OWC vs Vertex vs Crucial vs Intel (Benchmarks)

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by lavrishevo, Apr 28, 2011.

  1. lavrishevo, Apr 28, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2011

    lavrishevo macrumors 68000

    lavrishevo

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Location:
    NJ
    #1
    For those looking for some solid benchmarks this is a great article I found. Check link below for all the details.

    http://www.storagereview.com/owc_mercury_extreme_pro_6g_ssd_review_240gb
     
  2. mak713 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2007
  3. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #3
    Really?


    Really?
     
  4. lavrishevo thread starter macrumors 68000

    lavrishevo

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Location:
    NJ
    #4
    OWC Extreme Pro 6G and the Vertex 3 really seem like the best two drives for the new MacBook Pro.
     
  5. DarwinOSX macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    #5
    Not much of a review and they obviously don't have much experience with OWC.

    They have released drives before they were ready, you can only install their firmware updates using Windows, and they do not assemble their own drives.
     
  6. mediasorcerer macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2010
    #6
    yes,you have some valid points,but,if you want hi performance,these two are basically top of the range,and represent the best on offer for enthusiasts,who often manage to overcome the pecularitis associated with firmware updates and the like,id rather owc at the end of the day,cos larry seems like a good bloke,and has looked after me really well so far.:D
     
  7. dusk007 macrumors 68040

    dusk007

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    #7
    They really need to work out the power consumption issue. The SF 2200 still needs more in idle than the 1200 under load. With modern laptops sucking in 5-8 W in low usage conditions it does make a difference. Since it is only some chip that can wake almost instantly they really should work out some low power idle state.
     
  8. revelated macrumors 6502a

    revelated

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    #8
    To copy what someone said before -

    Really?

    I'm curious. Why is it everyone is gunning for ultimate speed? A better question is, everyone across the web seems to indicate that the Intel SSDs are the most reliable and dependable. So why is it they are being ignored? Are people really that tuned-out to their data that they don't care if they lose it? If I were asked what the best SSD was (and I was just asked that when I sold my old Big Apple yesterday), I'm pointing them to Intel. Reliability > Speed anyday, especially when said speed increase is not noticeable to any but the most OCD of users.
     
  9. MastaK macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    #9
    Great review, I'm glad to be one of the first to get this drive and problem free. :cool:
     
  10. beaker7 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    #10
    If reliability is most important to you, you should be using enterprise grade hard drives or SLC SSD's in RAID 1.

    Or just back up regularly.

    At my office we've been running OCZ and OWC SSD's of each generation. Workstation here has several in RAID 0. Never had one die.
     
  11. DustinT macrumors 68000

    DustinT

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    #11
    Storage Review is one of the very oldest, most established and reliable drive sites. You can be quite sure they know what they are talking about. Yes, Intel has a better reputation but their performance is really lagging behind this round.

    Sandforce is on top which means OCZ and OWC are the only two drives worth talking about in terms of highest performance. As far as reliability goes, I'd love to see a study comparing failure rates for these drives.
     

Share This Page