Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Basic Questions about SSD's

S

shstiger2009

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jan 30, 2011
259
0
I had this thread wondering about if I should wait to get the Vertex 3 to take advantage of SATA III, but do I really need it? I'm thinking about going with a Vertex 2 as I think it will be fast enough. And even if the Vertex 3 was much faster that the Vertex 2, it will sure be much much faster than my stock 5400 RPM HDD.

So, Vertex 2 after Vertex 3 comes out (cheaper... :D) or Vertex 3?
 
Last edited:
shstiger2009 said:
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)

Hey guys. I just have 3 quick questions about upgrading to an SSD-

1. Should I wait a little longer to get the Vertex 3? Have been seeing good things about it.

2. What will the Vertex 3 (using SATA III) do to my battery life as opposed to an SSD using SATA II? I still expect it to be the same if not better than my HDD but that's why I'm asking.

3. I have an external HDD and I back it up once every couple of days using Time Machine. If my SSD ever fails, whether it's in a month, 6 months, a year, or 5 years, will I be able to easily boot and run off of my external HDD? I am also planning to keep the one that's in my MacBook already, so if not I'd be able to install it, restore via Time Machine and I'd be up and running again.

Thanks

3.
Click to expand...

1. Probably wait. Random I/O performance is quite a jump compared to what's out there today.

2. Power difference from different SSDs is negligible. Difference from HDD isn't that much as powering a screen takes up a lot more battery.

3. You can't boot directly from a Time Machine backup, but you can use your OS X install DVD to restore to a brand new hard drive.
 
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)

dagamer34 said:
shstiger2009 said:
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)

Hey guys. I just have 3 quick questions about upgrading to an SSD-

1. Should I wait a little longer to get the Vertex 3? Have been seeing good things about it.

2. What will the Vertex 3 (using SATA III) do to my battery life as opposed to an SSD using SATA II? I still expect it to be the same if not better than my HDD but that's why I'm asking.

3. I have an external HDD and I back it up once every couple of days using Time Machine. If my SSD ever fails, whether it's in a month, 6 months, a year, or 5 years, will I be able to easily boot and run off of my external HDD? I am also planning to keep the one that's in my MacBook already, so if not I'd be able to install it, restore via Time Machine and I'd be up and running again.

Thanks

3.
Click to expand...

1. Probably wait. Random I/O performance is quite a jump compared to what's out there today.

2. Power difference from different SSDs is negligible. Difference from HDD isn't that much as powering a screen takes up a lot more battery.

3. You can't boot directly from a Time Machine backup, but you can use your OS X install DVD to restore to a brand new hard drive.
Click to expand...

Ok. So in response to #3 if my SSD fails, simply reinstall my HDD, set up OSX, do a Time Machine restore, and all is well(until I get a new one which hopefully by that time will be much cheaper)? Except running slower and wanting to kill someone? :D
 
shstiger2009 said:
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)



Ok. So in response to #3 if my SSD fails, simply reinstall my HDD, set up OSX, do a Time Machine restore, and all is well(until I get a new one which hopefully by that time will be much cheaper)? Except running slower and wanting to kill someone? :D
Click to expand...

Exactly!
 
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)

Thanks guys! Makes me feel much better about buying an SSD.
 
I updated the thread so I wouldn't have to post a new one and am wondering about what I should do.
 
If you have a Mac that can take advantage of SATA-III speeds, why not get a SATA-III capable SSD? It's a no-brainer, some are already available, others will be available within a few days/weeks, and the prices aren't more outrageous than they already are anyway.
 
Tyrion said:
If you have a Mac that can take advantage of SATA-III speeds, why not get a SATA-III capable SSD? It's a no-brainer, some are already available, others will be available within a few days/weeks, and the prices aren't more outrageous than they already are anyway.
Click to expand...

But if prices drop $100 for the SATA II ones...could be more affordable and still reap the benefits of a SSD. But I know what you are saying, at first when I decided to get one I was like why wouldn't I take advantage of my SATA III capable hardware? But still deciding.
 
petvas said:
If you want to have a bootable copy of your SSD, use Carbon Copy Cloner. It's free and it works great.
Click to expand...

Yep, decided that's what to do. But I edited the thread so I wouldn't make a new one about a question regarding kind of the same thing. Just wondering if I should get Vertex 3 or Vertex 2 if the price drops after Vertex 3 comes out to save money while still benefiting from an SSD over my 5400 RPM drive.
 
shstiger2009 said:
But if prices drop $100 for the SATA II ones...could be more affordable and still reap the benefits of a SSD. But I know what you are saying, at first when I decided to get one I was like why wouldn't I take advantage of my SATA III capable hardware? But still deciding.
Click to expand...

I know where you're coming from, but these things are ass-rapingly expensive anyway, so why worry about the 100$? Also, I'd steer clear of OCZ, they've been lying to their customers.
 
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)

Tyrion said:
shstiger2009 said:
But if prices drop $100 for the SATA II ones...could be more affordable and still reap the benefits of a SSD. But I know what you are saying, at first when I decided to get one I was like why wouldn't I take advantage of my SATA III capable hardware? But still deciding.
Click to expand...

I know where you're coming from, but these things are ass-rapingly expensive anyway, so why worry about the 100$? Also, I'd steer clear of OCZ, they've been lying to their customers.
Click to expand...

Lying to customers? How?

Also, a 120 or 128GB isn't too bad. But for me, I'd definitely rather pay 150 instead of 250. Makes a difference with this amount of money.
 
shstiger2009 said:
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)



Lying to customers? How?

Also, a 120 or 128GB isn't too bad. But for me, I'd definitely rather pay 150 instead of 250. Makes a difference with this amount of money.
Click to expand...

They switched to a new manufacturing process for some of their SSDs without ever communicating this change; the new drives performed worse, but were sold under the same name and with no indication that anything had changed. Buyers got burned, especially those who wanted to RAID the drives and found out the hard way that some OCZ-SSDs apparently weren't identical, even though they were sold as the same model. More knowledgeable posters will be able to explain the whole fiasco much better, the bottom line is that OCZ was disingenuous at best in their dealings with customers.
 
Tyrion said:
They switched to a new manufacturing process for some of their SSDs without ever communicating this change; the new drives performed worse, but were sold under the same name and with no indication that anything had changed. Buyers got burned, especially those who wanted to RAID the drives and found out the hard way that some OCZ-SSDs apparently weren't identical, even though they were sold as the same model. More knowledgeable posters will be able to explain the whole fiasco much better, the bottom line is that OCZ was disingenuous at best in their dealings with customers.
Click to expand...

Wow I see what you mean. Damn, the vertex 3 is looking amazing! But I'm also looking at intel's new 510 series.
 
shstiger2009 said:
Wow I see what you mean. Damn, the vertex 3 is looking amazing! But I'm also looking at intel's new 510 series.
Click to expand...

The Vertex 3 will probably be amazing. The past behavior exhibited by OCZ won't change that. It's just something to be aware of :)
The 510 looks like a great compromise between performance and reliability. I'm assuming it will cost about the same as the Vertex 3, so we'll really have a choice here: top performance from a slightly dubious company, or great performance from a very reliable company (when it comes to SSDs anyway).
 
Tyrion said:
The Vertex 3 will probably be amazing. The past behavior exhibited by OCZ won't change that. It's just something to be aware of :)
The 510 looks like a great compromise between performance and reliability. I'm assuming it will cost about the same as the Vertex 3, so we'll really have a choice here: top performance from a slightly dubious company, or great performance from a very reliable company (when it comes to SSDs anyway).
Click to expand...

Yeah I see what you mean. I think the Intel will be about 300 while the OCZ Vertex will be around 250. Think I may go with the Vertex 3 if this is the case, I mean they have a 3 year warranty.
 
I don't think I can wait until April for the Vertex 3 - my laptop is just bogging me down. Plus it's not Sandy Bridge, so I won't get 6GB/s anyway therefore minimalizing the difference in speed.

Pretty sure I'm going to get the 510 in 120GB. Any reason I shouldn't? I have last year's 15" MBP with 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM
 
If you can't harness the SATA-III speeds I don't really see why you'd shell out for the 510. Why not buy one of Intel's established SATA-II drives? Or maybe just see it through until April nonetheless - Intel will allegedly soon release its G3 drives which could bring more capacity at a lower price.
 
Did you say what MBP you had? I've got an old 2007 MBP, which doesn't have the full sata bandwidth. I've just put in a Vertex 2 today, and I wish I'd done it a long time ago.

I was beginning to think I'd have to upgrade to one of the new MBPs to cure my aging MBP. But now with the Vertex 2 I think it'll last me another couple of years hopefully!
 
Tyrion said:
If you can't harness the SATA-III speeds I don't really see why you'd shell out for the 510. Why not buy one of Intel's established SATA-II drives? Or maybe just see it through until April nonetheless - Intel will allegedly soon release its G3 drives which could bring more capacity at a lower price.
Click to expand...

i ended up just ordering the 510 - I figure it's future proofing, and I can use it on my next laptop too and get the 6GB/s :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back