am I not allowed to buy a genuine Apple SSD after I have bought the machine?!? I mean, what other producer, that manufactures something with replaceable parts does not allow you to buy replacements?
Imagine Volkswagen saying you can only buy after-markter third party parts? Heck I can even call Breitling and get them to replace any part of my watch, and even if it is fine and I'm just being fussy, they'll do any of it.
I just don't get it. It might be a stupid decision, but why can't I book my new Macbook Pro in to an Apple store, pay a charge, and get them to fit on of their own SSD drives? It's an expensive way around it but at least it would give peace of mind.
I'll happily buy my own - I know what I am doing - but it seems a bit silly to me. As far as I can tell Apple's customer service starts and ends with the minute you buy the machine.
But, why on earth am I not allowed to buy a genuine Apple SSD after I have bought the machine?!? I mean, what other producer, that manufactures something with replaceable parts does not allow you to buy replacements?
Imagine Volkswagen saying you can only buy after-markter third party parts? Heck I can even call Breitling and get them to replace any part of my watch, and even if it is fine and I'm just being fussy, they'll do any of it.
I just don't get it. It might be a stupid decision, but why can't I book my new Macbook Pro in to an Apple store, pay a charge, and get them to fit on of their own SSD drives? It's an expensive way around it but at least it would give peace of mind.
I'll happily buy my own - I know what I am doing - but it seems a bit silly to me. As far as I can tell Apple's customer service starts and ends with the minute you buy the machine.
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.
12% better in general and, from the tests from your link, nearly double the performance in situations that pro users may often find themselves in (for me, for example, reading large input files from scratch into memory, for many others on this board streaming raw video off the drive, etc) is not something to sneeze at. And, in terms of "SATAIII speeds" the only 2 drives on those tests to pass the 3Gb/s mark were the new intel and ocz drives, so no, the C300 does *not* do SATA III speeds. You could say that the new drives don't do SATAIII speeds often, but the C300 never hits them at all,
Considering that the same $200 to upgrade to Apple's 128GB SSD (or buy a C300 for that matter) will get you a 120GB Vertex 3 now on Amazon (plus you get to keep the 750GB spinning disk your machine comes with), I'd go with the Vertex 3 in a heartbeat
I have Apple SSD in my 2011 MBP and it screams : boot in 17 sec, all programs like itunes, Pages, Numbers, etc open in 1 sec, iPhotos just takes 3 sec to load (I have 11000 pics in my library) and it's snappy like an iphone 4 
So maybe other SSD's are better in some benchmarks, but Apple SSD also make a huge difference in everyday usage, plus you get TRIM and Apple garantee.
It's not that sure that Lion will support 3rd party SSD...
So maybe other SSD's are better in some benchmarks, but Apple SSD also make a huge difference in everyday usage, plus you get TRIM and Apple garantee.
It's not that sure that Lion will support 3rd party SSD...
johnnyturbouk
macrumors 68000
i got my owc 120gb drive very, very cheap..
will wait patiently before updating to next gen sandforce offerings like the v3
will wait patiently before updating to next gen sandforce offerings like the v3
You should reread this test linked earlier in the thread. The C300 is a SATAIII drive and does hit SATAIII speeds. 347Mbp/s in the Barefeats sequential read test. Read reviews of the C300, it uses a SATAIII Marvell controller.
I think you may have misread the Amazon page. The Vertex 3 120GB I see listed there is $300 and available in a couple months and the Vertex 2 120GB is listed at $199. I think you saw the Vertex 2 for $199.
Points taken, you're right about my mistaking the amazon links, that'll teach me to speak after a quick google ::embarrassed face:: though even at $100 more I'd go with the vertex over the Apple SSD, and the C300 is still significantly outperformed in most tests I've seen by the V3 and the new Intel chip. The C400 that just cropped up though... now things should be interesting.
And I'd still take any of the top third party performers, C300 included, over Apple's SSD (which is the main thrust of the thread)
Just ordered ours...
Going with the Apple 128GB SSD now for boot/apps, getting a WD Scorpio Black 750GB HDD for the optical bay for data, and then might upgrade to a SATA 3 SSD in a year or so when prices come down (and bugs/issues/whatnot get worked out).
Going with the Apple 128GB SSD now for boot/apps, getting a WD Scorpio Black 750GB HDD for the optical bay for data, and then might upgrade to a SATA 3 SSD in a year or so when prices come down (and bugs/issues/whatnot get worked out).
johnnyturbouk
macrumors 68000
(1)
-The V3 fo2 $199 - really??
-agrees with weaselboy - crucial 300 does exceed the sata 2 bottleneck, and able to hit the 347 mb/s - check the crucial forums
(2)
this was my thinking, at first
then went for 120gb ssd by owc and 500GB 7200rpm
but with an OWC sata-2 drive, sandforce drivers outperform the apple ssds on multiple becnhmarks and real-world test
OWC drives also have been proven by numerous test to remain free from performance degradation even if filled to capacity..
Im anticipating potential problems with the V3 negotiated at 6GB/s -
-The V3 fo2 $199 - really??
-agrees with weaselboy - crucial 300 does exceed the sata 2 bottleneck, and able to hit the 347 mb/s - check the crucial forums
(2)
this was my thinking, at first
then went for 120gb ssd by owc and 500GB 7200rpm
but with an OWC sata-2 drive, sandforce drivers outperform the apple ssds on multiple becnhmarks and real-world test
OWC drives also have been proven by numerous test to remain free from performance degradation even if filled to capacity..
Im anticipating potential problems with the V3 negotiated at 6GB/s -
OS X supports TRIM on other SSDs too. See this.
Note - You need to own a SSD that supports TRIM in the first place for that hack.
Just a bit of info:
Got my Crucial C300 on Friday from Amazon UK £353. Tried everything to get it installed in my 2011 17" MBP 2.3-you name it I tried it-no joy.
It's going back tomorrow.
My advice is either go for Apple's own 128 SSD or wait for the 2011 MBP & SATA 3 problems to be sorted.
It seems Crucial are saying C300 is fine it's 2011 MBP, & Apple are saying we don't support 3rd party drives-so if there are problems you are stuffed!
Got my Crucial C300 on Friday from Amazon UK £353. Tried everything to get it installed in my 2011 17" MBP 2.3-you name it I tried it-no joy.
It's going back tomorrow.
My advice is either go for Apple's own 128 SSD or wait for the 2011 MBP & SATA 3 problems to be sorted.
It seems Crucial are saying C300 is fine it's 2011 MBP, & Apple are saying we don't support 3rd party drives-so if there are problems you are stuffed!
You might try an Intel X25-M. I have yet to see anybody with a 2011 MBP have a problem with that drive. Not the fastest SSD, but stable and reliable.
New Intel X25-M G2 replacement (SSD 320, G3) is out today:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-ssd-320-crucial-m4-realssd-c400,2908.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-ssd-320-crucial-m4-realssd-c400,2908.html
Yes, good point. Based on test results from your link, it does not look any better than the X25-M though and it moves from a 34nm NAND to a 25nm NAND chip, which is less durable. It just might be better to snap up a X25-M now with known stable firmware.
Exactly what people don't see, they value a bit better performance in benchmarks over stability.
Just do a search for owc and vertex 2 issues in this forums and you will see what I'm talking about.
I don't even want to think of the issues and time it will take ocz to fix all the vertex 3 bugs on launch.
But hey some people want bragging rights so hey they should be beta testers for ocz and others.
Me personally I'm content to only do beta testing for apple.
I think people also buy 3rd party for fiscal reasons. For some (myself included) it's not possible to buy a SSD when they purchase their MBP. Another benefit is you get a "free" HDD (the one that originally came with your MBP) when you buy a 3rd party drive.Exactly what people don't see, they value a bit better performance in benchmarks over stability.
Just do a search for owc and vertex 2 issues in this forums and you will see what I'm talking about.
I don't even want to think of the issues and time it will take ocz to fix all the vertex 3 bugs on launch.
But hey some people want bragging rights so hey they should be beta testers for ocz and others.
Me personally I'm content to only do beta testing for apple.
Thanks Weaselboy. I've returned the Crucial to Amazon UK & have just ordered the Kingston V+100 256GB from them.
The logic is Apple are rumoured to use them, it is 'only' SATA II (wonder if the SATA connection on some 2011 MBP's [mine!] won't support SATA III) and on Kingston UK their SSD 'system-matcher' names the 2011 MBP as compatible & so did their support bod this morning. So it should be OK-I'll let you know.
It's quite slow in the comparison tests but I'm not a gamer-gave that up when my 7 year old son could easily beat me on Lotus Turbo 2 on the old Commodore!
Inquiry for Mercury Pro Extreme (OWC SSD)
Has anyone used an OWC SSD (Mercury Pro Extreme) for a while now in their MBP, and if so how would you rate it's performance over time? Has it been holding up well in general with OSX? If I get an SSD, that's the one I'm eying so I'm curious to hear of people's experiences with it. Thanks!
Has anyone used an OWC SSD (Mercury Pro Extreme) for a while now in their MBP, and if so how would you rate it's performance over time? Has it been holding up well in general with OSX? If I get an SSD, that's the one I'm eying so I'm curious to hear of people's experiences with it. Thanks!
It is even easier, as someone created a program to enable TRIM on other SSDs. See this thread over in the Mac Pro forums.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1125400/
Just got a V+100 myself. I'm not obsessing about synthetic benchmarks where even below average drives are much faster than mechanical drives, and much more interested in the fact it uses the same - apparently rock solid - controller as Apple's own drives.
I've had it two days now, having previous had a new model Air and a Momentus XT in the 2011 13" Pro I have now. I have disabled hibernation (just because it annoys me to give up drive space like that) and turned off the SMC as it seems pointless).
As a result the system is like lightening! As far as I can tell, sleep / wake / shutdown is as fast, if not faster, than the Air, and MUCH faster than the XT. A 60gb itunes library opens (from quit) before the end of the full bounce. it's a brilliant drive. I've also had no problem using the 'TRIM patch', but of course this drive has very aggressive garbage collection anyway.
Also, my battery life is a good 20% better if not more (not done a proper test yet).
For me, I'd rather than stability and consistency over ultimate speed, then upgrade in the future when the fastest SATAIII drives are more stable consistent. But, right now I'm not sure why I'd need to upgrade!