OCZ Vertex 3 128GB IOPs

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by pazz, Jun 20, 2011.

  1. pazz macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2010
    Location:
    London, England
    #1
  2. dagamer34 macrumors 65816

    dagamer34

    Joined:
    May 1, 2007
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #2
    It works fine, just don't run the TRIM enabler. That will cause random beach balls.
     
  3. basesloaded190 macrumors 68030

    basesloaded190

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    #3
    It's hit or miss. Most are having great success with the drive, but you will see problems from others.
     
  4. pazz thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2010
    Location:
    London, England
    #4
    I wondered if it was just windows users which were experiencing issues?
     
  5. motoracer1486 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    #5
    I had it and had beach balls until I disabled the TRIM hack. No problems since.
     
  6. Fugue macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    #6
    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?
     
  7. Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #7
    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.
     
  8. djrobsd macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 2, 2008
    #8
    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). :)
     
  9. pazz thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2010
    Location:
    London, England
    #9
    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.
     
  10. Fugue macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    #10
    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?
     
  11. maclaptop macrumors 65816

    maclaptop

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    #11
    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
     
  12. Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #12
  13. pazz thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2010
    Location:
    London, England
    #13
    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.
     
  14. pazz thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2010
    Location:
    London, England
    #14
  15. Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #15
    I agree. 3.5 stars would have been more fair.

    I wasn't the one picking the amount of stars. I did write the review.
     
  16. pazz thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2010
    Location:
    London, England
    #16
    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.
     
  17. Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #17
    Xbench and AJA System test are two common ways of testing hard drive performance in OS X.
     
  18. pazz thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2010
    Location:
    London, England
    #18
    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]
     
  19. pazz thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2010
    Location:
    London, England
    #19
    Stupidity at its best... I've just realised Anand is using the 250Gb and we all know

    MORE NAND PER DIE = MORE SPEED
     
  20. Bossieman, Jun 23, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2011

    Bossieman macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2011
    #22
    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
     

    Attached Files:

  21. derlockere macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    #23
    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
     

    Attached Files:

Share This Page