I searched & while there a number of threads on how amazing SSDs are, there seems to be none on which is the best to buy. I know there are a few to choose from, some far more expensive than others, but what is the difference between all these controllers & which drive is best value for money?
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?
- Thread starter JosX
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
...
best drive for the money is the 80gb intel x25-m I would say. If you want to spend more then the OCZ vertex LE or the OWC mercury extreme which just came out are a bit faster and also claim to not lose speed with time which the other ssds will since osx doesn't support trim. Intel drive can be had for $250 for 80gb and the other two are 399 for 100gb. Other than those drives I doubt I would really consider any of the other ones at this point (indilux or samsung controllers as intel are superior)
best drive for the money is the 80gb intel x25-m I would say. If you want to spend more then the OCZ vertex LE or the OWC mercury extreme which just came out are a bit faster and also claim to not lose speed with time which the other ssds will since osx doesn't support trim. Intel drive can be had for $250 for 80gb and the other two are 399 for 100gb. Other than those drives I doubt I would really consider any of the other ones at this point (indilux or samsung controllers as intel are superior)
Agree.
1) intel x25-m
2) OWC Mercury Extreme SSD (or other Sandforce based SSD):
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/internal_storage/Mercury_Extreme_SSD_Sandforce
The OWC has faster sequential speeds (and higher cost per GB), but the Sandforce controller it's still too young to be considered reliable. I'd go with the Intel.
1) intel x25-m
2) OWC Mercury Extreme SSD (or other Sandforce based SSD):
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/internal_storage/Mercury_Extreme_SSD_Sandforce
The OWC has faster sequential speeds (and higher cost per GB), but the Sandforce controller it's still too young to be considered reliable. I'd go with the Intel.
...
40 gig is much slower than the 80 and most people will use more than 40gb, definately a good price though and if you want to lose your optical drive you could raid 2 of them...by the time you buy the drive kit for the optical drive replacement though you probobly could have just bought the 80
40 gig is much slower than the 80 and most people will use more than 40gb, definately a good price though and if you want to lose your optical drive you could raid 2 of them...by the time you buy the drive kit for the optical drive replacement though you probobly could have just bought the 80
1)Intel X25-M
2)Intel X25-M
but if you for some reason don't follow one or two, I guess you can do option 3...
3)Intel x25-m
2)Intel X25-M
but if you for some reason don't follow one or two, I guess you can do option 3...
3)Intel x25-m
Yes, really funny.
A more realistic chart (for mainstream SSDs) would be:
1) intel x25-m
2) OCZ Vertex
3) OCZ Agility
The crucial RealSSD C300 just went for sale yesterday. I'll be buying that for my new MacBook Pro.
I would go with the OCZ Vertex 120Gb - one of the best and certainly better value than intel.
Just a note however, some of the mid-2009 Macbook Pros are unable to use SSDs. Something to do with a revision A logic board (still being used in production) with a bad SATA controller. I have one of these machines and my Vertex won't work on it. I can't install Snow Leopard. Many other people are having this problem, including Intel SSD users. It seems to be luck of the draw which logic board revision you get.
Just a note however, some of the mid-2009 Macbook Pros are unable to use SSDs. Something to do with a revision A logic board (still being used in production) with a bad SATA controller. I have one of these machines and my Vertex won't work on it. I can't install Snow Leopard. Many other people are having this problem, including Intel SSD users. It seems to be luck of the draw which logic board revision you get.
No. Intel are the better value. You get the some of the best random speeds in the market at a fair $/Gb and with very little performance degradation. Vertex are far behind in random speeds and "TRIM-independence". (good for OSX)
The reality is that (especially for OSX-non-TRIM people) buying anything from 2008/2009 different from Intel is plain dumb. The real alternatives are the new Sandforce-based SSDs (Vertex 2 Pro, OWC Mercury Extreme, etc.) and Crucial RealSSD C300, which sport better/equal random speeds than Intel AND (for the first time it's "AND" and not "OR") better sequential speeds AND good "used" performances (--> important if you have not a TRIM-enabled OS). But they lack "field-gained reliability" at the moment, so the Intel are a "safer" choice. (and have a lower price per GB)
I don't think so, maybe it's a problem of some SSD models.
I guess he was referring to that if you need more then 80GB, the Vertex is a better value at $320 (120GB) than the intel at $500 (160GB).
And also, the OCZs are quite good for OSs without TRIM due to Garbage Collection.
Vertex 120GB = $320 after $40 rebate (and gooooood luck getting that rebate from OCZ
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227395
Intel 160GB = $430, no rebate
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167017
Vertex = $3/GB at time of purchase, $2.67/GB if and when you get the rebate
Intel = $2.69/GB at time of purchase
Personally, it's a no-brainer to me.
I agree with you that if someone doesn't want to deal with rebates, the intel is the better choice.
Since OCZ changed the rebate process, I never had a problem with them.
I got my rebates after almost exactly 3 month and every time.
For me personally, OCZ was always the number 1 choice when buying a SSD for following reasons:
1) betters size choices - I need a SSD with 50GB-64GB, until now, only OCZ had good SSDs in that range (that might change with Sandforce)
2) OCZ has a really great and helpful official forum, with tons of infos
3) OCZ provides firmware updates/upgrades (intel didn't give their G1 trim, even thought it was capable of using that)
I know that intel's SSDs are faster that OCZ's, but the whole OCZ SSD package (size,forum,firmware) was my reason for choosing OCZ.
I know that intel's SSDs are faster that OCZ's, but the whole OCZ SSD package (size,forum,firmware) was my reason for choosing OCZ.
I decided to go with Intel X25-M G2 160GB for basically the same reasons but the opposite versions of them. Intel had a slightly larger size and judging by the forums I felt that with OCZ I would be essentially acting as a beta tester and that was something I didn't want to do with something carrying my important data. OCZ has already had to remove a firmware once or twice because of some critical issues.
To the OP, if you're not in a terrible hurry, I'd wait until the end of the year for the next generation of drives. Should be bigger, better and above all cheaper.
Those issues were with BETA firmware and also if you upgrade to a firmware from an unsupported firmware.
If one uses common sense , there won't be an issues with firmware upgrades.
And don't forget the firmware trouble intel had with the G2, where all data gets lost under some circumstances.
I'd say the state of the field is that things are crowded at the top... There's no clear "best" anymore. When Intel first came out, sure, it was obviously the best. Now the rankings are muddy. I'd guess the Intel X25s, anything with a Sandforce controller (OCZ Vertex LE or OWC Mercury Extreme), and the Crucial C300 are in the top tier.
...
I have an OWC mercury extreme, it totally died on me after 4 days of usage (computer froze, rebooted and no apple logo came up just a white screen, option booting listed no internal disk at all, if I sat at the white screen a folder with a question mark would blink at me). Could have been a fluke and OWC sent me a new one that I had in two days but it does make me skeptical, I will see how it goes with this one, luckily I have a time capsule backing up my drive and OWC does sell the intel drives if this one dies again I will have to do a refund and get the intel
I have an OWC mercury extreme, it totally died on me after 4 days of usage (computer froze, rebooted and no apple logo came up just a white screen, option booting listed no internal disk at all, if I sat at the white screen a folder with a question mark would blink at me). Could have been a fluke and OWC sent me a new one that I had in two days but it does make me skeptical, I will see how it goes with this one, luckily I have a time capsule backing up my drive and OWC does sell the intel drives if this one dies again I will have to do a refund and get the intel
I'm considering the OWC in the next week or two. I'd appreciate it if you could update us in a week or so on the reliability of the second drive.
Anand experience a similar issue with a Vertex Pro based on the Sandforce controller...and apparently OCZ isn't going to mass produce them now (just limited to 5000). I've got a feeling that there may be some issues down the road with a few people SF controlled SSD's....and frankly I don't want to be a beta tester.
edit: here's the article if you haven't seen it
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3747
I know this may be a bit off topic... But can someone explain TRIM
I just bought an Intel G2 160gb. And am reading more and more about this TRIM thing, and drive degradation. Is it inevitable that without this feature in OSX the drive will become very slow? How long will it take? Would a format and reinstall fix this garbage that gets on the drive? Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
I just bought an Intel G2 160gb. And am reading more and more about this TRIM thing, and drive degradation. Is it inevitable that without this feature in OSX the drive will become very slow? How long will it take? Would a format and reinstall fix this garbage that gets on the drive? Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
that isnt totally true, I have heard that OCZ will be producing them but they will be using the 1200 controller with MLC nand and the 1500 controller with SLC nand...the one he tested was the 1500 with MLC and that is the one in limited production.
Yes, really funny.
A more realistic chart (for mainstream SSDs) would be:
1) intel x25-m
2) OCZ Vertex
3) OCZ Agility
I'd probably put the Summit in between Vertex / Agility. With the new firmware released, it screams and supports GC.