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

pazz

macrumors regular
Original poster
Feb 21, 2010
138
1
London, England
Is anyone running this drive on a 2011 MBP?

OCZ-Vertex-3-Max-IOPS-edition-SSD.jpg


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227714&Tpk=vertex%203%20max%20iops

I'm curious to know if its 100% compatible and doesnt freeze as quite a few Windows users have been experiencing.
 
Two questions:

1) I heard the battery life is shortened drastically when putting the MBP to sleep with an SSD. Currently with a HDD, it drains roughly 1% per hour. How will the SSD affect it?

2) Sandforce drives have their own garbage collection that they do not need TRIM?
 
Keep two things in mind before you buy this drive.

1. Power consumption is relatively high

2. reliability of Sandforce SSDs is below Intel, Samsung and Crucial. Have a look on Newegg.com to see what I mean.
 
I bought its counterpart, the OCZ Agility 3.... Seems to work so far so good, but only had it a day, so we'll see how it holds up over time. The Agility 3 is pretty close to the Vertex 3 in terms of performance specs.

My computer is lightening fast... Getting almost 400mb/s speeds in the AJA System test, even with the drive being 80% full (I restored from Time Machine backup). :)
 
I went for the Intel 510 due to a variety of reasons...

1) The Vertex 3 Max IOPs (in the UK) carry's a £40 (20%) premium.
2) OCZ forum has a massive number of unhappy consumers.
3) Reliability > Speed for me personally. SSD's are not cheap.
3) Power consumption as analysed on Anandtech's review of Vertex 3 is on the high side.
 
I went for the Intel 510 due to a variety of reasons...

1) The Vertex 3 Max IOPs (in the UK) carry's a £40 (20%) premium.
2) OCZ forum has a massive number of unhappy consumers.
3) Reliability > Speed for me personally. SSD's are not cheap.
3) Power consumption as analysed on Anandtech's review of Vertex 3 is on the high side.

I have read many reports of the 510 acting up on MBP's. Most recommend the 320 it seems.

Do all SSD's hurt battery life, especially during sleep?
 
I wondered if it was just windows users which were experiencing issues?
After the last few years of testing and using various SSD's, I decided on the 240GB OCZ Vertex 3 for my 2010 MBP (OS X 10.6.5, no TRIM).

In addition I installed 2 of them in my new W520 ThinkPad (Win 7 Pro with TRIM).

They have performed very well, been very stable and quite satisfying. I purchased these upon release and have a lot of run time on all three. They have been flawless.

That said, going forward I expect much longer MTBF from the ThinkPad since it has TRIM.

Here is a good comprehensive review which also mentions the drive you have asked about. In conclusion they say;

"When we previewed the 240GB Vertex 3 it looked like game over for the SandForce competitors this round. With the final hardware tested, I have to agree with our original conclusion. If you're spending $500 on a drive, the 240GB Vertex 3 is your best bet."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4316/ocz-vertex-3-240gb-review/1
 
I have read many reports of the 510 acting up on MBP's. Most recommend the 320 it seems.

Do all SSD's hurt battery life, especially during sleep?

320 is a no go option as only SATA 2 3GBPS. I have a 2011 model so would be stupid not to find a SATA 3 device.
 
Just literally installed the Intel 510 and all seems to be running sweet. Just need a few benchmarks, if anyone could recommend any?

Also, I'm a bit of a mac newbie so could anyone suggest the best way to run windows? Am I correct in thinking that if I partition using bootcamp then install parralells that it will import and run the bootcamp partition? I'd like to have the option of either virtualising or bootcamping into windows.
 
Xbench and AJA System test are two common ways of testing hard drive performance in OS X.
 
Slightly weird figures, some up but some down on what has been recorded on Anandtech for 13".

Results 334.04
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.6.7 (10J4138)
Physical RAM 4096 MB
Model MacBookPro8,1
Drive Type INTEL SSDSC2MH120A2
Disk Test 334.04
Sequential 212.53
Uncached Write 195.51 120.04 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 309.00 174.83 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 113.39 33.18 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 605.96 304.55 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 779.96
Uncached Write 579.59 61.36 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 520.25 166.55 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 2093.79 14.84 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 996.64 184.93 MB/sec [256K blocks]
 
Stupidity at its best... I've just realised Anand is using the 250Gb and we all know

MORE NAND PER DIE = MORE SPEED
 
I have this drive in my 2011 17" and so far no beachballs. I got this result for Xbench. Can someone tell if those numbers are good or bad?

EDIT: Tested with AJA System test and got this
 

Attachments

  • Skärmavbild 2011-06-23 kl. 21.11.53.png
    Skärmavbild 2011-06-23 kl. 21.11.53.png
    101.4 KB · Views: 85
  • Skärmavbild 2011-06-23 kl. 22.03.26.png
    Skärmavbild 2011-06-23 kl. 22.03.26.png
    66.3 KB · Views: 72
Last edited:
These are my scores, seem to be very close to yours.

I use it in the HDD bay and am not having any issues with Beachballing or other stuff. However ones the MBP didn't come back after sleep, but this happened once in two weeks and might yield from a plethora of things.
15" 2011 MBP 2.2 / 8GB
 

Attachments

  • Screen-shot-2011-06-24-at-11.06.jpg
    Screen-shot-2011-06-24-at-11.06.jpg
    124.4 KB · Views: 81
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.