Intel 510 vs Vertex 3 SSD

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by kart, Jul 16, 2011.

  1. kart macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    #1
    hey all!
    Brand new to the site, and finding some brilliant info!
    Im after a 120gb SSD for my 2011 17" MBP and wondering out of the two drives, what is better, and why?
    Honestly don't know much about SSD's except how blistering fast they are ;)
    Have heard that you can't really go past the Vertex 3 but the Intel has some good reviews.
    Anyone use either drive? Would their be much speed difference in things like opening CS4 programs and the booting of the computer, between the drives?

    Thanks :)
     
  2. UMJD2002 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    #2
    I've got the 120gb Intel 510 in my 2011 15" 2.2 Ghz MBP. It runs great! My wifes laptop still has the stock 5400 drive. I can't stand using it now that I am used to the SSD speed.
     
  3. KJmoon117 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Location:
    NC
    #3
    My recommendation is neither; get the OWC Mercury 6G.

    The intel 510 are reported to have issues in some of the new MBPs and they don't have a great garbage collection. And the TRIM hack isn't viable as it slows down the performance of the drives...

    The Vertex 3 is an amazingly fast drive but it's backed by a piss poor company.

    The OWC has the specs of the V3 with very good reliability and a company that backs their drives 100%
     
  4. Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #4
    I wouldn't recommend Intel 510 because of some issues with Macs.

    I wouldn't recommend any Sandforce based SSD because they're a lot less reliable than other SSDs.

    Crucial M4 128GB is cheaper and faster than Intel 510. It's about as fast as Vertex 3 120GB and a lot more reliable.

    [​IMG]
    http://www.notebookreview.com/shared/picture.asp?f=59152

    Ever considered Seagate Momentus XT?

    I sold my SSD to use the XT. It does everything I need at SSD speed. The video shows how it performs in my MBP 2011:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMldqf5oUZw
     
  5. hawk1410, Jul 16, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2011

    hawk1410 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    #5
    OWC is even worse than(or rather as worse as) the Vertex. That too uses the SandForce controller so no better than the Vertex, and it is expensive as hell. I would avoid OWC at all costs simply cause OWC is not as experienced as a company as OCZ and still uses the SandForce controller, that cannot be good at all. The Intel 510 on the other hand has some issues with Macs. I would go with a Crucial M4 cheaper, great performance and reliable.
     
  6. kart thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    #6
    First off, thanks for all the posts thus far.
    Secondly, like i have said, I know basically nothing about SSD's BUT, looking at the Crucial M4, it is only a SATA 2

    Crucial does however look good, and is quite a bit cheaper. Is it still 6gb/s?

    Thanks, once again.
     
  7. Stino macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    #7
    Don't do it :)

    I got my new MBP15" a few days ago and the very first thing I did after unpacking was placing my Intel SSD (510) in there and reinstall. After the installation I ran some tests with xbench and must say that I was very disappointed when I read the results of other people. It's just not that fast as other brands are.

    Apparently the Crucial M4 is pretty good

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Bossieman macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2011
    #8
    After alot of research I got the 120 GB Vertex 3 Max IOPS. It´s fast, really fast and I have had no problems at all with it.
     
  9. eC1990ho macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2011
    #9
    and the most expensive one out there :p
     
  10. hawk1410 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    #10
  11. Locodice macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    #11
    Where is all this Sandforce scaremongery coming from?
     
  12. hawk1410 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    #12
    The history and customer reviews of SF based drives speak for themselves -
    OCZ Vertex 2 120GB reviews
    OCZ Agility 3 120GB reviews
    Corsair Force 3 120GB reviews
    OCZ Agility 2 240GB reviews
    OCZ Vertex 2 90GB Reviews

    Crucial M4 has an average rating of 4 stars(5 for the 64gb version) on the other hand, the only reason it is not 5 is the LPM issue that has now been fixed. Also Crucial has a good track record with the C300, isn't reliability and quality the reason you bought a MAC over a cheaper PC which had better specs.
     
  13. Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #13
    Another downside that people often forget about Sandforce SSDs is the infamous throttle.

    After a certain number of writes is exceeded the controller will limit write speeds to a speed that's lower than 5400rpm drives.

    [​IMG]
    http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=6161&p=2

    Intel and Crucial do not have these artificial speed limits.
     
  14. johnnyturbouk macrumors 68000

    johnnyturbouk

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Location:
    on the yellow [oled] brick road to tech nirvana.
    #14
    As for the original question posted by the OP: i would go for the V3.

    For us heavy users the M4 has poor garbage collection - with a lack of trim on OSX, as anand said, not the best choice in a OS that lacks TRIM.
    If you are a light user and intent to frequently update ure system, then i guess this matter not. Also, head on over to the crucial forums and one can ascertain that the M4 users have also had a number of issues in OSX.


    I have gone for the patriot wildfire 120GB - it is currently sitting in a warehouse one mile away.. will be getting it delivered tomorrow :D
     
  15. pazz macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2010
    Location:
    London, England
    #15
    I've had no issues with Intel 510 in my 2011 MBP. Trim enabler is on.

    Xbench figures below

    Results 375.31
    Disk Test 375.31
    Sequential 243.99
    Uncached Write 196.90 120.89 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Write 316.56 179.11 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Uncached Read 147.59 43.19 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Read 724.39 364.07 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Random 812.67
    Uncached Write 578.34 61.22 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Write 539.04 172.57 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Uncached Read 2326.24 16.48 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Read 1101.39 204.37 MB/sec [256K blocks]
     
  16. Locodice macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    #16
    Cherry picking reviews isn't exactly evidence
     
  17. Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #17
    You would have point if these were exceptions. They're not though. Nearly all Sandforce reviews on Newegg have about 20% failures in them.

    I'm not saying no one should buy Sandforce, I am saying reliability of Intel, Crucial and Samsung is in a different league
     
  18. dsio macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Location:
    Australia
    #18
    Its not 20% failures, its 20% of people coming back to the site to write a review doing so because they had a problem. That's not unusual for a hard disk. Check out the Velociraptor 600GB: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136555
     
  19. Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #19
    Ofcourse, that's why I said 20% of the reviews have failures in them.

    That's ~ 5 times more than Crucial, Intel and Samsung drives.
     
  20. dsio macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Location:
    Australia
    #20
    Once you factor in the 25% of the population that are complete idiots and the 3% that tried to wear it as a hat, the drives are still ahead tbh.
     
  21. hawk1410 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    #21
    This also should be the same for the Crucial and Intel drives. Unless you mean that idiots buy Sandforce drives and the more wiser population buys the Crucial and Intel drives. :p
    Anyway i agree newegg reviews dont say everything but all SF based drives have bad reviews whereas Intel, Crucial and Samsung have great reviews, go see for yourself. I agree there are some who probably did not know how to get the OCZ drives working or that mostly those people post a review who have had failures, but the same should be true for Intel, Samsung and Crucial.
    The thing is OCZ and other Sandforce drives maybe be slightly faster but they cant compete with the above 3 in terms of quality and reliability
     
  22. kart thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    #22
    Cheers for all the reply's.
    I am thinking heavily towards the Crucial M4 256gb SSD now..
    I am located in Australia and this drive sells over here for just over $500.
    Really don't want to spend that much. But looking at some U.S sites they are just over $400.
    Because I am not in the know of reliable and cheap U.S sites that would sell this drive, could someone please post up some links.
    Lastly, how much should I expect to pay out of the U.S for the drive? Hoping that with the AUD a few cents up on the USD, I could save some extra money!

    Thanks :)
     
  23. dsio macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Location:
    Australia
    #23
    I've just ordered 2x OCZ 240GB Vertex 3's from Newegg and had them shipped to a mate in the USA for shipping back to Brisbane ;) AU pricing is a complete ripoff. Ended up being $960 for the pair.
     
  24. Macsavvytech macrumors 6502a

    Macsavvytech

    Joined:
    May 25, 2010
    #24
    My OWC 6G SSD (Sandforce) will run circles around non Sandforce SSDs, and it works fine.
    Point taken?

    Ditch what everyone said and get this
    http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other World Computing/SSDEX6G240/

    Trust me, you won't regret it. I live in Australia and its what I did.
     
  25. Philflow, Jul 18, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2011

    Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #25
    I've had both Vertex 3 and Crucial M4 in my MBP 2011. Sometimes Sandforce is faster, sometimes Crucial is faster.

    Sandforce drives do well with easily compressible data. Like Anandtech uses in his reviews.

    Crucial M4 and Intel 510 do much better than Sandforce drives when it comes to incompressible data.

    Here's what a Vertex 3 120GB looks like after I wrote a decent amount of incompressible data to it. Write speeds dropped heavily.
    [​IMG]

    Here's what the Crucial m4 looked like after exactly the same treatment.
    [​IMG]
    No performance loss whatsoever.
     

Share This Page