Intel 320 160GB SSD? So who has one in a new 13" MBP

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Wicked1, Apr 20, 2011.

  1. Wicked1 macrumors 68040

    Wicked1

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #1
    I am looking to take the one I just ordered from NewEgg and put this into a new 13" MBP base i5 2.3 that I am looking to buy in the next week or two.

    Does anyone have this setup and how are the new 320 160GB SSD by Intel?
     
  2. brentsg macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    #2
    I have the 320 300GB in mine.
     
  3. bozz2006 macrumors 68030

    bozz2006

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #3
    I've got the 320 120GB in my 15" MBP. I'm glad this is the SSD I finally decided on.
     
  4. MastaK macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    #4
    I've been running 160GB with TRIM hack all day without any issues.
    But this is only temporary as OWC SATA III 240GB order is coming in tomorrow :D
     
  5. bozz2006 macrumors 68030

    bozz2006

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #5
    Then what will you be doing with the Intel drive?
     
  6. MastaK macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
  7. bamf macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    #7
    How do you like the 300? I've got an X25-M G2 160 and I may be looking to upgrade to the 300.
     
  8. G-Money macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    #8
    What would be the advantage of that? I have the X25-M in my MBP as well. Would the speed difference be significant?
     
  9. brentsg macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    #9
    I'm sure it's faster than my 160 X25-M G2 that it replaced, but really it feels about the same but bigger. This is fine with me.
     
  10. s.hasan546 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    NY
    #10
    from real life comparisons i couldn't tell the difference from a vertex 2 and vertex 3. Speeds were almost identical. Benchmarks dont always translate to real life performance


    Also have you thought about buying a smaller sized ssd and get a cheap optibay? Comes out to be cheaper + more storage.
     
  11. brentsg macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    #11
    I'd prefer to keep the optical drive for now.
     
  12. Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #12
    4K random read and write performance on the 320 is lower than on X25m. Sequential writes on the 320 are higher.

    Also see here: www.laptopmag.com/review/storage/intel-ssd-320.aspx
     
  13. gregor.hoch macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    #13
    just got an intel 320 160 GB for my 2008 unibody macbook. Run flawlessly so far. Should I enable trim through he hack or just wait for Lion?
     
  14. Icaras, Apr 20, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2011

    Icaras macrumors 603

    Icaras

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Location:
    California, United States
    #14
    Installed a 120GB 320 in my wife's 2009 MBP and it's been great so far.

    But why are you people buying the 320 for the current gen MBP? The 510s are the ones to get since it supports SATA 3, as mentioned in the linked article review that Philflow posted.

    Seems kind of a waste to cap your MBP's performance with a 320.
     
  15. s.hasan546 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    NY
    #15
    problems have been reported on both the 510 and vertex 3. Real life performance is not a noticeable difference IMHO. Really its more like why waste the $$ on sata III right now when it has problems + speed is negligible. I got a 64 gb SSD for $75 (vertex 2). I havn't had any problems with it. reliability over raw performance.
     
  16. Icaras macrumors 603

    Icaras

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Location:
    California, United States
    #16
    :eek: Well, that just sucks.
     
  17. s.hasan546 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    NY
    #17
    yuppp. Personally, im going to use my vertex 2 for now and when a reliable sata III ssd becomes cheaper ill put this in the desktop in raid 0 and get a new ssd.
     
  18. Philflow, Apr 21, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2011

    Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #18
    In Anandtech's opinion Intel SSD only make sense for Mac if TRIM is enabled. If not there are better choices.

    And yeah I know about the (upcoming) TRIM support.
     
  19. mape2k macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #19
    What better choices would that be? I don't see many reports of users having trouble with massively degrading performance without TRIM. Sure there is the occasional bean-picker that wines about 10mb/s less...
    And even IF there is the dropping performance...one half a year completely reformat the drive and have your system restored from a backup!

    On the topic: I would also wait on the SATAIII drives for now, too much trouble and in real life performance not a significant enough benefit. Go with the Intel 320 if you want huge speed bonus (compared to HDD) and reliability.
     
  20. Fugue macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    #20
    A few questions.

    What exactly does TRIM do in the short and long run? From what I understand it is a sort of recycling center for the SSD. Does not having it enabled reduce the longevity of it? And what are the downsides of using the TRIM hack?

    In real life tests, how much faster is the Intel 320 over the Apple SSD?
     
  21. Weaselboy Moderator

    Weaselboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Location:
    California
    #21
    In day to day usage there is little difference between the two drives, or any modern SSD for that matter. See the chart below from this test at Anandtech.

    [​IMG]

    Anand says this test is the best indicator of overall system performance. It simulates opening apps and various files etc. So you can get very close to the same performance and save a little money.

    I bought the Intel 510 SSD when I got my 2011 MBP because the 320 was not out yet, but if I was doing it today I would be inclined to just go with the 320. Although I have had no problems with my 510, judging from forum posts the 320 seems to have fewer compatibility issues.
     
  22. Philflow, Apr 21, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2011

    Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #22
    PCMark Vantage plays back the traces of those actions and was made for Windows Vista. It can easily be mislead. An

    For real world performance of the Intel 320 check real world benchmarks like Laptopmag.

    I've seen several reports of Intel G2 and G3 performance degradation w/o TRIM more significant than that.

    Kingston V+ 100 and Sandforce drives have better GC than Intel.

    I agree Intel 320 is a good choice for reliability. It's not such a good choice for an OS w/o TRIM though.

    Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4244/intel-ssd-320-review/11
     
  23. bozz2006 macrumors 68030

    bozz2006

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #23
    I bought the 320 + optibay for my 2011 MBP even though the computer supports SATA3 because I just wasn't willing to deal with any of the possible hiccups that have come with SATA3 SSDs. Also, SATA3 is only available in the HDD bay.

    The problem is that the the consensus tells us that the stock 5400RPM HDD in my MBP has no built in sudden motion sensor, so it's not safe to move it to the optical bay. And I didn't have the money to spend on a new HDD with built in SMS. So financially, the 320 just made the most sense for me.

    Down the road a year or so, my plan is to move the 320 into my 2008 aluminum macbook and replace with a newer, faster, more stable SATA3 SSD in my MBP.
     
  24. Weaselboy Moderator

    Weaselboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Location:
    California
    #24
    I'm not sure what your point is? The test you linked is run in Windows also. Anand seems to think this is the best test of overall SSD speed. I have not seen any data showing the test can be "easily mislead."


    Those test results are again making my point that there is very little speed difference among modern SSDs in actual usage.


    These forums are full of happy Intel X25 (G2) users who report they have not noticed any speed loss after significant usage. Read over the TRIM patch thread and you will find some posts from users who TRIM'd their X25 and did see some write performance increase.

    Where have you seen reports of Intel G3 (Intel 320 SSD) users having performance degradation? This drive has been out less than a month. Even if you left the thing running drive writes 24/7 since install 30 days ago you would be hard pressed to have even written to each NAND cell yet.

    The new Intel drives do have garbage collection in firmware. Whether it is as good or better than Sandforce I think is too soon to judge.

    As an aside, everybody is getting a little too worked up about TRIM IMO. Remember TRIM, or the absence of TRIM, only effects SSD write performance. It has no effect on SSD read performance. Only after you have used the SSD long enough that every NAND cell has been written to does TRIM even matter. After each cell has been used without TRIM, write speeds will degrade somewhat.... and this is assuming there is absolutely no firmware TRIM equivalent going on.
     
  25. mape2k macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #25
    Not to forget the option of reformatting the drive and restoring from a backup of the drive, IF you ever notice degrading write speeds.
     

Share This Page