Best SSD 120-256gb: price/speed

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by scmarcos, Jul 10, 2011.

  1. scmarcos macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    #1
    Which is the best 120 or 256 gb SSD in term of price vs performances?
    Thank you very much!
     
  2. Apple Expert macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    #3
    Depends on if you want SATA 2 or 3. Probably the best price 256 SATA 2 drive would be Samsung or Kingston. SATA 3 is faster if your doing slot of copying or moving heavy files. But for normal web, email and photos, you probably won't see much if any difference. Also SATA 2 has been proven to be more stable than SATA 3 at this time. Obviously in the future it will be more stable. If you value your data, best to go with SATA 2 now and look to upgrade once SATA 3 matures.
     
  3. SoLiDG macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    #4
    stay away from sata3 for mac, just search mac ssd and beachballs.
    They don't work well, I have to rma my intel 510 because of this!
     
  4. scmarcos thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    #5
    This one seems very good for around 160 euros!

    CRUCIAL SSD interno RealSSD C300 - 128 GB

    Is it sata3 or 2?
     
  5. Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #6
    I'd say Crucial M4 256GB.

    Intel 510 is too expensive, Sandforce is unreliable.
     
  6. scmarcos thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    #7
    The Crucial M4 128 gb has any problem?
    Thanks!
     
  7. Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #8
    Crucial M4 with firmware 1 had problems. Firmware 2 seems to work great.

    I had the M4 256GB running without any problems.
    [​IMG]

    I switched to Seagate Momentus XT because that really has the best price/performance in my opinion.
     
  8. fat jez macrumors 68000

    fat jez

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Location:
    Glasgow, UK
    #9
    I've had no problems with a Crucial M4 in a 2011 15" MBP. It is VERY fast :)
     
  9. scmarcos thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    #10
    I will probably go for the 128 gb Crucial M4 (180 euros with expedition is perfect)!
    With the new firmware did you experience any bench-balls or hibernate issues?
    Thanks a lot!
     
  10. fat jez macrumors 68000

    fat jez

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Location:
    Glasgow, UK
    #11
    Not yet, no. It will happily sleep and wake up again. I've been using it for about a week now, so I would have expected to see problems if they were going to happen.
     
  11. scmarcos thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    #12
    Thank you very much!
    I will probably go for the crucial as soon as Lion come out!
     
  12. fat jez macrumors 68000

    fat jez

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Location:
    Glasgow, UK
    #14
    the thread starter is in Europe, so while they will ship here, it adds to the costs significantly. Then there are customs charges, taxes, etc.
     
  13. Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #15
    We counted several thousand reviews on Newegg.com. Conclusion: Reliability of Sandforce drives is significantly lower than Crucial, Intel and Samsung.

    For Sandforce drives about 20% of the reviews mentions RMA worthy problems. For Crucial, Intel and Samsung it's about 5%.

    Whether the Sandforce drive was from Corsair, OCZ, Mushkin or others did not really matter for reliability.

    To assume OWC is more reliable is one assumption I wouldn't make. They use the same controller, design and NAND as Corsair.
     
  14. Apple Expert macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    #16
    That being said which is the better of the two, Crucial 300 or Samsung 470? Both 256gb.
     
  15. fat jez macrumors 68000

    fat jez

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Location:
    Glasgow, UK
    #17
    C300 is SATA 2, you should consider the Crucial M4, which is SATA 3 instead.
     
  16. Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #18
    It seems Crucial M4 firmware 2 has more success with Macbook Pro than C300. It's also a little faster.

    So Crucial M4 is the fastest, Samsung 470 has the lower failure and problem rate.

    Samsung 470 also has slightly lower power consumption and better GC (this wouldn't be important when TRIM is running).
     
  17. netcastle macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    #19
    Having used a vertex 3 for the last two and a half months I recently re-installed stock SATA 2 SSD that my 17" i7 came with. I can tell you that the difference is barely noticeable. Reliability is far more important.

    Hopefully that changes with Lion.
     
  18. fat jez macrumors 68000

    fat jez

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Location:
    Glasgow, UK
    #20
    But when the price is the same and there are no obvious reliability issues with the M4 compared to the C300? Why go for SATA 2 when a SATA 3 version is available?
     
  19. JasonH42 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #21
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8J2)

    C300 is SATA 3 and an excellent drive, ran one in 2009 and 2011 15" MBPs with no issues. Vertex 3 is also good, have two of those in a 2011 15".

    Or you could get an Intel SSD - for reliable data loss!
     
  20. imorton macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    #22
    Difference is barely noticeable....? So there is no point in me upgrading from a Vertex2 to a Vertex3 SSD in my 13" 2011 Macbook Pro?

    Or is the increase in speed worth it?
     
  21. netcastle, Jul 12, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2011

    netcastle macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    #23
    First of all, these are both SATA 3 drives. Apple's support for SATA 3 is very spotty on the MBP's (do a search). For older mbp's SATA 3 will run as SATA 2 anyway, so there is really no point. The new ones have had terrible problems. I used a vertex 3 in my SATA 3 port for two months with occasional hiccups (beachballs), but I got so sick of it I just put the old SATA 2 drive back in. No more hiccups, and the machine is just as responsive.

    When faced with a choice between reliability and speed, always choose reliability.
     
  22. netcastle macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    #24
    No, it's not. But, it seems that the SATA 3 issues mainly affect only the 17" i7. Do some research and decide for yourself. In my opinion there is very few things that you will do with your machine that will make the increase in speed appreciable.
     
  23. Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #25
    It's barely noticeable unless you do a lot of file copies from a very fast source.
     

Share This Page