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 mid-2010 MBP?
- Thread starter robtotheb
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have a Vertex 2, which is the fastest SSD you can put in our laptops (as SATA3 is to supported, a Vertex 3 would run at Vertex 2 speed). It's never given me a trouble, and is fast as lightning. He boots in 7-8 seconds from dead cold, overall a pretty cool dude. People say OCZ customer support is terrible, but I've had only pleasant experiences with them. I phoned them and asked a question and they were super polite and offered me extensive help. I <3 OCZ.
ha, I have a vertex 2 as well! 180gb, I bought it about 8 months ago, first had it in a 2008 17inch mbp and now its in a new 13 inch mbp. I love this drive, can't even consider going back to a spinning drive. This line is really good for the money, I would also consider an Intel or one of those Seagate hybrid drives. You get almost ssd speeds and much cheaper.
Just to play Devil's advocate, keep in mind that best doesn't necessarily mean fastest.
Sandforce drives, such as the Vertex series have not proven as strong in terms of reliability as brands such as Samsung and Intel.
The Intel x25-m is shooting down in price quite a bit and it has the strongest reputation by far as SATA 2 drives go.
If you're coming from an HDD, it's unlikely you're going to notice minute differences in read and write speeds between Solid state drives anyway, I'd go with the safest option.
http://forums.storagereview.com/index.php/topic/29329-ssd-failure-rates-compared-to-hard-drives/
N.B. Intel's failure rate is around 0.6%, OCZ is around 3%.
Sandforce drives, such as the Vertex series have not proven as strong in terms of reliability as brands such as Samsung and Intel.
The Intel x25-m is shooting down in price quite a bit and it has the strongest reputation by far as SATA 2 drives go.
If you're coming from an HDD, it's unlikely you're going to notice minute differences in read and write speeds between Solid state drives anyway, I'd go with the safest option.
http://forums.storagereview.com/index.php/topic/29329-ssd-failure-rates-compared-to-hard-drives/
N.B. Intel's failure rate is around 0.6%, OCZ is around 3%.
I'm a little sceptical of that claim, I must admit - care to post a video on youtube?
Afaik the newer SandForce drives are still faster than the previous generation, even in SATA 2.
For the best compatibility, I would still recommend the Intel X25-M G2 or the Intel 320.
I have an OCZ Agility 3 and Intel X25-M G2. The Agility 3 refused to work properly in my desktop PC and OCZ tech support blamed the rest of the computer having too old BIOS option ROMs. Well I updated them and still no go, yet the Intel drive works without any problems in that same machine. The Agility 3 does work in my mid-2009 Macbook Pro just fine. In any case the whole experience didn't give me a favorable view of OCZ quality or tech support.
Speedwise there isn't any real difference between the two in real-world use.
For the best compatibility, I would still recommend the Intel X25-M G2 or the Intel 320.
I have an OCZ Agility 3 and Intel X25-M G2. The Agility 3 refused to work properly in my desktop PC and OCZ tech support blamed the rest of the computer having too old BIOS option ROMs. Well I updated them and still no go, yet the Intel drive works without any problems in that same machine. The Agility 3 does work in my mid-2009 Macbook Pro just fine. In any case the whole experience didn't give me a favorable view of OCZ quality or tech support.
Speedwise there isn't any real difference between the two in real-world use.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc-TxgVviLA
Keep in mind this is on a Vertex 2 with 1 year of non-TRIM duties under it's belt. A new one would boot much faster, mine certainly did.
edit: for some reason my annotation isn't playing nice, it starts its boot up duties at :14. Takes about 9-10 seconds to boot in this vid.
Last edited:
That's not a cold boot, but I'm estimating startup at about :13 (just before the superdrive checks for a disc), then the desktop appears at :27. That's a 14 second boot. (Which is good, because that's what I get with an OWC Mercury)
I have a video of when I first got the SSD where it would boot in less than 10, I'll upload that when I get back to school where my external is. There are a few on YouTube that corroborate. But I must agree with you that it has slowed down aaalllootttt. I do a lot of heavy writing... Don't report me to the SSD authorities or anything, but I also do a lot of tormenting on my poor SSD drive
.
I installed an Intel 320 (300GB) when they launched and has since been very happy with it.
No weird issues, just quiet and reliable speed, and lots of it.
No weird issues, just quiet and reliable speed, and lots of it.
Intel x25-m in my 2010 MBP. still going strong after nearly two years now. Couldn't be happier after the nightmare I had with an OCZ Vertex. Would never buy that garbage again.
Based on what I've read, the Samsung 470 would be the choice for me. Surprised no one has said that yet. If I didn't have a Sandy Bridge chipset in my computer -- in other words, didn't have the SATA III option, I would go with the Samsung 470, no brainer.
