Apple SSD VS OCW SSD

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by goumish, Feb 19, 2012.

  1. goumish macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    #1
    Hi there,

    I was trying this information on the forum but didn't find it.
    Is there a BIG difference if I get an OCW SSD the 128GB or the one that apple sells directly on their website, you know the 128GB they try to sell you. Is it crap compared to the OCW?

    I am an animator and do a lot of After Effects and Photoshop and need therefore the most performant laptop. Let me know if it better to get the SSD directly from mac !

    Thanks
     
  2. Freyqq macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    #2
    apple ssds have trim enabled, but they are sataII.
     
  3. drewyboy macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    #3
    OWC SSD's have TRIM built in on board & are Sata III :) . It won't be recognized by OSX but it'll be taken care of.
     
  4. jcampbell1070 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    NC
    #4
    i bought a owc mercury extreme pro 120gb about a month ago and i love it. no problems so far. very fast.
     
  5. throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #5
    Just bear in mind, if you're stepping up from a hard drive, even a "slow" SSD is amazingly fast in comparison.

    I'd be more concerned with reliability to be honest.
     
  6. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #6
    Are you trying to say OWC or OCZ? :confused:

    If you're purchasing a new computer, the Apple SSD is fine as an upgrade choice.

    The OWC/OCZ SSDs are good choices as well and will be faster, but they do cost more.
     
  7. xamievilx macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2012
    #7

    cost more than upgrading to the Apple SSDs? [​IMG]
     
  8. charlieroberts macrumors 6502a

    charlieroberts

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2007
    #8
    This!

    Speed to me is a second priority, and I think I doesn't make such a big difference once you are on the SSD side of things. So I advice against the OWC mainly because the SSD that apple includes will be more reliable. And if you have an apple store nearby its gonna be a hell of a lot more convenient in case it does fail than having to ship the sad back to OWC.
     
  9. hawk1410 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    #9
    I would recommend against OWC or even OCZ SSDs(at least those that use sand force) cause the Sandforce controller is known to be pretty unreliable. Go for Apple SSD or even better something like the Crucial M4 or the Samsung 830
     
  10. WMuntean macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    #10
    This.

    I just had my OWC fail. Sucks. I overnighted a Samsung 830, should be here tomorrow. I'm assuming both are equal in speed, but I'm through with Sandforce for now.

    Moreover, the OWC drive had issues with idle sleep so I had to disable it--which OWC attributed to the Sandforce controller. Very annoying.

    This is just one experience, so interpret it with caution.
     
  11. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #11
    Please tell me where you can get a 128GB SSD comparable to the Apple SSD for $100?
     
  12. xamievilx macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2012
    #12
    since when does the upgrade to an apple SSD only cost $100? i see "add $200" and you can easily get a faster 128/120GB SSD for less than that...and $600 to get a 256GB...lol
     
  13. ELA2 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    #13
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

    Apple crap compared to owc? What have you been smoking? Apple ssd is by far and above the best ssd for Mac hands down. I try to understand this logic. You bought a Mac right because it's the best laptop out there correct? Now why would you then come to the conclusion that the ssd sucks. Did you ever stop to think that maybe Apple decided that reliability was a little more important than a minuscule speed difference. I haven't heard of a single problem with the apple ssd and if there is its taken care of right away....can't say the same about owc.
     
  14. elliottfamily5 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    #14
    I have had an OWC 120 GB SSD in my late 2011 MBP for three months with zero issues, no beach balls, no sleep issues, etc. Having said that, it is the only SSD I have owned, so I can not personally compare its performance to any other. I discovered the Sandforce concerns from reading here AFTER I made my purchase (stupid, I know)...almost causing me to cancel my order. But the more I read, no SSD is immune from problems. An equal amount of Samsung, OCZ, Crucial, and yes OWC users have reported either their SSD is the greatest or is causing this or that problem.

    My OWC will fail, hopefully later than sooner. For this reason I keep an up-to-date clone of my SSD on my original HDD. When it does fail all I have to do is swap em out, return the OWC under warranty and use my old HDD until a new SSD arrives.

    In the meantime, all I can do is enjoy the OWC's speed and not sweat the fact if I got the best or most reliable SSD on the market.

    YMMV
     
  15. WMuntean macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    #15
    Yep. They will all fail one day. Backups are essential. My lab's back drives just crashed over the weekend too (Thats two drives within a freaking weekend). Luckily, I have a healthy paranoia about backups and last year I decided to add another clone to my backup protocols.
     
  16. thundersteele macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Location:
    Switzerland
    #16
    The Apple SSD is reliable, the speed is decent. I have the 128 GB version in my MBP. Apple now has about three years of experience with SSDs.

    The Toshiba SSD in my MBP gets about 200/200 MB/s read/write speeds. SATA III SSDs can be about twice as fast, but the benefit from that is limited.

    I would say it's a slightly higher risk to use a non-Apple SSD, but some of the available models are very reliable now.
     
  17. shortcut3d macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2011
    #17
    I have a bunch of SSDs and OWC are my favorite, slowly being replaced by the Samsung 830s for price and incompressible write speed. Nothing can beat Sandforce 2200 series read speed. My 240GB OCZ Vertex 3 MAX IOPs hits 554MB/s read!!! I'm currently using two of these drives in 2011 Mac minis and one is 24/7 HTPC in bootcamp Windows Media Center heavily used every day. Back on topic, OWC has very good performance and great Mac support. One thing I would caution is heavy write scenarios on non-Sandforce 2200 series controllers. Anandtech has repeatedly demonstrated that these drives with over provisioning are resistant to slow down. Even the Samsung 830 took a hit in heavy write test. I would not say Apple SSDs are best. The machines are built conservatively and also with sourcing and margin in mind, so you aren't getting the best SSD for the money.

    Personal History Of SSDs:
    1 x 256GB g.skill Titan Indillix Controller - RMA due to failure after 2 years
    1 x 240GB OWC Mercury Extreme Pro 3G Sandforce 1200 series - 2010 27" iMac
    1 x 480GB OWC Mercury Extreme Pro 6G Sandforce 2200 series - 2011 15" MBP
    2 x 240GB OCZ Vertex 3 MAX IOPs Sandforce 2200 series - 2011 Mac mini
    2 x 240GB OCZ Vertex 3 Sandforce 2200 series - LaCie Thunderbolt
    2 x 256GB Samsung 830 - LaCie Thunderbolt
    1x 512GB Samsung 830 - External
     

Share This Page