Crucial 256GB or Intel 160GB SSD?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by MythicFrost, Aug 24, 2009.

  1. MythicFrost macrumors 68040

    MythicFrost

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    #1
    I've read the Intel is very good, but the Cruical also looks very good!

    Both are MLC, both read 250MB/s, but Intel writes 70MB/s and Cruical writes 200MB/s... there has to be some catch no?

    I'd like to buy one, but I want to know who's going to be better, overall and in the most important things, I've spent quite a few hours reading info about SSDs over the last few days, but I still don't know which one is better?

    Does anyone know?

    Kind Regards
     
  2. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #2
    The consensus on other forums I follow where some users have tried multiple manufacturers for extended periods in daily use is that the differences in performance in drives like the ones you are considering are really undetectable. Unless you run benchmarks for a living, you probably won't notice. The current crop of SSD's using Intel, Indilinx, or Samsung controllers are all very competitive.

    The difference in write performance is simply explained... Intel focuses on small random writes while Indilinx and Samsung focus on sequential (large file) write performance. Since sequential specs are the ones quoted and marketed most often, these are the ones you see.

    The fact is that most single-user I/O is reading and these are the operations you notice the most... booting, loading an app, loading a file, etc. And as you've probably noticed, read performance is fairly competitive among all SSD's.

    If write performance is important to you because you have a unique workload, then you can make an informed decision on an Intel or Indilinx/Samsung based drive accordingly. Otherwise, go with what fits your pocketbook.
     
  3. MythicFrost thread starter macrumors 68040

    MythicFrost

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    #3
    I see, I think Intel would be best then, I already only have a hard drive that reads and writes @ 70MB/s roughly (I think), and is 7200 RPM, so it's like a 12 ms response time, where a ssd is 0.1ms, so I don't otherwise need the Cruical one.

    How would a SSD cope with Final Cut Studio? like if there was some kind of thing I was doing that was writing data to the disk, would the crucial or intel be better in that situation?

    Kind Regards
     
  4. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #4
    The Intel has been proven to be much better with higher queue depths which comes with heavy multi-tasking... it's optimized for random writes as I said. However, the Crucial will be faster at committing large files to disk. With FCP you are obviously dealing with large files so if that's the bulk of your workload, then you may find that the Crucial provides you better theoretical performance. The fact is, you probably wouldn't be able to tell a difference between them.

    A few months ago, you would be a fool for considering anything other than an Intel SSD but things are changing rapidly and as it stands, any of the latest drives based on the three top controllers are very competitive. The battle now is focused on price.

    Rest assured that whatever you choose will perform well and you will be amazed at the performance improvement.
     
  5. MythicFrost thread starter macrumors 68040

    MythicFrost

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    #5
    Alright, thanks I appreciate your input.

    Kind Regards
     
  6. HHarm macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    #6
    Instead of the 160GB Intel why don't you get 2 x 80GB and do a raid0? You would get double the speed with pretty much the same cost.
     
  7. MythicFrost thread starter macrumors 68040

    MythicFrost

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    #7
    I don't have a raid card in my Mac Pro, also I want to have 2x 160GB SSDs, and 2 2TB HD's, and fill up my 4 drive bays.

    Kind Regards
     
  8. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #8
    It can be done with the SATA controller on the logic board and the RAID support built into OS X (Software RAID). No cards to install, so there's no additional cost involved beyond the drives. It would only work for OS X though, as you can't use them for Windows (Boot Camp won't work with an array).
     
  9. gugucom macrumors 68020

    gugucom

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Location:
    Munich, Germany
    #9
    For HW Raid Intels are better than the Indilinx controller. I wasn't able to get a stable array out of two Supertalent ME but the 2nd Gen. Intels would do.
     
  10. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #10
    That could have been as much, or even more to do with the drive's firmware though, than the controller chip.

    In any event, the smartest thing anyone can do when approaching a hardware RAID setup, is check the Hardware Compatibility List to avoid problems. ;)

    That's usually where I see mistakes. Wrong drives for the card that's been purchased (usually consumer models). :(
     
  11. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #11
    You should use the Intel SSD as the Boot / Application drive and then a fast scratch drive for all your media.

    Especially if using Final Cut Studio and Adobe CS.
     

Share This Page