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

SATA 6Gbps Worth Waiting For?

R

RainCityMacFan

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2007
930
5
NC
My Macbook Pro (2011) is set to deliver on Tuesday, March 15th with a stock 500GB 7200RPM drive. I plan on getting an OWC Data Doubler upgrade to go with it and a 120GB SSD as well.

Seeing that the Vertex 3 is coming out soon and Intel 510 has already been released, I would wait for more SATA 6Gbps to be released but
1) Even though the Vertex 3 is coming out soon, I find that OCZ is a very shady company and I don't think I would like to beta-test their new drive for them.
2) Intel seems... (correct me if I'm wrong) over priced for the performance they give out. I prefer a drive with a SandForce controller.
3) The sooner I get the drive, less reinstalling and moving I'll have to do.

The question is: Is it worth holding out till a SATA 6 Gbps drive is released or just buy a SATA 3Gbps one? As in, is the performance difference noticeable? Is the upgrade from SF1200 to SF2000 that good?

Thanks
 
If you aren't a high-end user, you most likely won't notice any difference. Any SSD is so huge step from a regular HD. Like you said, it's possible or even likely that there will be some issues with the early firmwares so I would just get a current gen SSD.
 
Yes I am strictly talking about SSDs.

Well, I've decided to just wait for the Vertex 2 and see if the initial reviews are decent or not. Hopefully, OWC will come out with their own new drives at the same time. Ugh reinstalling is going to be a PITA.

EDIT: I mean Vertex 3
 
Last edited:
KJmoon117 said:
Yes I am strictly talking about SSDs.

Well, I've decided to just wait for the Vertex 2 and see if the initial reviews are decent or not. Hopefully, OWC will come out with their own new drives at the same time. Ugh reinstalling is going to be a PITA.
Click to expand...
The Vertex 2's are out, you mean the Vertex 3's? And why is reinstalling a PITA??? Just clean install the OS and time machine it or, just use CCC.
 
I don't have time machine:( Hence I'll be copying over my documents and music/etc manually from my iMac to my MacBook Pro ><

Im sure it won't be that much of a PITA, but convenience would be nice.
 
KJmoon117 said:
I plan on getting an OWC Data Doubler upgrade to go with it and a 120GB SSD as well.
Click to expand...

If you plan on using the OWC data doubler to place the SSD in the optical bay there is no reason to wait as that port does not support 6 Mbps. It only supports Sata II and 3 Mbps. The main HD bay on the most recent MBPs is the only one which supports 6 Mbps. Just FYI.
 
Achiever said:
If you plan on using the OWC data doubler to place the SSD in the optical bay there is no reason to wait as that port does not support 6 Mbps. It only supports Sata II and 3 Mbps. The main HD bay on the most recent MBPs is the only one which supports 6 Mbps. Just FYI.
Click to expand...

Hence I will be moving my stock hard drive into the optibay and the SSD into the main bay. :)
 
Read this test at Barefeats. There is very little difference with the SATAIII drive (the C300 in this test) and I seriously doubt any of us could perceive that difference in normal usage.
 
I put the SSD in the data doubler because the hard drive slot can handle a 1tb drive that is 13.5mm thick. The data doubler can support only the 9.5mm thick drive that maxes out at 750gb.
 
Weaselboy said:
Read this test at Barefeats. There is very little difference with the SATAIII drive (the C300 in this test) and I seriously doubt any of us could perceive that difference in normal usage.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the site :) Only problem is that there's no comparisons between OWC's drive and the new Vertex 3. :/
 
Weaselboy said:
Read this test at Barefeats. There is very little difference with the SATAIII drive (the C300 in this test) and I seriously doubt any of us could perceive that difference in normal usage.
Click to expand...

The C300 is dog slow running at 3Gbps compared to 6Gbps.

The Vertex 3 blows the C300 out of the water in every test. And yes the difference between 3Gbps and 6Gbps on the Vertex 3 is also huge.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/vertex-3-sandforce-ssd,2869-11.html

I would definitely wait for the Vertex 3. Their will be several new 6Gbps drives coming out in the next 2-4 weeks that will be on par with the Vertex 3. So you'll have your choice.
 
Technologist said:
The C300 is dog slow running at 3Gbps compared to 6Gbps.

The Vertex 3 blows the C300 out of the water in every test. And yes the difference between 3Gbps and 6Gbps on the Vertex 3 is also huge.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/vertex-3-sandforce-ssd,2869-11.html

I would definitely wait for the Vertex 3. Their will be several new 6Gbps drives coming out in the next 2-4 weeks that will be on par with the Vertex 3. So you'll have your choice.
Click to expand...

Those are some odd test results and don't seem to jibe at all with the results if this test at Anand.

My point still stands that in everyday usage you can't tell the difference between the most expensive SATAIII SSD and any mid-pack SATAII SSD. I would go more for reliability and compatibility than synthetic benchmark numbers.
 
KJmoon117 said:
Nonetheless, OCZ and their shady methods...
Click to expand...

Anyone wanting the Vertex 3 would be better off waiting for the OWC with the same controller, at least you'd get real Mac focused support and updates (such as the sleep issue fix in SSDs which OWC released an update for).
 
KJmoon117 said:
^ I think you might have linked the wrong review. Don't you mean this:?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4186/ocz-vertex-3-preview-the-first-client-focused-sf2200

Anand is using a 240GB drive and I will be in the market for a 120GB drive so the performance will be lowered for sure. Nonetheless, OCZ and their shady methods...
Click to expand...

No, I linked the one I meant to. The test graphs in the review I linked include Vertex 3 test results.

I agree, I would not get anything from OCZ after there little scam with the Vertex 2.

Another consideration is if the vendor provides an easy way for firmware updates. OWC for example only has a Windows based firmware updater and requires a Bootcamp installation of Windows, and that is something I don't want to do. Part of what pushed me toward the Intel 510 is Intel has a CD based firmware updater that will work on Macs.
 
neteng101 said:
Anyone wanting the Vertex 3 would be better off waiting for the OWC with the same controller, at least you'd get real Mac focused support and updates (such as the sleep issue fix in SSDs which OWC released an update for).
Click to expand...

I agree OWC has been good about exchanging bad drives etc, but their latest firmware update still does not fix the SSD sleep issue, according to forum users here with the drives. Also, they do not provide a way for Mac users to update firmware without installing Windows. They have been promising a Mac firmware updater for months, but it has not materialized.

See post 313 in this thread.
 
Weaselboy said:
They have been promising a Mac firmware updater for months, but it has not materialized.
Click to expand...

Which is why personally I think the Apple SSD is plenty fine as an option with the least headache, although the pricing on the 256GB and 512GB options is still too high. The differences in speed are nice on paper but its unlikely most people can tell from usage.
 
KJmoon117 said:
Anand is using a 240GB drive and I will be in the market for a 120GB drive so the performance will be lowered for sure.
Click to expand...

Unless the 120GB version will use less channels (i.e. less NAND chips), it won't be slower, at least not dramatically. There are 40GB SF-based SSDs that deliver the same 285MB/s speeds as their bigger brothers.
 
neteng101 said:
Which is why personally I think the Apple SSD is plenty fine as an option with the least headache, although the pricing on the 256GB and 512GB options is still too high. The differences in speed are nice on paper but its unlikely most people can tell from usage.
Click to expand...

I do not disagree at all. Until the SSD market gets to where the HDD market is now, by that I mean buy any SSD and pop it in and it just works, the Apple OEM is the safe choice.
 
Damn more dilemmas. I intend to keep a boot camp partition on my HDD optibay so the firmware shouldn't be a problem.

But again damn, my CTO is set to deliver today >< I've should've got the Apple 128GB.
 
KJmoon117 said:
Damn more dilemmas. I intend to keep a boot camp partition on my HDD optibay so the firmware shouldn't be a problem.

But again damn, my CTO is set to deliver today >< I've should've got the Apple 128GB.
Click to expand...

It is not clear, but from the OWC firmware update page it looks like the Windows partition must be on the same physical drive you wish to update the firmware on. That's how I'm reading it anyway.
 
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