I got my new MBA and I love it. I love the speed of the SSD..
What is the best SSD drive for the MacbookPro? I need over 128GB
What is the best SSD drive for the MacbookPro? I need over 128GB
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.
Best SSD for i5 15" MacbookPro?
- Thread starter supernet33
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A lot of people on here are fans of the OWC Mercury SSD because they are the only SSD's that are generally geared toward Macs. I bought one yesterday and am waiting for it to arrive tomorrow 
. But from the research i gathered the two fastest and most reliable are the OWC and the OCZ Vertex 2. I chose OWC over OCZ because OWC has better customer service and they are geared toward Macs as stated before. Just look around, and find out what you like!
. But from the research i gathered the two fastest and most reliable are the OWC and the OCZ Vertex 2. I chose OWC over OCZ because OWC has better customer service and they are geared toward Macs as stated before. Just look around, and find out what you like!
also check out the crucial c300 and the new c400 that are about to come out. they are the fastest outright with owc close behind. it uses a micron controller while the owc uses sandforce
The Crucial has a sequential read is 415MB/s, but only in SATA3 as SATA2 doesn't go that high. It's write speed however is 175MB/s in the 120 GB size; the Vertex 2 and Mercury Extreme Pro write at about 275MB/s. The 256GB and up size runs slightly slower than that. The coming SandForce 2000 processor has already broken the 500MB/s barrier for read AND write, and will probably run much faster than that once it is utilized by OCZ (I would imagine that will be the Vertex 3). The SF2000 will (like the 1200/1500) be able to be used with numerous different makers of flash memory and should raise the bar when it comes to security as well.
For the current MBP, the current OCZ and OWC will both max out what the computer supports. I have an OWC and I love it.
The Crucial and Micron drives have brought major research on the longevity of the SSD and have so far done about 75TB of writing on their drives and rate the smaller 25nm cells at about 3000 program/erase cycles each. The C400 will actually not last as long as the C300 due to the decreased endurance of the 25nm cells. With that said, by the time either of them are near the end of the service life, they will more than likely be as obsolete as the floppy disk is today.
It is also worth noting that the Crucial C300 is said to be very underrated on its read and write speed, and the life of the 34nm cells.
I would recommend either OWC Mercury Pro Exteme or OCZ Vertex 2. Both use the same Sandforce controller for better drive provisioning and they have very fast read and write speeds. The OWC drive tops out at 285MB/sec...the Vertex 2 is close to that.
@NickZac yea thats true, i was thinking future because in all likelihood, new mbp will have sata III because SandyBridge supports it. Sandforce 2000 wont be available affordably for a a few years (vertex 2 pro are enterprise and start near 1000) and they also use SATA 3. so yea you're right, vertex and owc are probably you're best choice.
I thought one expensive Vertex was SATA3 but I couldn't remember which. Nothing wrong with thinking and buying SATA3. With SB supporting it and USB3 plus SSDs beyond 300MB/s, I think SATA3 will get popular really fast as having them all seem to justify spending more money as you get a system with speed beyond belief and you will use that speed every day, so financially it makes sense. The C400 will probably follow in the footsteps of the C300 and be overall a pretty good drive. Perhaps the C300 price will drop.
Thanks again everyone.. I am ready to buy one..
Can someone please link me a good SSD over 120GB under $320.00 ?
That won't give me any issues?
Thanks
Can someone please link me a good SSD over 120GB under $320.00 ?
That won't give me any issues?
Thanks
One that you can afford. If you can't afford it then THE END. Keep your MBA and be happy and go on about your daily activities like this
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)
Owc or ocz vertex 2.
Owc or ocz vertex 2.
So after researching SSDs I gathered that the owc and the ocz vertex 2 are the two front running possibilities for me. I had the hardest time choosing, but after looking at benchmarks, both are virtually the same in sequential read and write and degradation. The difference is...OWC costs more, and has lower resell value. OCZ is cheaper but keeps it's value better. My head is going with ocz, while my heart is going with owc!
The only distressing thing is reviews on newegg are pretty horrible for the ocz...I dont understand how it can be so highly regarded with such horrible reviews.
The only distressing thing is reviews on newegg are pretty horrible for the ocz...I dont understand how it can be so highly regarded with such horrible reviews.
Last edited:
I have an Intel X25-M 160GB in my Core i7 2.8 and I love it. 20 second boot times, 3 seconds on Photoshop. I don't really have any other experience with the Sandforce based or Micron based SSDs so I can't compare the Intel to them.
I've got an Intel X-25 in my i5 15" as well. No complaints here. I think if you go SSD, you'll see a noticeable improvement regardless of what brand you choose.
I don't think you will see any difference in performance between these two drives. Two things nudged me over to OWC. Their customer support seems to be much better, at least from anecdotal evidence here in the forums. And secondly, OWC has committed to making a OS X based firmware updater while OCZ has not.
THE CURRENT VERTEX SSDs SUCK
People get angry when I say that and while it is probably the fastest SSD, NO other SSD has as many negative reviews of: 1) DOA, 2) Dead after a week, 3) Dead after a month, 4) Significant size reduction, and 5) Failure out of the blue. You couldn't give me a Vertex for free that I would use. Compare the Vertex line to Intel, OWC, Crucial, Corsair, etc. No one in their right mind can say that all of the reported issues with the OCZ are all 'user error'...some may be, but then why is it only the OCZ with such frequently reported issues? Unless OCZ customers are significantly less capable than other SSD customers (which I see as highly unlikely), I think we can conclude that they have some major design and quality control issues.
Some places for the Intel X25 reviews have upwards of 500 unique reviews with an average in the 90th + percentile. Hard drives which are costing $200-$1,000 should not be getting average reviews as the OCZ drives do. You can call me an idiot, you can tell me I am wrong, you can tell me the OCZ is a great drive and all I can say is go research it yourself. Telling me the Vertex is a quality piece of machinery is like claiming that that the NVIDIA 8600 is the most reliable part to ever be used in a laptop. Perhaps you personally have an exception, but reviews from thousands of different users show that it is not the case. In a world with great SSD selections, why would you buy a piece of junk for the same price?
People get angry when I say that and while it is probably the fastest SSD, NO other SSD has as many negative reviews of: 1) DOA, 2) Dead after a week, 3) Dead after a month, 4) Significant size reduction, and 5) Failure out of the blue. You couldn't give me a Vertex for free that I would use. Compare the Vertex line to Intel, OWC, Crucial, Corsair, etc. No one in their right mind can say that all of the reported issues with the OCZ are all 'user error'...some may be, but then why is it only the OCZ with such frequently reported issues? Unless OCZ customers are significantly less capable than other SSD customers (which I see as highly unlikely), I think we can conclude that they have some major design and quality control issues.
Some places for the Intel X25 reviews have upwards of 500 unique reviews with an average in the 90th + percentile. Hard drives which are costing $200-$1,000 should not be getting average reviews as the OCZ drives do. You can call me an idiot, you can tell me I am wrong, you can tell me the OCZ is a great drive and all I can say is go research it yourself. Telling me the Vertex is a quality piece of machinery is like claiming that that the NVIDIA 8600 is the most reliable part to ever be used in a laptop. Perhaps you personally have an exception, but reviews from thousands of different users show that it is not the case. In a world with great SSD selections, why would you buy a piece of junk for the same price?
I am assuming you meant to say the slowest. The Intel is a great drive, but speed wise it is not the fastest by any real means. The Vertex 2 (esp the Pro) is probably the fastest of mainstream SSDs. The Crucial C300 may even be faster and they have really underrated everything on that drive. The Crucial C300 writes at 15,000, 30,000 and 45,000 depending on size. IIRC the Vertex is 50,000 and the OWC Mercury Extreme Pro is also 50,000. The SandForce 2000, which will likely first appear as the Vertex 3 will have substantially higher speeds and the upcoming Crucial C400 is 60,000 IIRC.
For comparison, the Intel X-25 Extreme (their performance model) writes at about 3,500 IOPS. Now how the 4KB IOPS read/write stats affect real world performance can really be debated; some people say it has no correlation with real world performance whatsoever. I personally can't say too much either way but I can say the Intel is lighting fast as are well, every SSD I've used.
http://www.intel.com/design/flash/nand/extreme/index.htm
http://www.crucial.com/pdf/Tech_specs-letter_Crucial_RealSSD_C300_v9-16-10_online.pdf
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/internal_storage/Mercury_Extreme_SSD_Sandforce/Solid_State_Pro