Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Need an opinion on SSD?

daneoni said:
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)
Click to expand...

TRIM can be enabled with TRIM Enabler.

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.
Click to expand...

I have to admit that I haven't heard that many issues with Vertex 3. The SATA 6Gb/s issue with 17" MBP is another case but with other MBPs, it seems to be a pretty solid drive. In NewEgg, the reviews are mostly five stars with few one star reviews where the drive was DOA (which is always possible).

I guess the main reason why OCZ is said to be unreliable is the stats published by AnandTech which show OCZ SSDs as the most unreliable. There are thousands of people who are completely happy with Vertex 3 and other OCZ drives so it's not like all their drives are bad.
 
rockyroad55 said:
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
Click to expand...

I get my stuff from NewEgg. I've seen the 320 Intel on some sites for under $200 when on sale, and a few were authorized dealers as well. Although if you can spend a few more bucks, this is IMO the best SSD on the market and one of the best ever made.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...167042&cm_re=intel_SSD-_-20-167-042-_-Product
 
daneoni said:
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.
Click to expand...

ElmCrest uses 34nm flash memory, which is more expensive to produce. It will last longer than twenty-some nm flash memory used on the Vertex 3 and virtually all other SSDs. While the longevity of both memory sizes are so great that it may be irrelevant to most users, the 34nm flash memory has proven itself to be ridiculously reliable, which has not been seen on the newer memory simply because it is newer and not time tested. The fewer read/write cycles and lower cost of production should make 2x nm drives from OCZ and OWC MUCH cheaper, but this is not the case. Also, they are in many cases, slower, as 25nm drives run significantly slower from identical 34nm drives.

Simply said, the Intel drive is superior to the Vertex 3 in every way except speed and price, although the speed difference is much like the importance of TRIM; both are overstated and over-emphasized to ridiculous levels. I advocate the Intel as I refuse to pay more money for a drive that is cheaper to produce, theoretically inferior in longevity by design, has unknown reliability, and with may makers has questionable quality. That is just plain ridiculous.
 
still waiting for my laptop to arrive, but i plan on installing the intel 510 series when it arrives. Do I need to do anything to the laptop to make the switch?
 
NickZac said:
ElmCrest uses 34nm flash memory, which is more expensive to produce. It will last longer than twenty-some nm flash memory used on the Vertex 3 and virtually all other SSDs. While the longevity of both memory sizes are so great that it may be irrelevant to most users, the 34nm flash memory has proven itself to be ridiculously reliable, which has not been seen on the newer memory simply because it is newer and not time tested. The fewer read/write cycles and lower cost of production should make 2x nm drives from OCZ and OWC MUCH cheaper, but this is not the case. Also, they are in many cases, slower, as 25nm drives run significantly slower from identical 34nm drives.

Simply said, the Intel drive is superior to the Vertex 3 in every way except speed and price, although the speed difference is much like the importance of TRIM; both are overstated and over-emphasized to ridiculous levels. I advocate the Intel as I refuse to pay more money for a drive that is cheaper to produce, theoretically inferior in longevity by design, has unknown reliability, and with may makers has questionable quality. That is just plain ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I see...i think this reply might have changed my mind. Does Crucial use 34nm or 25nm?
 
NickZac said:
Also, they are in many cases, slower, as 25nm drives run significantly slower from identical 34nm drives.
Click to expand...

That is not true. I guess you are referring to the infamous OCZ case. The performance is the same as long as the amounts of NANDs is equal. In the OCZ case, OCZ used higher capacity NANDs in some lower-end models, meaning that less channels were populated. For example in the 64GB model, it used to use 16x4GB 32nm NANDs but when OCZ switched to 25nm, they doubled the density and used only eight 8GB NANDs. When less channels are populated, the performance degrades. However, being 25nm or 34nm does not affect this, at least not significantly.

daneoni said:
I see...i think this reply might have changed my mind. Does Crucial use 34nm or 25nm?
Click to expand...

M4-series uses 25nm.
 
daneoni said:
^
But the 34nm drives have proven reliability right?
Click to expand...

Well, you can take a look at various threads about Vertex 2 for instance and see that it is not always the case. If something fails, it is usually the controller, not the flash memory itself, so in my opinion, the claim that 25nm NANDs are not as reliable is not valid.
 
^
So in essence its down to Intel vs Sandforce controllers.

Funny enough i think i'll likely stick with Crucial, they provide 5 yr warranty, Intel = 3yrs & OCZ = 1yr. That's just too low for me. So it's either Intel or Crucial after all and i'm leaning towards the latter.
 
Last edited:
daneoni said:
^
So in essence its down to Intel vs Sandforce controllers.
Click to expand...

There are other manufacturers too. SandForce don't make any SSDs, they just make controllers. Many OEMs such as OCZ, OWC, Corsair and G.Skill use their controllers. In general, Intel uses their own controllers but the 510 series is an exception since they use a Marvell controller which is the same that is found in Crucial/Micron M4. Then there are smaller manufacturers like Toshiba, Indilinx and Samsung.

Funny enough i think i'll likely stick with Crucial, they provide 5 yr warranty, Intel = 3yrs & OCZ = 1yr. That's just too low for me. So it's either Intel or Crucial after all and i'm leaning towards the latter.
Click to expand...

Crucial is a good choice. It has its share of problems too but I'm starting to think that these issues are more related to the SATA 6Gb/s in MBPs, the actual SSDs should be fine. Maybe the EFI update fixes these.

http://forum.crucial.com/t5/Solid-S...in-2011-15-quot-MacBook-Pro-2-2GHz/td-p/46234
http://forum.crucial.com/t5/Solid-State-Drives-SSD/M4-512gb-Macbook-Pro-15-i7-2-3-2011/td-p/45848
 
Hellhammer said:
There are other manufacturers too. SandForce don't make any SSDs, they just make controllers. Many OEMs such as OCZ, OWC, Corsair and G.Skill use their controllers. In general, Intel uses their own controllers but the 510 series is an exception since they use a Marvell controller which is the same that is found in Crucial/Micron M4. Then there are smaller manufacturers like Toshiba, Indilinx and Samsung.
Click to expand...


When talking about Samsung:

Are there any reports about the 470 Series in the 2011 MBPs?.....can you recommend this one overall? I could get a pretty good deal for the 128GB version but I'm curious why nobody is discussing this drive in the latest threads.....
 
Last edited:
daneoni said:
^
But the 34nm drives have proven reliability right?
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with reliability. 34nm NAND is rated at 5000 write cycles per cell and 25nm NAND is rated at 3000 wrote cycles per cell. That is the difference. In normal usage, either will outlast your computer and this is not an issue.
 
Hellhammer said:
There are other manufacturers too. SandForce don't make any SSDs, they just make controllers. Many OEMs such as OCZ, OWC, Corsair and G.Skill use their controllers. In general, Intel uses their own controllers but the 510 series is an exception since they use a Marvell controller which is the same that is found in Crucial/Micron M4. Then there are smaller manufacturers like Toshiba, Indilinx and Samsung.

Crucial is a good choice. It has its share of problems too but I'm starting to think that these issues are more related to the SATA 6Gb/s in MBPs, the actual SSDs should be fine. Maybe the EFI update fixes these.

http://forum.crucial.com/t5/Solid-S...in-2011-15-quot-MacBook-Pro-2-2GHz/td-p/46234
http://forum.crucial.com/t5/Solid-State-Drives-SSD/M4-512gb-Macbook-Pro-15-i7-2-3-2011/td-p/45848
Click to expand...

Weaselboy said:
It has nothing to do with reliability. 34nm NAND is rated at 5000 write cycles per cell and 25nm NAND is rated at 3000 wrote cycles per cell. That is the difference. In normal usage, either will outlast your computer and this is not an issue.
Click to expand...

If either of you were to buy an SATA III SSD in the 240-256GB range now which would you pick?
 
Last edited:
ApplePu said:
When talking about Samsung:

Are there any reports about the 470 Series in the 2011 MBPs?.....can you recommend this one overall? I could get a pretty good deal for the 128GB version but I'm curious why nobody is discussing this drive in the latest threads.....
Click to expand...

A quick MRoogle search yields couple of results but it isn't a very popular drive. None of them reported any issues though so it could be a good option.

Weaselboy said:
Intel 510 or Crucial M4. Intel historically seems more reliable, but you pay for that.
Click to expand...

I agree. SandForce based drives are fast but their failure rates seem to be the highest and at least the previous generation suffered from the firmware issues. Intel or Crucial should be a safe and stable choice.
 
Hellhammer said:
A quick MRoogle search yields couple of results but it isn't a very popular drive. None of them reported any issues though so it could be a good option.
Click to expand...

That's kind of strange that not more user are going for the samsung. After reading several reviews the samsung provides really good battery life, it could probably compensate a bit of the increased power consumption when using a 7200 rpm drive in the optibay. Additionally, as Apple is installing this drive in the MBA already, it could be supported by the 10.6.7 TRIM feature.

Of course it is not as fast as the newest SATA3 models, but according to the reviews it even tops the benchmarks of an intel x25-m or even a crucial c300. But honestly, in real life usage, I can't imagine that somebody can tell the difference of a Vertex 3 and for example a x25-m. I sometimes think that we let us drive crazy by studying benchmark tables too much.

I guess I'll opt for the Samsung and a 750GB Scorpio Black when my 15" MBP arrives next week.......
 
ApplePu said:
Additionally, as Apple is installing this drive in the MBA already, it could be supported by the 10.6.7 TRIM feature.
Click to expand...

There is no guarantee that the drive Apple uses in some MBAs is the same as Samsung 470. Even then, TRIM will only be enabled if the model of your SSD is "APPLE SSD something". You can, however, enable TRIM with TRIM Enabler ;)

Of course it is not as fast as the newest SATA3 models, but according to the reviews it even tops the benchmarks of an intel x25-m or even a crucial c300. But honestly, in real life usage, I can't imagine that somebody can tell the difference of a Vertex 3 and for example a x25-m. I sometimes think that we let us drive crazy by studying benchmark tables too much.

I guess I'll opt for the Samsung and a 750GB Scorpio Black when my 15" MBP arrives next week.......
Click to expand...

I guess the main reason why people have avoided Samsung 470 series is that it at least used to be pretty expensive. Nowadays, it seems to be reasonably priced but other OEMs have updated their drives too. Looks like it is a good choice though
 
ApplePu said:
That's kind of strange that not more user are going for the samsung. After reading several reviews the samsung provides really good battery life, it could probably compensate a bit of the increased power consumption when using a 7200 rpm drive in the optibay. Additionally, as Apple is installing this drive in the MBA already, it could be supported by the 10.6.7 TRIM feature.

Of course it is not as fast as the newest SATA3 models, but according to the reviews it even tops the benchmarks of an intel x25-m or even a crucial c300. But honestly, in real life usage, I can't imagine that somebody can tell the difference of a Vertex 3 and for example a x25-m. I sometimes think that we let us drive crazy by studying benchmark tables too much.

I guess I'll opt for the Samsung and a 750GB Scorpio Black when my 15" MBP arrives next week.......
Click to expand...

There's a substantial difference in everyday usage. The Vertex is twice as fast. It's not just artificial benchmarks, as the benchmarks are designed (some of them) to reflect normal usage (these people aren't total dummies who are testing these ;) )

I have a Vertex 3 250GB and it's just the next stage up from the X25, which I previously owned for quite a while.

It's just the never ending cycle of denial and acceptance and the poverty that results :D
 
mac jones said:
There's a substantial difference in everyday usage. The Vertex is twice as fast. It's not just artificial benchmarks, as the benchmarks are designed (some of them) to reflect normal usage (these people aren't total dummies who are testing these ;) )

I have a Vertex 3 250GB and it's just the next stage up from the X25, which I previously owned for quite a while.

It's just the never ending cycle of denial and acceptance and the poverty that results :D
Click to expand...

So yes if one owned both drives, he has sort of an before and after direct comparison similar to have two machines beside each other and you are doing a boot up test.But:

If one doesn't have used both before and you give him a mbp with an ssd inside, he'll never ever be able to say if it is an x25 or a vertex 3. agree?

and with "driving crazy by benchmarks" I mean:

For example your case! I can't believe that you just thought some day while working on the x25: man, this thingy is terribly slow, I need a faster drive urgently. No, you were reading the news about new generation ssds coming up and mbps that will support sata3 and then looking at some benchmarks you thought: woooooah, that's a pretty huge step forward. and then you did buy the new equipment.

Can you feel what I mean?
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the good information.

One thing is clear, the SandForce controller had experienced sub-par support for Mac.

I had have very good experience buying my stuff from OWC, and obviously I haven't bought any SSD.

One thing I still do not fully understand is the difference between:
- TRIM
- Over Provisioning
- ECC Error Correction
- SandForce RAISE™ (Redundant Array of Independent Silicon Elements
- DuraWrite™ wear-leveling and block management technologies to keep Read/Write performance at peak while others see performance fall
- Garbage Collector
Many of these seem like marketing terms used by OWC or SandForce

Is TRIM always needed or is it something that applies only for SSD that don't use the SandForce controller?
 
Last edited:
ApplePu said:
So yes if one owned both drives, he has sort of an before and after direct comparison similar to have two machines beside each other and you are doing a boot up test.But:

If one doesn't have used both before and you give him a mbp with an ssd inside, he'll never ever be able to say if it is an x25 or a vertex 3. agree?

and with "driving crazy by benchmarks" I mean:

For example your case! I can't believe that you just thought some day while working on the x25: man, this thingy is terribly slow, I need a faster drive urgently. No, you were reading the news about new generation ssds coming up and mbps that will support sata3 and then looking at some benchmarks you thought: woooooah, that's a pretty huge step forward. and then you did buy the new equipment.

Can you feel what I mean?
Click to expand...

Yes of course. What you don't know can't hurt you (or your wallet) :D
 
besides the m4 for crucial and Intel 510, would anyone recommend another crucial ssd or the Intel 320?

I'm also leaning towards the vertex 3 since I have a great relationship with bhphotovideo which is where I order from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back