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

OWC Worth It?

I went for OCZ Vertex 3 MI. And it's working very well. I would have bought an OWC SSD, but they are hard to get in Switzerland.
I think, buying an OWC SSD is a very good choice, if not the best. They give you a 5 year warranty, exceptional support and service. And a Tier 1/Grade A flash garantie. And as mentioned before, they are manufactured in the USA.
 
hawk1410 said:
OWC does claim that their products are built especially for Macs, but that is not true, they must be using flash chips from an OEM like everyone else, basically making their product not so different.
Click to expand...

OWC does not claim that their products are built especially for macs. they claim that some of their products like their SSDs and RAM are "Fully tested and Apple Qualified". for example, they test their memory and SSDs in Macs in their lab. i bought 24GB for my Mac Pro recently, and the RAM was the exact same that shipped with my Mac Pro, Samsung memory, no OWC label on them.
 
Last edited:
ahdickter said:
So then whats the advantage of shelling out another $65 for the Pro over the Electra?
Click to expand...

the only differences are that the Electra uses asynchronous memory and the Extreme uses Synchronous memory, and the Incompressible data rate is different between the two.

OWC Mercury Electra 6G Incompressible data rate
Read: 208MB/s
Write: 235MB/s

OWC Mercury Extreme Pro 6G Incompressible data rate
Read: 479MB/s
Write: 282MB/s

OWC's website says, " the OWC Mercury EXTREME Pro 6G is optimized to handle incompressible (already compressed) file types, like those used by audio, video, photography professionals, for the fastest performance available."
 
Last edited:
At the present time, our entire 6G line is pretty much the fastest Sandforce based product in the market. We don't build with whatever we can get, but rather with top tier parts and for specific flash configurations that provide the best performance. Our OWC Mercury Extreme Pro 6G 240GB has been reviewed against both Vertex 3 and Vertex 3 'MI' and out performs both. Our current 120GB Mercury Extreme Pro 6G is currently being reviewed and is the fastest 120GB as well.. Our Mercury Electra 6G Async flash models beat competing Agility 3 equiv competition and even perform well against various Sync solutions due to the configs we have selected.

As for Mac compatibility - we build these with the focus on the Macs. Honestly, most of the issues that do come up are related to specifics found either exclusively or mainly on the Mac Platform. This does make a big difference, especially for some of the more hairy stuff that affects specific models.

And - of a lot more importance, we are about to make our firmware update utility for the Mac platform publicly available. Owners of OWC SSD models will no longer need to own Windows and make a Windows boot disc to run the Sandforce utility when a firmware update is needed, a very user friendly OWC custom utility will soon be available to handle this.

to say the very least, the Mac platform isn't secondary for us and it does make a difference... and in fact, also results in better/wider compatibility and stability for our PC customers as well. There is a hardware difference in our SSD 6G design that we believe is why our SSD products have no Windows Blue Screen bug issue while is present with our competitors.

Thanks! 🙂
 
First off - various competition builds a lot differently than we do. OCZ has used OEM and even Spectek grade (lower than OEM grade) parts to build even their Vertex SSDs. This does make a difference. There are other design differences that we also know make a difference when it comes to comparing our SSD to the OCZ and more than just the Tier 1 flash we use as well.

On memory - there is a difference between memory that will work in a PC and the same spec memory that will work in BOTH Macs and PCs... product that has no issue in PCs, does in various Macs. On FB-DIMMs for Apple Mac Pro and Xserve - we only use IDT AMBs for those modules and they happen to cost a lot more than the other AMBs which are typically found on modules.. but using an AMB that is not the IDT results in short term and long term issues or conflicts with other correct modules - which is also why Apple has only the IDT Approved.

We maintain a lab of Macs here unlike any other memory manufacturer in the world for testing that occurs day in and day out to ensure full Mac reliability. Even some dies have issue from the same chip maker... where one die revision is fine, they move to a new revision and issues occur. Once again also, when there is an issue that affects MAcs - it usually also affects some PCs as well - so if the memory is solid for the Mac, it's great for the PC side as well and for more than some as well. Apple holds to tighter standards and requirements and is less accommodating than various PCs.

Back to point though.... no other controller provides the long term performance levels or data reliability through wear-leveling and real-time ECC/RAISE 'DuraWrite' technologies than what you find in the Sandforce based solutions. We are very proud and honored to be utilizing the Sandforce processor in our SSD line up.

hawk1410 said:
I did not say that OCZ is better than OWC, i know both use SF controllers. I have not really used OWC SSDs but their Mac Certified Ram stuff(ie selling the same RAM at a higher price and explaining it is because their ram is specially built for MAC) just gave me a bad impression of the company. That is why i did not state any facts or stuff in my post, i said i would never be comfortable buying an OWC product. Never said they were a bad company or not worth buying, but i would never buy their products(apart from maybe their Data Doubler), just a personal opinion.
Click to expand...
 
ahdickter said:
I've been thinking about purchasing a 128GB SATA III SSD, and everyone seems to have good and bad things to say about almost any SSD mentioned. But I haven't heard many people talk about the OWC SSD's. Is it worth it to buy from OWC or should I go with an OCZ Vertex 3 (or some other variant?)
Click to expand...
OWC has taken a page from Apple marketing, and convinced many that their products are "special" and just for Mac.

I've had mixed results after many purchases from OWC over the years. I've generally found that the alternative choices are every bit as good, and in most cases, a better value. But that's just one users experience.

Working in a cross platform environment I select, test, and use a lot of difference premium brands of hardware. For my MBP's I'm currently using 240GB Vertex 3 models with great success.
 
OWC Mercury Extreme Pro SSD

I just want to add:

I have the 240GB OWC Mercury Extreme Pro SSD in a top spec MBP 15 inch with 8GB ram.

The drive works just perfect without problems. No hibernation issues. Super speed.

Pretty blue case :-0
 
Can't say that their dissing of OCZ is a good thing but I have their 128GB SATA 6Gbps Mercury Pro and man... this thing blazes.

Not a single issue in Windows OR Mac OS 10.6. 😀

Plus their support is amazing and I'm glad to hear that a Mac firmware updater will be out soon. But come to think of it, there hasn't been any new firmware released by OWC in a while...
 
re:dissing - an earlier post made negative reference to Sandforce which is likely in part due to some competition with a windows 'blue screen issue' and another with a full recall of one of their drive models essentially implied the cause was with Sandforce when, based on our own design experience - it was not. We actually did a press release shortly after a couple of these implying statements confirming that we were not seeing these issues with our design implementation.

Sandforce provides a general reference spec and it is up to each manufacturer to complete the engineering for the final production solution. Problems with a brand using Sandforce are not the same as problems with Sandforce... and we reiterate that we find Sandforce to be exceptional and in our experience the best choice for performance and reliability today when it comes to controller options for a solid state drive. Very frustrating when we see vague statements by those building with Sandforce that appear to pass the buck to Sandforce unfairly. Not to say there aren't things that do get addressed with firmware/that have needed to be addressed in the past.. but more recently we saw issues of simply seeking to pass the buck in our opinion and that hurts everyone building with the SF processor.

Re: Firmware - we do publish updates as they come out. Last recommended updates though are Late March for the OWC Mercury 3G SSD Models and Mid-May/Early June on the 6G Models. ideally it is not very often that updates are needed.

KJmoon117 said:
Can't say that their dissing of OCZ is a good thing but I have their 128GB SATA 6Gbps Mercury Pro and man... this thing blazes.

Not a single issue in Windows OR Mac OS 10.6. 😀

Plus their support is amazing and I'm glad to hear that a Mac firmware updater will be out soon. But come to think of it, there hasn't been any new firmware released by OWC in a while...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I had an ocz v3 in my 2011 17" and it wasn't reliable. It seems that anything sandforce based in the 17" and 15" models are having lots of problems. If you want sata 3 and have one of these mbp models do yourself a favor and stay away from sandforce (owc and ocz). It has the potential to be a nightmare, trust me.

As far as OWC as a company, I love them. I am using several of their products and think they are, for the most part, as good a value as anywhere else.
 
i have a 2011 17" MBP with the OWC 240 gb Mercury Extreme Pro SSD 3, 8 gb of OWC ram and have no issues.
 
It is not an issue with Sandforce based SSDs in the 2011 Macbook Pro 17" - it affects all 6G SSDs as the 2011 17" has a general problem with 6G. Apple's response currently is that they don't support 6G on these machines (even though 6G link is enabled). It appears to be a noise/signal issue and it affects all 6G drives and is hit or miss too - most have at least a little issue and some have issue that can make 6G drives completely non-functional. The vast majority of 15" 2011 Macbook Pros are fine for the main bay.. but 6G in the optical bay of 15" and 17" are issue... no issues with 3G... and the 13" pretty much no issues at all.
Have a lot of information in our blog on this:
http://blog.macsales.com/10433-macbook-pro-2011-models-and-sata-3-0-6-0gbs-update-5272011

edit: wanted to add... no issues at all with 6G via the 6G ports in the iMac 2011 models.


netcastle said:
I had an ocz v3 in my 2011 17" and it wasn't reliable. It seems that anything sandforce based in the 17" and 15" models are having lots of problems. If you want sata 3 and have one of these mbp models do yourself a favor and stay away from sandforce (owc and ocz). It has the potential to be a nightmare, trust me.

As far as OWC as a company, I love them. I am using several of their products and think they are, for the most part, as good a value as anywhere else.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
OWC Larry said:
It is not an issue with Sandforce based SSDs in the 2011 Macbook Pro 17" - it affects all 6G SSDs as the 2011 17" has a general problem with 6G.
Click to expand...

I have read your blogs. I am just bitter about my sandforce experience. It was an expensive way to discover that SATA 3 isn't all that much better (when it worked the way it should) than the SATA 2 SSD that came with my mbp. Ironically, I now use the OCZ in my sandy bridge hackintosh server as a system drive, but all of the media and content is served from an OWC Mercury Elite Pro Qx2 which was cheaper than the OCZ, almost as fast, and has 24x the capacity.

ahdickter said:
So the only real non-Sandforce SSD thats competitive is the Crucial M4? People seem to like it
Click to expand...

If I had it to do over again, and I actually considered a sata 3 drive a reasonable value, I would buy this drive (it's cheaper and it works).
 
Without clear rhyme or reason - some 2011 MacBook Pros (all sizes) have ports 0,1 connected to Main Drive Bay, Optical Bay (both 6G) and others have ports 0,2 connected - port 2 being 3G link off the Sandybridge. Insult to injury if have mis-behaving 6G in main bay and optical bay is 6G too on 17". On 13", where 6G is stable consistently in both bays (for those that have it in the optical as well as main bay) can stripe two of our SSDs for nearly 1000MB/s sustained. Blog from 5/27 and a prior get into frustrations that typically only 15" main bay is 6G stable... and never mind overall hit and miss with 17".

One nice benefit of our drives is our 30 day money back on OWC Mercury Extreme and Electra SSDs. Even before we officially put that on the new 6G Drives (which started once production was in full swing), we still provided it for those with systems that encountered the Apple factory 6G issue.

Anyway... hopefully there will be a future resolution for 100% of 17" MBP 2011 owners (and some 15" affected too)... so that those spending well over $2K for a Macbook Pro can enjoy the same high performance via 6G SSDs that owners of a base 13" MacBook Pro get without issue. If you need the larger screen, etc - bites that you can't 100% count on having one that will be good with 6G SSD for the performance aspect.
 
OWC Larry said:
Without clear rhyme or reason - some 2011 MacBook Pros (all sizes) have ports 0,1 connected to Main Drive Bay, Optical Bay (both 6G) and others have ports 0,2 connected - port 2 being 3G link off the Sandybridge. Insult to injury if have mis-behaving 6G in main bay and optical bay is 6G too on 17". On 13", where 6G is stable consistently in both bays (for those that have it in the optical as well as main bay) can stripe two of our SSDs for nearly 1000MB/s sustained. Blog from 5/27 and a prior get into frustrations that typically only 15" main bay is 6G stable... and never mind overall hit and miss with 17".
Click to expand...

I appreciate you coming here and answering questions, but the comment you make here is where I have a bit of trouble with OWC.

SATA III in the 2011 Macs is not supported by Apple and you just acknowledged here you are aware of certain 2011 machines that are more prone to SATA III problems, yet this information is not disclosed to potential customers on the OWC product website. A customer coming to your site looking for an SSD for their Mac is going to see statements about all the great speeds from the new 6G drives you sell and of course be drawn to this, while being completely unaware there are known problems with SATA III drives in 2011 Mac hardware.

Full disclosure of all these issues on the main site would be more forthcoming to the consumer IMO.

To be fair, no other vendor I know of is disclosing these problems either, but they are not touting themselves as Mac specialists who have tested on current Mac hardware.

Saying you have a generous exchange policy if these drives don't work is nice, but that is just avoiding the real problem.
 
Weaselboy said:
SATA III in the 2011 Macs is not supported by Apple and you just acknowledged here you are aware of certain 2011 machines that are more prone to SATA III problems, yet this information is not disclosed to potential customers on the OWC product website. A customer coming to your site looking for an SSD for their Mac is going to see statements about all the great speeds from the new 6G drives you sell and of course be drawn to this, while being completely unaware there are known problems with SATA III drives in 2011 Mac hardware.
Click to expand...

owc.png
 
ahdickter said:
Why wouldn't SATA III be supported? Most people don't have any problems with newer SSD's.
Click to expand...

I think it's more accurate to say: Apple doesn't support third party drives. This is what Apple told me on the phone.

Since Apple doesn't supply SATA III drives it basically means SATA III drives are not supported.
 
I've got an OWC SSD and OWC RAM in my Mac Pro.

The technical quality of their stuff not withstanding, its the customer service that really sells me. I've been able to get advice and support from real people, quickly, people actually able to help you with their problem.

If I get an SSD for an upcoming laptop purchase, it will be from OWC.
 
Locodice said:
Image
Click to expand...

I do see that comment. As I said, Apple has not said they support SATA III drives in these machines, and to say they are "performance certified" is not accurate. The machine notes only refer to the 17" MBP, and as we have seen over and over in the forums and as alluded to in OWCLarry's post the SATA III SSD problems are not limited to 17" machines.

ahdickter said:
Why wouldn't SATA III be supported? Most people don't have any problems with newer SSD's.
Click to expand...

If you look at the specs for the 2011 MBP machines at Apple's web site you will not find any mention of SATA III. There is speculation this is because, although the chipset supports it, Apple does not because of stability issues. Who knows. There was a thread in the OCZ forums that suggests Apple underpowered the chipset to save battery life and this causes no problems with SATA II connections, but does with SATA III connections. Search the forums and you find many users having trouble with SATA III SSDs in these machines.

I think the bottom line is at this point if you want the best compatibility and stability in a MBP you will go with a SATA II SSD.
 
Last edited:
Crucial M4 with firmware 2 and Vertex 3 worked flawless in my MBP 2011. This seems to be the experience of many people.
 
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