I just got a new 17" MBP and am holding off on the SSD purchase for several weeks to see what shakes out.
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.
Intel 510 SSD Review Out w/ benchmarks
- Thread starter Eddyisgreat
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have one of these 510s sitting next to me. Haven't gotten around to installing it in the new Macbook 2.2Ghz.
Thing is, I also bought a 750GB 7K WD black that i'm digging. (very nice drive).
But it will be fun to Xbench this thing.
It's too bad about the DVD slot. But not a big deal. I just am nervous about putting this WD in there. Someone said it has it's own motion detector, is this true? on this model?. That would assuage some of my concerns. Guess i'll ask Mr Google
Thing is, I also bought a 750GB 7K WD black that i'm digging. (very nice drive).
But it will be fun to Xbench this thing.
It's too bad about the DVD slot. But not a big deal. I just am nervous about putting this WD in there. Someone said it has it's own motion detector, is this true? on this model?. That would assuage some of my concerns. Guess i'll ask Mr Google
Last edited:
I have one of these 510s sitting next to me. Haven't gotten around to installing it in the new Macbook 2.2Ghz.
Thing is, I also bought a 750GB 7K WD black that i'm digging. (very nice drive).
But it will be fun to Xbench this thing.
It's too bad about the DVD slot. But not a big deal. I just am nervous about putting this WD in there. Someone said it has it's own motion detector, is this true? on this model?. That would assuage some of my concerns. Guess i'll ask Mr Google
I'd be very curious to know about the amount of extra noise and vibration of the WD compared to the stock hard drive. The Intel 510 isn't looking as attractive after the Anandtech review of it.
Yeah i'm pretty disappointed. Apparently the G3/320(? or something like that) is supposed to have on disk encryption rather than the 510, as well as cheaper (and slower, but still).
What a let down.
What a let down.
me too. I put in my "old" Intel X25M ssd into the new MBP. waiting patiently for the speed boost these next gen SSD's will provide
I still don't get your point. You will only get one year of warranty without AppleCare while a 3rd party SSD will come with 3 years without any extra costs. Sure AppleCare covers the whole machine, not just the SSD but that was not my point.
Currently I am using an 80 Gig postville in an early 2008 MBP - does it really make sense to upgrade it to an intel 510 120 GB?
As far as I know the 510's IOPS are worse... do we really feel the difference between 35000 and 20000 IOPS?
As far as I know the 510's IOPS are worse... do we really feel the difference between 35000 and 20000 IOPS?
Currently I am using an 80 Gig postville in an early 2008 MBP - does it really make sense to upgrade it to an intel 510 120 GB?
As far as I know the 510's IOPS are worse... do we really feel the difference between 35000 and 20000 IOPS?
No. IMO there is no point in upgrading any SSD at this point. The difference between them is way too small to be noticed in normal usage.
>>Originally Posted by Hellhammer
No. IMO there is no point in upgrading any SSD at this point. The difference between them is way too small to be noticed in normal usage.
Intel is responsible for questionnaire
http://communities.intel.com/message/117633#117633
On SATA 3Gb/s, the 250GB 510 will probably do:
Random Write: 5-8% better
Random Read: 20-25% worse
Sequential Write: 85-95% better
Sequential Read: 2-3% better
No. IMO there is no point in upgrading any SSD at this point. The difference between them is way too small to be noticed in normal usage.
Intel is responsible for questionnaire
http://communities.intel.com/message/117633#117633
On SATA 3Gb/s, the 250GB 510 will probably do:
Random Write: 5-8% better
Random Read: 20-25% worse
Sequential Write: 85-95% better
Sequential Read: 2-3% better
Its the same controller that is used in the Corsair.
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/38...es_256gb_solid_state_drive_review/index1.html
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/38...es_256gb_solid_state_drive_review/index9.html
It seems that the new marvell controller has better GC than the sandforce 1000 series drives. Against the new 2000 series drives might be different though. Good showing.
Intel going with this controller makes sense if it really is that reliable at GC. going with 34nm is also understandable for reliability. Intel is all about reliability. Not overall performance.
Can you tell me more about your experience please? I'm going to buy an OCZ Vertex 3 for my coming MBP 15" because my research tells me it has the best performance. However, some people say they're not reliable, some says they're awesome and fast
I'm so confused here. I know nothing much about SSD when it comes to reliability. I thought they're much reliable then HDD and way faster.
Thanks a lot.
Can you tell me more about your experience please? I'm going to buy an OCZ Vertex 3 for my coming MBP 15" because my research tells me it has the best performance. However, some people say they're not reliable, some says they're awesome and fast
I'm so confused here. I know nothing much about SSD when it comes to reliability. I thought they're much reliable then HDD and way faster.
Thanks a lot.
It has the best performance on paper but that doesn't equal to noticeable increase in real world performance. Here is a graph of Windows boot time. To be honest, the whole graph makes so sense at all. Yeah, Vertex 3 is on the top but why are Crucial m4 and Intel 510 Series so slow? They should be much faster than Samsung 470 Series when just looking at raw specs. It doesn't matter which SSD you get in terms of synthetic performance. Don't be fooled by the numbers too much, they really mean nothing in real world.
OCZ has a reputation of not being the top notch in reliability. For example with SF-1200 based SSDs, they switched the NAND from 3Xnm to 2Xnm without any notice. The move from 4GB die to 8GB die meant a huge loss in performance in lower end models due to less channels used. There are also many reports of OCZ (and SF based SSDs in general) SSDs dying early or even being DOA.
In theory SSDs are more reliable because they have no moving parts, hence there is no physical wear out. However, the controller aren't very major at this point and it feels like OEMs pay too much attention to increasing performance, while ignoring reliability.
If you want a reliable SSD, take a look at Crucial m4 and Samsung 470 Series. Intel 320 Series is great too.
Can you tell me more about your experience please? I'm going to buy an OCZ Vertex 3 for my coming MBP 15" because my research tells me it has the best performance. However, some people say they're not reliable, some says they're awesome and fast
I'm so confused here. I know nothing much about SSD when it comes to reliability. I thought they're much reliable then HDD and way faster.
Thanks a lot.
I think that a lot of the negative comments that you hear about OCZ supposedly being not reliable and treating their customers badly stems from an issue that came up a while back when then they released a new drive and supposedly they claimed that it had a certain kind of chip or something to that effect that it technically didn't have.(I don't remember the exact details) There were quite a few people who made a big stink about it on forums, but I think the whole thing was overblown.
I have a Vertex 3 in my 2011 17" MacBook and it has been rock solid and very fast. I highly recommend it.
What you said was true... but then a number of Vertex 3 owners started having their drives die and they eventually switched to other brands. Were they a minority? Perhaps... but it seems like the number of people who owned a bad Vertex 3 on this forum compared to a bad M4 or 320 or Samsung is pretty significant. (i.e. I don't think anyone has returned an M4 due to it dying, beach balls maybe but not dead and powerless.)
Thanks for your reply. This's very helpful
----------
Cool. How long did you have it for?
----------
Yea I agree. I notice almost everyone complain about it. Look at this feedback here http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227706
johnnyturbouk
macrumors 68000
Hit the nail on the head there - hell-hammer
i upgraded my OWC data 3G 3gb.s to a vertex 3 max-iops and can safely say that i fail to see any real world differences in every day use!
The only time i have noticed differences is when running multiple apps and copying/receiving GBs of incompressible data from my esata-2 external (SSD)
If i could do it all again - i would of gone for the 15" MBP not 17" with apple 256gb SSD
and with the money saved -copped a 27" ATD
I played the V3 max-iops against the intel 510. In the end the 510 was cheaper by £50 online.
The crucial m4's are significantly cheaper still.
The crucial m4's are significantly cheaper still.
***** the bed, this thread has just made me realise why didn't i buy an M4. They are like £70 cheaper than Intel 510!
And M4 has the same controller as Intel 510
I've had my pants pulled down by Intel.