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

New Macbook Pro: between two SSDs

R

rognu

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jul 23, 2008
9
0
I'm buying a new Macbook Pro.

I want to mount a ssd disk "aftermarket" (I mean to buy a ssd after the MBP an install it myself).

I'm aware of the performance degradation problem and the absence of TRIM under MacOS.
I also know the way to recover performance wiping out the unit (with Carbon Copy Cloner and a usb disk there is no problem).

I'm between two disks:

- Intel G2 160GB -> 430€ = 580$
- Corsair F200 200GB -> 680€ = 920$


The Corsair has the new SF-1200 controller and, Intel, well his own (very good and compatible with Mac).
The SF it is supposed to be better and has 40gb more space. But it's also expensive, and I don't know if it's compatible with the MacBook Pro
:confused:

I don't if the new Macbook has a new SATA controller and how it works with SSDs.

Any experiences/suggestions?
 
Intel X25-M

I just finished installing a 160GB Intel X25-M into my new 2010 MBP 13" and I am absolutely amazed. I cannot recommend it highly enough. After doing the research online, the consensus was that the Intel is the best drive controller/architecture on the market. You will not be disappointed.
 
You should also look at the crucial m225 256 gb. it has pretty good reviews and a very good price. I just ordered one and I'll let you know how it is when I get it.
 
It also has some kind of garbage control firmware so it does not need the os to support trim
 
SaddleSC said:
I just finished installing a 160GB Intel X25-M into my new 2010 MBP 13" and I am absolutely amazed. I cannot recommend it highly enough. After doing the research online, the consensus was that the Intel is the best drive controller/architecture on the market. You will not be disappointed.
Click to expand...

Good to know. Tell me more please :) What aspects do you like the best ? What would a user who has used HDDs his whole life experience with this SSD on a Mac for the first time ?
 
ttran88 said:
It also has some kind of garbage control firmware so it does not need the os to support trim
Click to expand...

The Crucial has a very good price for being 256GB: 740$ (550€)

As far as I know the Garbage Collection feature in all (all?) ssds are for NTFS file system. There is no one for HFS+ (mac file system).

So, to wipe out every certain time. I would like not to, but thats the way it is.

So, I want the most compatible one. I tried an OCZ Agility with my previous [current] MBP and was no way to make it work; It ended in another computer :(

So thats why I want to be sure. I found a store where they change the disk if you want. They have the Intel, but not the Crucial or the Corsair.
The have one with the SandForce SF-1222 called Mach Xtreme Technology: 200gb and 940$ (700€). :confused:


:confused:




Im from Spain, so the prices are terrible... :(
 
looking and looking I saw that Crucial says in his webpage that its compatible with MacOS. Mach Xtreme has even the Certificate.
And Intel it is also compatible.

So, the next step is to look reviews and find out how well works each one.
For instance, which of those have problems with recovering from the suspend mode, etc.

And of course, the price, availability, size...

So, again, I would appreciate all kinds of experiences
 
rognu said:
As far as I know the Garbage Collection feature in all (all?) ssds are for NTFS file system. There is no one for HFS+ (mac file system).
Click to expand...
Than you're misinformed. Only some Samsung ssd's have garbage collection that looks like trim because it is specifically targeted at NTFS. This comes with a lot of technical complexity and is known for causing things like dataloss. Luckily other manufacturers do not do this. They use the internal NAND launderer functionality to clean out the NAND cells. They have no idea of whatever filesystem is being used and they don't operate at a filesystem level whatsoever.

In other words: nearly all ssd's do not care for the filesystem regarding garbage collection. Only some Samsung ssd's do. There is no need for HFS+ support.

So, I want the most compatible one. I tried an OCZ Agility with my previous [current] MBP and was no way to make it work; It ended in another computer :(
Click to expand...
Anything with an Indilinx Barefoot controller, an Intel ssd (Kingston has a rebranded Intel ssd) or one with the new Sandforce controller. Anything other than those will have bigger problems regarding the slowdown in speed that you see when the ssd gets filled with data and some (like a certain Jmicron controller) have other problems such as stuttering.

If you want to go OCZ, either go Vertex (Indilinx Barefoot) or Vertex 2 (Sandforce). The Agility is cheaper but that's because it's not as good as the Vertex/Vertex 2. Check out some reviews, especially those at Anandtech (great ssd articles that explain the technical details of ssd technology as well).
 
SSDs

My stock Toshiba SSD in my 2009 MBP was significantly slower one year later to the point I felt it was comparable to a hard drive.

I did like the totally silent nature of the SSD.

I found I hated the sound of the CD-ROM--that was the only noise producing device. I also hated the bootup sound, and fussed around with various methods of killing that. Apple should make that go away, or give an option to permanently kill that sound.
 
SaddleSC said:
I just finished installing a 160GB Intel X25-M into my new 2010 MBP 13" and I am absolutely amazed. I cannot recommend it highly enough. After doing the research online, the consensus was that the Intel is the best drive controller/architecture on the market. You will not be disappointed.
Click to expand...

I put one of these in my Mac Pro and had a similar feeling--at first. It is slower now a year later. Still I would not change it for anything. I am (was) waiting for prices to drop, and they have. I'd be putting in another pair in soon. Two in a RAID array is my goal, and then I'll reformat and install the old on in my Mac Mini--which should make that device run much cooler. I rate SSD's the most significant change in computing since the PDP-11. I've been waiting for solid state drives for 30 years. Thankfully, they are here and affordable now. Give us bigger and faster now.
 
The Crucial C300 is lucrative in terms of specs but I'd stay away from it for the time being. It has firmware bugs that have been officially acknowledged by Crucial - http://www.forum.crucial.com/t5/Solid-State-Drives-SSD/Crucial-RealSSD-C300/m-p/11880. You can also read some of the users complaining about the speed of the drives.

Also, Anand Shimp of Anandtech.com actually managed to brick his C300 test SSD in a matter of hours. So till they get these bugs straightened out, the best bet is to go for the Intel X-25M Postville.
 
I've got the OCZ Vertex 128GB SSD in my Core i7. barefeats.com is about to publish test results comparing the speed of a few different SSD makes and models (including Apple's 512GB SSD) in the new MacBook Pro. Robert at barefeats had me run some speed tests on my setup and, though the article hasn't yet been published, he's already hinted that, while my Vertex SSD isn't the fastest, it's also not the slowest.

Now here's the important part.... Some of the SSDs that he's comparing are brand new. My OCZ Vertex has been used in my previous MacBook Pro for about a year before moving it to the new one. The OCZ Vertex (with firmware 1.41 or 1.5) has built-in Garbage Collection, which helps prevent the infamous slowdown some users report. And, though I haven't seen the final article, my feeling is that my 1-year old OCZ Vertex is testing right up there with comparable speed to the brand new SSDs.

So.... if you are worried about slowdown over time, choose your SSD carefully! :)

Mark
 
NightSailor said:
My stock Toshiba SSD in my 2009 MBP was significantly slower one year later to the point I felt it was comparable to a hard drive.
Click to expand...

This is one of the big advantages of the newer units Apple is using - while they're not quite as fast as the Intel units (pretty fast for most desktop type applications, wretchedly bad for server type apps), tests by various folks have revealed almost no slowdown with use, which is probably one of the most important criteria for the typical end user.
 
JimAtLaw said:
This is one of the big advantages of the newer units Apple is using - while they're not quite as fast as the Intel units (pretty fast for most desktop type applications, wretchedly bad for server type apps), tests by various folks have revealed almost no slowdown with use, which is probably one of the most important criteria for the typical end user.
Click to expand...

Most all of the newer SSD drives don't suffer slowdown due to TRIM or Garbage Collection.

Mark
 
dusk007 said:
OSX doesn't support TRIM till now :-(.
Click to expand...

But Garbage Collection works without the need for Trim. And does it on its own during idle time.

My OCZ Vertex tests at the same speed now as it did before a year of use. No Trim involved, just GC.

Choose your SSD wisely!

Mark
 
thanks thanks thanks !

So, the choice is between: Indilinx Barefoot, Intel and Sandforce.

The cheapest (465$) is The Intel X25m. Thats 160GB.

If I want more space the options are:

- OCZ Vertex -> 250gb -> 930$ -> Indilinx Barefoot (I've seen in ocz forums that not always work).
- OCZ Vertex2 -> 200gb -> 1075$ -> Sandforce sf-1200
- Mach Xtreme -> 200gb ->930$ -> Sandforce sf-1222 (MacOS certified)


OCZ doesn't guarantee the compatibility with mac (a bit of a lottery). The Intel cost half but it's smaller and, not more, but it slow down with time. Looks like the perfect option would be the Mach Xtreme. What worries me is that in Anandtech they say that the Sandforce is very new and the early users should be careful to adopt it.

The intel, has a good price, but its small and you should left 20gb of free space to slow down degradation, so 140gb...
The 200gb sandforce, is actually a 256gb with those 56gb already reserved for that, so you have 200gb.

Still doubting....


* There is another choice. If the Apple ssd don't suffer slowdown, it can be ordered with the MBP for 670$ more. No problems but its considerably slower.
 
I am personally waiting on the sidelines on the whole SSD thing for now. I would really love to get one but the current prices and performance degradation stuff makes me want to wait. I think if you give it 6-9 months they will be a lot cheaper and better drives out there. Personally I think my new 17" i7 w/8GB of memory flies plenty fast as it is. I can only imagine how amazing the addition of an SSD would be to this, so it will be worth the wait
 
investigating:

The 256gb ssd of the new macbook pro:

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1230/1/

The Toshiba like the Samsung ssd are meant to be compatible not powerful.

The review shows that, despite it doesn't do a bad job, is far from an Intel or a Vertex. Especially regarding IOMeter and, well, everything else.
Has a strength: the good relation capacity/price. Besides, as I said before, the compatibility.

I tempted to order the MBP with the 256gb ssd. Mainly because a time issue. I would follow the SandForce based units and may be I would purchase one in a year or so; depending on the performance of the Toshiba.
That looks like a good idea for me. It's fast, good priced and without problems. I have a lot of things to do this week so I'll think about it and I'll decide in two days or so.
 
This has been discussed pretty thoroughly in the forums so I hesitate to fuel the discussion here too much. Go to Anandtech for more information than you could ever want- there is no better source.

I have the Corsair F100 in a new i7 17" and it works great so far- I don't wait for anything to happen. I can't speak to any slowdown since I have only had it for a few days.
 
f200 in mid 2009 mbp

Corsair F200 in mbp (mid-2009) - going strong. Xbench Disk = 246.78
 
Gorilla Power said:
The Crucial C300 is lucrative in terms of specs but I'd stay away from it for the time being. It has firmware bugs that have been officially acknowledged by Crucial - http://www.forum.crucial.com/t5/Solid-State-Drives-SSD/Crucial-RealSSD-C300/m-p/11880. You can also read some of the users complaining about the speed of the drives.

Also, Anand Shimp of Anandtech.com actually managed to brick his C300 test SSD in a matter of hours. So till they get these bugs straightened out, the best bet is to go for the Intel X-25M Postville.
Click to expand...

No probs with mine ;-)
 

Attachments

  • c300.png
    c300.png
    101.9 KB · Views: 118
wader said:
Corsair F200 in mbp (mid-2009) - going strong. Xbench Disk = 246.78
Click to expand...

my F200 was not good, it was way slower than the OWC Extreme
I replaced it with and my MBP was crashing after sleep all the time.
Does yours show SMART status properly?
Yeah, mine was around 250 in xbench, but OWC is more than 370...


Never again any Corsair for me...
 
Gorilla Power said:
The Crucial C300 is lucrative in terms of specs but I'd stay away from it for the time being. It has firmware bugs that have been officially acknowledged by Crucial - http://www.forum.crucial.com/t5/Solid-State-Drives-SSD/Crucial-RealSSD-C300/m-p/11880. You can also read some of the users complaining about the speed of the drives.

Also, Anand Shimp of Anandtech.com actually managed to brick his C300 test SSD in a matter of hours. So till they get these bugs straightened out, the best bet is to go for the Intel X-25M Postville.
Click to expand...

And is the C300 much faster than an M225? The C300 has SATA-6 which is a future proofing feature right now and can't immediately be taken advantage of. Is any increased speed worth the higher price at this point? I'm sure this drive will drop in price in the future.
 
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