Apple SSD vs Competitor's SSD

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by iPhoneAppMan, May 15, 2011.

  1. iPhoneAppMan macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    #1
    How much more reliable/faster are competitor's SSDs compared to the $250 128GB SSD add-on option for a MacBook Pro offered by :apple:.com?

    Specifically Intel SSDs

    What is the main advantage by going with either one.
     
  2. awer25 macrumors 65816

    awer25

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    #2
    Well, if you're getting a 2011 MBP I'd go with a SATA-3 drive like the Vertex 3. The Apple drive is getting around 185MB/s transfer speeds (IIRC) and my Vertex 3 is getting around 550MB/s. I recommend an SSD regardless, but I'd get an aftermarket one as it's cheaper and faster. Plus, you get a 500GB drive to put in an Optibay for free.

    Benefits of the Apple one is that it already works with TRIM, and it's included under your Applecare warranty and not a manufacturer's warranty.
     
  3. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #3
    For start-up and shut-down, the difference is none whatsoever. If anything, the factory Apple drive runs slightly faster for boot and shut down. I'm waiting to get comparisons of common programs, but this bolsters the argument that SSDs are all so fast that the difference between them now is simply numbers on

    paper http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1153805&highlight=
     
  4. tcador macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #4
    For now I'm still not convinced of the SATA-3 SSD's on the market today. No doubt the write speeds are off the charts i'm just not sold on the reliability yet. My plan has always been to upgrade to a SATA-3 drive once all the kinks are worked out, I'm just not convinced that time has come.

    So in short, I think Apple SSD for now (due to cheap price, TRIM support, no issues) but I fully expect that recommendation to change in the coming months once manufacturers work out the problems with the 2011 MBP.
     
  5. altecXP macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    #5
    TRIM only works under Lion. And the SATA2 SSD's are still faster than Apples.
     
  6. Ccrew macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    #6
    Trim is supported by the latest Snow Leopard build shipping with the 2011 MBP's and a factory SSD and can be turned on via the Trim Enabler tool on aftermarket drives.
     
  7. altecXP macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    #7
    I know it can be enabled. I didn't know it was already on for Apple drives under 10.6.7
     
  8. Weaselboy Moderator

    Weaselboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Location:
    California
    #8
    Really not by much and I doubt the user could tell the difference without a benchmark tool.
     
  9. altecXP macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    #9

    It's about 30% faster, and it's cheaper.
     
  10. MH01 macrumors G4

    MH01

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    #10
    Actually your not getting 550 MB/S, that is the peak. Its the average you should be looking at. If you read alot of reviews here is one http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=29786&page=8

    using a vertex 3 version a vertex 2, its really hard to tell the difference. The jump from HDD to SSD is staggering. The jump from Sata2 to Sata 3 between SSD.... I am not sure if its worth the extra $$$.

    I agree with you, any aftermarkert SSD will be a huge improvement over a HDD, and they are cheaper then the apple offering
     
  11. phpmaven macrumors 68040

    phpmaven

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Location:
    San Clemente, CA USA
    #11
    If you were going to go with the factory installed SSD, realistically you would need to to go with the 256GB option for $500. 128GB is just going to be too small if it's the only drive. If you do it yourself, you can get a Vertex 3 120GB SSD for around $300 and then move the stock 750GB HDD into the DVD drive bay.
     
  12. Weaselboy Moderator

    Weaselboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Location:
    California
    #12
    I think this is very user specific. My main machine is an iMac and I have about 5,500 photos and about 1,200 music files on the sole drive along with around 1GB of various documents and PDFs, and the entire drive with OS, apps and everything uses 53GB. Even if I doubled the photos and music I have a 120GB drive would still work for me.
     
  13. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #13
    You are functioning by numbers on a piece of paper. I've found the exact opposite in actual use. On a piece of paper, yes, aftermarket SATA II SSDs are faster. In actual use, the Toshiba used by Apple is faster than its SATAII counterparts in almost everything, regardless of bench tests. It is also slightly faster than its SATAIII counterparts in boot, shut-down, and standard load. See above, later on I'll add a few load demonstrations between the SATAIII drives and the standard Apple drive. This suggests that few programs are currently utilizing the fast speed capability of SATAII to the ridiculously fast speed capability of SATA3.
     
  14. tcador macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #14
    Yes, that's right. Or have alternative storage options like NAS.
     
  15. Macsavvytech macrumors 6502a

    Macsavvytech

    Joined:
    May 25, 2010
    #15
    I have a good relationship with the man who hosts my web-servers, anyway He uses a Two NAS Drive RAID0 as his external hard drive :rolleyes:
     
  16. wangkom macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    #16
    How is that a benefit? Considering the default warranty is 1 year for your apple product and the default warranty for most SSDs are 3 years. You have to pay extra for Apple's.
     
  17. Jiten macrumors 6502a

    Jiten

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    #17
    I guess the advantage here is less hassle of opening your MB Pro and sending your defective SSD to the company for replacement. Just take it to an Apple Store and they'll probably just swap it out for a new one in less time it takes to get an SSD replaced by any vendor via mail.

    Anyone here have any hard data on the failure rate of the Apple SSDs?
     
  18. jake2008 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    #18
    Are you really basing your opinions on the videos where you use your factory SSD and test it to a youtube video? Really? You don't think that there are any issues of delay or slow down on the video? No variation based on the Macs being different types? The actual difference in boot time will be very little but you can't determine which is faster based on youtube videos. If you had the same models physically side by side then you can have some actual data, otherwise your test is no better than a paper comparison.
     
  19. ViviUO macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    #19
    Apple SSD's:

    - TRIM support
    - Slow

    SF 2000 SSD's

    - FAST!!!!!!!
    - No TRIM
    - Built in garbage collection (similar to TRIM)

    Intel SSD's

    - Meh
     
  20. oButto macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    #20
    This post is so exaggerated it's not even funny.

    You will barely notice the difference between SATA III and SATA II.
    What makes the Apple SSD slow? It might not benchmark as much, but it does not have any problems. Intel SSD's = "meh"? They are reliable and benchmark decently.

    SF2000 Drives: Unstable: Beachballing, Expensive, Performance to Price Ratio is definitely skewed. Forgot to add that to your list.
     
  21. ViviUO macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    #21
    Intel drives don't beachball? And why exactly would someone want to pay almost the same price for technically slower speeds?

    And last time I checked, I notice a huge difference in speeds with my Vertex 3 compared to my old Vertex 2. Some people use their computers for more than browing MacRumors. In which case, no I suppose you won't notice a difference.

    Smugness thwarted.
     
  22. johnnyturbouk macrumors 68000

    johnnyturbouk

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Location:
    on the yellow [oled] brick road to tech nirvana.
    #22
    i had a CTO 2011 17" apple SSD, then returned it for a 17" CTO 7200 which i coupled with an OWC mercury extreme 120gb - i found the owc drive to be faster in ever aspect - i get boot-ups in 12-15secs with the owc drive
    apple ssd gave me approx. 17secs bootup - and appl loading, and moving large files were noticeably slower on the apple ssd
     
  23. lundh macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    #23
    Apples drives doesn't beach ball. It tells you something about what drive to choose if the rest of the bunch makes your MBP beach ball.

    Please tell me I'm wrong. I want to replace this SSD with a larger one in a year or so.
     

Share This Page