Need an opinion on SSD?

[McGiord]

Today I held a chat with a sales rep from OWC and he told me that the sleep issues are gone now, since the firmware update made in March.
Are you guys referring to this issue? or are some other issues out there?
When I asked about what makes their SSD better from Intel or Crucial he told me that the Sandforce controller.
I have no clue about all these, please chime in with more comments or suggestions.

Many Thanks!

 

[uplusd]

Today I held a chat with a sales rep from OWC and he told me that the sleep issues are gone now, since the firmware update made in March.
Are you guys referring to this issue? or are some other issues out there?
When I asked about what makes their SSD better from Intel or Crucial he told me that the Sandforce controller.
I have no clue about all these, please chime in with more comments or suggestions.

Many Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SandForce

 

[Weaselboy]

Today I held a chat with a sales rep from OWC and he told me that the sleep issues are gone now, since the firmware update made in March.
Are you guys referring to this issue? or are some other issues out there?
When I asked about what makes their SSD better from Intel or Crucial he told me that the Sandforce controller.
I have no clue about all these, please chime in with more comments or suggestions.

Many Thanks!

Here is over a 500 post thread about problems with the OWC SSD. From lack of activity on the thread, one might assume the last SSD FW update fixed the sleep/hibernation problem OWC was having. Who knows? The fact it took six months to fix this does not inspire confidence.

Also know that OWC offers no way for the user to update firmware on a Mac without spending another $99 to buy Windows and install it under Bootcamp. Other vendors offer a boot CDRom ISO that can do firmware updates on the Mac. OWC has been promising a Mac firmware updater, but it still does not exist.

OWC's incorrect allegations about NAND specs of their competitor OCZ was a little unprofessional also in my view.

Both Intel and Crucial have recently released new SSD and the firmware in those drives does the same "garbage collection" and wear leveling that the Sandforce controller drives do. I think the jury is still out which is better.

My personal view after following this issue for months is users obsess too much over the whole TRIM issue.

Buy a SSD from a reputable company that makes reliable drives and supports FW updates on the Mac. JMO.

 

[McGiord]

Weaselboy: what company/brand are you suggesting?

 

[Hellhammer]

Weaselboy: what company/brand are you suggesting?

Intels are the most reliable and offer FW update option for Macs as well. Crucial/Micron is a good choice as well and in fact, they use the same controller as Intel 510 series.

 

[Locodice]

Intels are the most reliable and offer FW update option for Macs as well. Crucial/Micron is a good choice as well and in fact, they use the same controller as Intel 510 series.

Recommending an SSD when its having ongoing problems with the macbook pro range is silly.

 

[Weaselboy]

Intels are the most reliable and offer FW update option for Macs as well. Crucial/Micron is a good choice as well and in fact, they use the same controller as Intel 510 series.

Could not have said it better myself.

See the top of this page from an Anandtech review for some reliability data.

Also... see my recent post on the quality of the new SATA III OWC SSD. Not good.

 

[Weaselboy]

Recommending an SSD when its having ongoing problems with the macbook pro range is silly.

I see. So you have no recommendation of your own or anything, you just wanted to fly by here and make snarky comments?

If you are referring to Intel SSD, the new Intel 320 SSD (SATA II) has been very popular here on the forums and I have not read of any compatibility problems. I did see on thread from a user whose Intel 320 apparently just died.

The SATA III Intel 510 SSD had a thread going on here when it first came out and there were a handful of people who reported problems. This was when the 2011 MBPs first came out in February. Since then, I have not seen any posts about a problem with this drive. I have an Intel 510 SSD in my 2011 13" MBP and it has working perfectly.

If you are referring to Crucial, maybe you could provide some supporting information to add to the conversation and assist forum readers?

 

[Locodice]

Well rather than bad mouth OWC at every opportunity (how many threads on here are you in doing that?) I thought I'd "snark" in and say Intel isn't as amazing and reliable as people make out.

http://communities.intel.com/message/118621

Some people aren't even seeing the drive in their system and others having trouble with it negotiating a 6bg/s link speed.

Not as reliable as some would say is it...

 

[Weaselboy]

Well rather than bad mouth OWC at every opportunity (how many threads on here are you in doing that?)

I will do it in every thread that someone asks for opinions on SSD brands and OWC comes up. They for some reason enjoy a good reputation on here that in my view is undeserved and I have provided facts to support my view. I have no personal stake one way or the other with OWC.

...I thought I'd "snark" in and say Intel isn't as amazing and reliable as people make out.

http://communities.intel.com/message/118621

Some people aren't even seeing the drive in their system and others having trouble with it negotiating a 6bg/s link speed.

Not as reliable as some would say is it...

I have seen that Intel thread and those are some of the same users as in the original Intel 510 SSD thread here. It is not clear why some users have problems and others have none. This is not unique to Intel drives.

 

[Hellhammer]

Well rather than bad mouth OWC at every opportunity (how many threads on here are you in doing that?) I thought I'd "snark" in and say Intel isn't as amazing and reliable as people make out.

http://communities.intel.com/message/118621

Some people aren't even seeing the drive in their system and others having trouble with it negotiating a 6bg/s link speed.

Not as reliable as some would say is it...

Most of the current issues reported in that thread are related to the SATA issue in 17" MBP. That affects all SSDs, not just Intel or any other brand.

 

[Locodice]

It is not clear why some users have problems and others have none. This is not unique to Intel drives.

No it's not unique to intel as crucial is experiencing the same issues with the C300 and M4, so much so they have taken the MBP 2011 range from their website as a compatible product.

Hence my point earlier saying that people shouldn't be recommending drives that are having problems - as both Crucial SSD's and the Intel 510 are.

It's only natural to want to promote how good an SSD you chose is (in your case the 510) but saying it's the most reliable when both OCZ and OWC are the only next gen SSD manufacturers not experiencing any compatibility issues in the MBP 2011 range is misleading.

Apologies if you took offense to my earlier comment aimed at Hellhammer.

 

[Weaselboy]

No it's not unique to intel as crucial is experiencing the same issues with the C300 and M4, so much so they have taken the MBP 2011 range from their website as a compatible product.

Hence my point earlier saying that people shouldn't be recommending drives that are having problems - as both Crucial SSD's and the Intel 510 are.

Every SSD drive seems to have some users who report problems, particularly the newer SATA III drives. Go to MRoogle and search for "model name XX problems" for any SSD and there are posts from users who can't get the thing to work. This is I think technology that is at the bleeding edge for perhaps the SSD makers and Apple and there will be problems and incompatibilities.

It's only natural to want to promote how good an SSD you chose is (in your case the 510) but saying it's the most reliable when both OCZ and OWC are the only next gen SSD manufacturers not experiencing any compatibility issues in the MBP 2011 range is misleading.

I am not suggesting Intel because I own one. I own one because I went through the same questions people have posed in this thread and came to the conclusion I preferred the Intel choice and I have provided the facts I considered to come to that conclusion.

Use MRoogle to search for "Vertex 3 problems" and you will see users who have the exact same symptoms people are reporting with the Intel 510. They appear to be doing the install correctly and it just will not work. Apple's implementation of SATA III just seems to be problematic. Maybe yesterdays EFI update will help?

As far as OWC... well, you already know my feelings on that one. If people want a SSD with wires soldered on the PCB I guess that is their choice.

Apologies if you took offense to my earlier comment aimed at Hellhammer.

NP. I was a little quick on the trigger there myself.

 

[Locodice]

Maybe yesterdays EFI update will help?

I have a feeling there was more to that update than meets the eye as several users have experienced noticeably better performance when using SSD's since updating.

For the record I don't have an SSD, I want one and at the moment going through the motions sizing up which one is best. I was more inclined to go with a Sandforce controller however after seeing the hash job of that soldered wire on the OWC pcb photo makes me knock them off the list.

The only thing that is putting me off regarding the 510 is the write speed as detailed here

 

[Hellhammer]

No it's not unique to intel as crucial is experiencing the same issues with the C300 and M4, so much so they have taken the MBP 2011 range from their website as a compatible product.

Hence my point earlier saying that people shouldn't be recommending drives that are having problems - as both Crucial SSD's and the Intel 510 are.

It's only natural to want to promote how good an SSD you chose is (in your case the 510) but saying it's the most reliable when both OCZ and OWC are the only next gen SSD manufacturers not experiencing any compatibility issues in the MBP 2011 range is misleading.

Apologies if you took offense to my earlier comment aimed at Hellhammer.

I didn't recommend a specific Intel SSD. If SATA 6Gb/s isn't a must, then Intel 320 series is a brilliant choice because it appears to be one of the least problematic drives (basically it is the same as X25-M G2). SATA 3Gb/s drives are also quite a bit cheaper. As for SATA 6Gb/s SSDs, they all seem to have their share of problems.

I don't even own an SSD (besides the one in my MBA but that is not available) so I'm not basing my suggestion on what I own, merely on what I have heard and read from other users.

 

[Weaselboy]

I have a feeling there was more to that update than meets the eye as several users have experienced noticeably better performance when using SSD's since updating.

Agreed. I see a difference at boot. At the grey screen I used to see about three spins of the cog now can barely see half a spin before it goes to the login sequence.

For the record I don't have an SSD, I want one and at the moment going through the motions sizing up which one is best. I was more inclined to go with a Sandforce controller however after seeing the hash job of that soldered wire on the OWC pcb photo makes me knock them off the list.

The only thing that is putting me off regarding the 510 is the write speed as detailed here

The Intel 510 SSD does seem to be mid-pack in some speed tests you see. I knew that when I bought mine, but reliability and the ability to do firmware updates in a Mac were more important to me. That said, in reading the recent Anandtech review of the OWC 6G SSD I noticed Anand has developed a new testing method and the Intel 510 did surprisingly well in those tests.

I really think we all obsess a little much about some of these benchmark tests. In real world use I doubt anybody can tell the difference among any of the newer SATA III SSDs.

 

[daneoni]

So if i wanted an SSD which has both speed and reliability and supports mac-side FW updates it has to be an Intel or Crucial drive right? which is the faster of the two and which is cheaper?

Also do you really need Windows 7 to do FW updates for the OCZ?...can you not do it with XP?

 

[rockyroad55]

Should I wait until the kinks get worked out for the SSDs to be fully compatible with the new MBP or should I get one now? I'm leaning towards the Vertex 3 currently.

 

[NickZac]

Look at user reviews for the Vertex line. Simply said, they indicate serious quality control issues on behalf of OCZ. Go Crucial, or better yet, Intel.

 

[NickZac]

Intels are the most reliable and offer FW update option for Macs as well. Crucial/Micron is a good choice as well and in fact, they use the same controller as Intel 510 series.

For a 2009 MBP, the Intel X-25 is the way to go IMO, especially since you can find them for discounted prices and that the speed differences is not much of a difference for almost all users. I would dare say it is the proven champion of reliability and customer satisfaction from both 1) many reviews, and 2) many positive reviews. Smaller companies may make good SSDs, but they are not as well reported on as Intel, which simply is a winner. Intel is probably the only SSD I would personally buy at the current time, if I had to get something other than the factory SSD, which is good quality as well.

 

[Hellhammer]

So if i wanted an SSD which has both speed and reliability and supports mac-side FW updates it has to be an Intel or Crucial drive right? which is the faster of the two and which is cheaper?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/357?vs=355

Seems to be pretty similar in performance. Both have .ISO updaters so they work with any OS (the drive will be wiped if I recall correctly). Crucial seems to be cheaper, at least in NewEgg.

Also do you really need Windows 7 to do FW updates for the OCZ?...can you not do it with XP?

XP is supported and nowadays you can also upgrade the firmware using Linux

Should I wait until the kinks get worked out for the SSDs to be fully compatible with the new MBP or should I get one now? I'm leaning towards the Vertex 3 currently.

Well, do you want to be a guinea pig or not? Some of these issues may never be fixed, for example the hibernation issue which is still present in SF-1200 based drives if my memory serves me right, even though SandForce and OEMs have been aware of it for months now.

 

[Weaselboy]

So if i wanted an SSD which has both speed and reliability and supports mac-side FW updates it has to be an Intel or Crucial drive right? which is the faster of the two and which is cheaper?

I believe that is the state of things now with FW updates. (If someone knows different please jump in and correct me)

Here is a recent speed test by Anand that covers most of the newer drives. I don't think in actual use you will notice any difference among any of them. Buy what you think will work best for you.

Just use Google Shopping to compare best prices for each.

Also do you really need Windows 7 to do FW updates for the OCZ?...can you not do it with XP?

I believe you can use XP. I thought I saw something in the OCZ forums about a user that developed a USB thumb drive method of doing Mac FW updates. You might read over OCZ's support forums to be sure.

 

[Locodice]

I noticed Anand has developed a new testing method and the Intel 510 did surprisingly well in those tests.

hmm that is interesting, will have a good read later.

I really think we all obsess a little much about some of these benchmark tests. In real world use I doubt anybody can tell the difference among any of the newer SATA III SSDs.

Totally agree with you here.

 

[daneoni]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/357?vs=355

Seems to be pretty similar in performance. Both have .ISO updaters so they work with any OS (the drive will be wiped if I recall correctly). Crucial seems to be cheaper, at least in NewEgg.

XP is supported and nowadays you can also upgrade the firmware using Linux

I believe that is the state of things now with FW updates. (If someone knows different please jump in and correct me)

Here is a recent speed test by Anand that covers most of the newer drives. I don't think in actual use you will notice any difference among any of them. Buy what you think will work best for you.

I believe you can use XP. I thought I saw something in the OCZ forums about a user that developed a USB thumb drive method of doing Mac FW updates. You might read over OCZ's support forums to be sure.

Thanks for the replies. The Crucial seems to be the cheapest and easily accessible one for me but in terms of future-proofing i'm thinking i should get the Intel drive, especially after reading about the eventual drop in performance that plagued the C300 series when running in setups without TRIM (which is the case in OS X)

But from my price comparisons the Vertex 3 is cheaper than the ElmCrest drive so i'm wondering why not just go for that...it is the fastest after all and i run XP so i can do the FW updates. But a lot of people seem to be wary of this drive...citing it largely as an experimental drive and that things might not be smooth sailing i.e. speed>reliability.

*sigh* so confused.

 

[rockyroad55]

Look at user reviews for the Vertex line. Simply said, they indicate serious quality control issues on behalf of OCZ. Go Crucial, or better yet, Intel.

Crucial, I could just buy from their site? But, where would be the best place for me to get an Intel SSD? I was just gonna stop in my local microcenter for an SSD