MacBook with OCZ Vertex 250GB SSD (QuickBench + Xbench Results)

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by MBHockey, Apr 5, 2009.

  1. MBHockey macrumors 68040

    MBHockey

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #1
    I ran a few standard QuickBench tests on my week old SSD. It is quite a bit faster than the G. Skill Titan drive I was considering (the end of this post has results of the G. Skill on the same tests). The numbers are nice to look at, but it just feels extremely fast.

    Also note that the drive linked above seems to only have the OS loaded. My drive has about 100 GB of data (everything from my old computer) in addition to the OS X installation.

    Here's a video of the drive loading 35 apps at once :)

    It'd be great if someone with an intel x-25m could post QuickBench results.

    The computer is a 2.4 GHz unibody MacBook with 4 GB of ram.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. ux4all macrumors regular

    ux4all

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
    #2
    I have one, but it's been in my machine for a bit. I don't have a lot of apps and keep my data on an external drive. Let me know if a 'used' x25 is okay. If so, I can look up this software and run it on my SSD.
     
  3. MBHockey thread starter macrumors 68040

    MBHockey

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    New York
  4. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #4
    I know I may sound weird when I say this but, those results are the sexiest thing I've seen in a fast laptop thus far without RAID.

    *shivers & spoiled accent* I soooo want one!!!! */shivers & spoiling*

    I'll wait however, I know these drives are a little bit cheaper and faster, which should happen sometime in October/September.
     
  5. MBHockey thread starter macrumors 68040

    MBHockey

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    New York
  6. drew0020 macrumors 68000

    drew0020

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    #6
    Read the Anandtech article for the Intel results. The Intel SSD is still the best although the OCZ is definitely a better value.
     
  7. MBHockey thread starter macrumors 68040

    MBHockey

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #7
    I've read that article. I don't know how comparable the numbers are because the numbers he was getting for the Vertex are much better than mine (as are the intel numbers). That's why I'm looking for a more real-world comparison.
     
  8. MBHockey thread starter macrumors 68040

    MBHockey

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #8
    Any luck on running those benchmarks yet?
     
  9. iJimmy macrumors regular

    iJimmy

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    #9
    attached is my x-25m xbench. I don't have quickbench. My next ssd will be a vertex
     

    Attached Files:

  10. MBHockey thread starter macrumors 68040

    MBHockey

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #10
    Is your MacBook SATA I or SATA II?

    Your SSD might be limited to SATA I speeds (1.5 gbps). Unibody MacBooks are SATA II (3.0 gbps).
     
  11. ux4all macrumors regular

    ux4all

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
    #11
    Here are my x25 results

    Hope this helps somehow.

    This was run on a Unibody Macbook 2.0 with 4GB RAM and nothing running at the time I ran this (application wise).
     

    Attached Files:

  12. MBHockey thread starter macrumors 68040

    MBHockey

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #12
    Could you post the bar graph instead of the line graph?
     
  13. ux4all macrumors regular

    ux4all

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
    #13
    Here's the bar graph.
     

    Attached Files:

  14. MBHockey thread starter macrumors 68040

    MBHockey

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #14
    Cool, thanks.

    I'm impressed with how well the Vertex stacks up against the Intel. The Vertex seems to be only marginally slower in the read tests (~4%), but significantly faster in the write tests (nearly twice as fast towards the end).

    I'm not sure if having 100 GB of my data on the drive affects it in any way, but at about half the price per GB of storage when compared with the Intel, it looks like the Vertex is quite a good value (even at the ridiculous price it sells for now!)
     
  15. iJimmy macrumors regular

    iJimmy

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    #15
    sata 1
     
  16. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #16
    Never mind, SATA II is actually 3 Gb/s (not GB/s) which translated into Megabytes is 375 MB/s, which means SSDs are not that far from reaching SATA II speeds.


     
  17. MBHockey thread starter macrumors 68040

    MBHockey

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    New York
  18. harshw macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    #18
    375 megabytes/sec is the raw throughput. With signalling overhead (10b coding), the net throughput for data is 300 megabytes/sec theoretical maximum, hence the 3.0 Gbits/sec figure. With a crappy cable, noise etc - deduct 5% of the theoretical performance - SSDs already push the limits of the SATA 3Gb/s spec. And worse, SATA isn't simultaneous duplex - like SAS
     

Share This Page