Great post NickZac. I've been looking at buying a SSD and this information is very helpful, Thanks.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Solid State Drive (SSD) Upgraded HD: Chart, Explanation, Brands & Performance Stats!!
- Thread starter NickZac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nice listing, thanks for that.
Just a few things : I have it from OWC customer service that all Firmware upgrades come from Sandforce.
OWC is claiming to work on a flasher for OSX, we will see.
In the meantime, OCZ has at least a Beta Linux flasher out.
Also, I understand that even though SF customers can have their firmware customized to a small degree, only OCZ is actually doing it.
Many of your conclusions are subject to discussion, and not as clear cut as you make them sound.
The jury is still out on degradation, long term reliabilty and the current state of OSX support (or lack thereof) for SSDs - many good discussions here and elsewhere .
SSDs might be perceived as a great performance upgrade in lower specced computers, but things look a lot different in a proper workstation, where there are other priorities (I recently switched to SSDs for both laptop and desktop Macs).
I suggest to include links to more in-depth articles on SSDs, as posted on Anandtech, Storagereview etc. ; the notes are somewhat erratic and some points plain wrong or incomplete (sleep issue fix, Kingston, ...) .
I'd leave the graph, and put together a link list to related articles and discussions instead of the rather random and subjective write-up in the original posting .
Nice graph, though .
Just a few things : I have it from OWC customer service that all Firmware upgrades come from Sandforce.
OWC is claiming to work on a flasher for OSX, we will see.
In the meantime, OCZ has at least a Beta Linux flasher out.
Also, I understand that even though SF customers can have their firmware customized to a small degree, only OCZ is actually doing it.
Many of your conclusions are subject to discussion, and not as clear cut as you make them sound.
The jury is still out on degradation, long term reliabilty and the current state of OSX support (or lack thereof) for SSDs - many good discussions here and elsewhere .
SSDs might be perceived as a great performance upgrade in lower specced computers, but things look a lot different in a proper workstation, where there are other priorities (I recently switched to SSDs for both laptop and desktop Macs).
I suggest to include links to more in-depth articles on SSDs, as posted on Anandtech, Storagereview etc. ; the notes are somewhat erratic and some points plain wrong or incomplete (sleep issue fix, Kingston, ...) .
I'd leave the graph, and put together a link list to related articles and discussions instead of the rather random and subjective write-up in the original posting .
Nice graph, though .
I wasn't sure if SandForce or OWC was producing the upgrade (like I noted earlier).
There is no jury on the long term performance being superior to most magnetic drives; flash memory has been used for years and years in critical component sectors. Advanced testings to look at degradation shows it to be far less than people claim. Intel has released numerous studies on this.
Most people here do not have workstations in the sense you are referring to. And I have catered this to MacBook Pro users. I have not seen a single bench test that has shown SSDs to NOT improve overall performance ratings. Of course other priorities exist, but for the money, the SSD is one of, if not the, best bang for your buck.
I'll be the first to tell you I continue to learn and the first to tell you that you have to always consider the source as well as limitations to any argument. I appreciate your criticism as I asked for people to correct me, but you provide nothing to back your own argument up.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/storage/2009/10/27/kingston-ssd-now-v-series-40gb-intel-x25-x/1
Kingston SSD Now V is not an Intel X-25?
What do you recommend I do?
There is no jury on the long term performance being superior to most magnetic drives; flash memory has been used for years and years in critical component sectors. Advanced testings to look at degradation shows it to be far less than people claim. Intel has released numerous studies on this.
Most people here do not have workstations in the sense you are referring to. And I have catered this to MacBook Pro users. I have not seen a single bench test that has shown SSDs to NOT improve overall performance ratings. Of course other priorities exist, but for the money, the SSD is one of, if not the, best bang for your buck.
I'll be the first to tell you I continue to learn and the first to tell you that you have to always consider the source as well as limitations to any argument. I appreciate your criticism as I asked for people to correct me, but you provide nothing to back your own argument up.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/storage/2009/10/27/kingston-ssd-now-v-series-40gb-intel-x25-x/1
Kingston SSD Now V is not an Intel X-25?
What do you recommend I do?
I'll just state what my plans are: I'm waiting a while. Three key reasons:
(1) In my usage, a 200 to 240GB SSD would be the sweet spot and allow me to not need to put an HDD in the optical bay. With a 120GB it'd be pretty tight and I feel I'd be policing my disk usage constantly. When they come down to around $1/GB I'll be willing to buy. With the impending Intel 3rd gen drives and the potential for their release to create a price/capacity shift, better to wait to see that sort out.
(2) I'm not thrilled with the frequency of reports of sleep/hibernation problems with MBP13's and SF based drives. Sure they're working on it; but too many times over the years I've seen problems solved only for the new generation product and owners of the old generation left in the dust. Cynical, yes, but for the kind of money an SSD costs I don't need it badly enough to go into it knowing there's an unresolved issue.
(3) A SSD would be nice, but not truly critical to what I do with my MBP. It's a personal / classwork system and while I recognize that once I go to an SSD I'm unlikely to want to go back, at the moment I just don't see how it's a true NEED. There's nothing I need to do that the lack of an SSD is preventing me from doing effectively.
While still making the argument OWC is more likely to improve their SSDs sooner and others might lag behind .
OWC currently has a FW flasher that is a lot worse than OCZ's, and don't have their resources - but I'll be happy to be proven wrong.
There are people who did their own testing (like macperformanceguide), there are discussions where people more knowledgable argue the results of the Intel tests.
I'm not the one claining to be an expert on SSDs and writing articles, so don't expect me to provide all the links.
Also, Flash in harddrives is still a relatively new thing; I'm not aware of other computer components that have been using it, unless you count thumbdrives and such.
I have no idea what most people need, neither do you I guess.
But I'd say an xBench isn't exactly telling the whole story, if anything.
Benchmark tests based on GPU and CPU exist, where SSDs make no to little difference . Cinebench would be one.
I'll attach a little graph of some amateurish SSD speed testing I did recently, fwiw.
And yes, it makes SSDs look good, but only to a degree; it's a shame I didn't run these tests when I still used my Velociraptors .
Best bang for the buck ? Depends - a RAM upgrade can be a better value for heavy use; an MBP can be used for serious work too - actually that's what it's made for .
As I said, I'm not the one writing whole articles, my time here is limited .
I did provide some arguments and facts, I believe; all the additional information is available in recent threads and of course via Google .
Less bias towards OWC and SSDs in general - there is no silver bullet .
Attachments
As I said, I'm not the one writing whole articles, my time here is limited .
I did provide some arguments and facts, I believe; all the additional information is available in recent threads and of course via Google .
So you have just enough time to come here and tell Nick he is wrong, but not enough time to document why. Got it.
barmann said:
Leave my intelligence out of this. I am an extremely well educated man, yet I never talk down to people in the manner you have to me.
Oh, and if you are going to imply someone isn't too bright, you might want to spell the most important word correctly; it's KNOWLEDGEABLE.
I have never claimed to be the 'expert'. My goal was to compile information to help people decide if they want a SSD. You provided me with arguments. Some may be fact, but the way in which you convey your ideas makes me feel like you are more interested in spiting me above all.
OWC gets the nod from me because 1) Many people use them without issue, 2) OWC is a Mac-based company, and 3) OWC has provided hard data showing their drive can max out SATA2 capabilities. It is up to the individual reader to determine what they think is best but as of the time I write this, I give OWC the nod. In a few weeks, that may change with Intel's newer stuff. Additionally, maybe OCZ uses 100000x better materials and has more resources. Great! But, if you look at the reviews on the OCZ, they aren't too peachy. The end result is NOT better.
http://www.google.com/search?client...n&source=hp&q=ocz+vertex+2&btnG=Google+Search
For the money of a SSD, the reviews should not be like this. Would you really want to buy a product with those ratings? Compare the X-25 user ratings (and Kingston which IS a X-25) to the Vertex 2. No matter how great the form is, sometimes you have to look at the results.
Do you think Intel would fabricate a test? How many people on this forum have said "my Intel drive sucks and won't store as much anymore!"? Just like you can and should question my credentials, I have to question the 'individual' testing. And yes, flash based memory has been used for years in certain areas...do you use a memory card in your camera? Flash memory has been used within certain groups providing emergency services in which they know that their storage systems, usually mobile, are going to be subjected to shock, for example, Seismology.
Once again, this is in the MACBOOK PRO section as it is for us. Serious work? Isn't all work serious? I am being a bit presumptuous saying it is the best upgrade for the money. I am assuming people have already increased the RAM if necessary and I should not do that.
I have never claimed that a silver bullet exists. I have made it clear that SSDs are very expensive and small compared to HDDs. If SSDs were a magic bullet, they would be cheaper and bigger.
Beyond all, you may want to research the concept of construction criticism.
Last edited:
I don't think Intel would fabricate it, but they could certainly rig it or manipulate the statistics to show what they want. as a rule, a manufacturer should not be trusted to show how good their product is.
obviously independent testing has its own issues, like you pointed out, that's why you wait for a respected organization or individual (well, several different ones preferably) before making a conclusion.
I don't think MPG is a reliable source, though. he's sponsored by OWC, so he has an obligation to make them look good, which may include conducting his SSD tests in a certain fashion.
I think a major issue with getting say 10 of the most popular SSDs in a single test is simply costs. A magazine would have to invest at least 5 grand in this and they may wind up hating them all (which was the case prior to the Intel X-25). Some of the SSD warranties are 5 and even 10 years and they do cover degradation; now at what point they replace the drive at I do not know.
I like to use reviews by actual users, but this is also flawed. Many good products have appeared to suck due to user inability and not design issues. Furthermore, people at different computer levels will both purchase and judge products differently.
With that said, how many comparisons are there of HDDs which have all been done by a single user?...there are a LOT of good enterprise grade HDDs from at least 7 different companies.
I take your point, but some seem to want to just dismiss the entire test because OWC buys ads on his site and I don't get that. Is there something about the methodology of the test that is flawed, or do people think he just made up the results to favor OWC?
I just read an article at Ars and there is a Samsumg smartphone ad on the right side of the web page. So should we then dismiss any Ars reviews of Samsung products?
Best advice on this thread:
DO NOT BUY UNTIL X25-M G3 COMES OUT!
This will cause SSD prices to drop due to the 25nm process 'postville' making memory cheaper. This happened when the X25-M G2 was released.
My game plan? Wait for the X25-M G3 to release, then wait for the SF-2000 response controller. The SF-2000 is going to be legendary.
DO NOT BUY UNTIL X25-M G3 COMES OUT!
This will cause SSD prices to drop due to the 25nm process 'postville' making memory cheaper. This happened when the X25-M G2 was released.
My game plan? Wait for the X25-M G3 to release, then wait for the SF-2000 response controller. The SF-2000 is going to be legendary.
Not opening the wallet for like a year on an SSD or RAM lol....the prices are just god awful but i will say Im dying to drop a 512GB SSD in my MBP 5 days in...lmao.
I'm with you on waiting to buy a ssd. However, ram prices really aren't all that bad. 8GB is around 80 to 100 bucks now for reliable sticks. Compared to upwards of 200 this time last year (no citation, but i think my guess is about right. lol).
Here you go:
http://thetracktor.com/detail/B001MX5YWI/
http://thetracktor.com/detail/B001PS9UKW/
Switch to the 1 year view.
Also, OCZ Vertex 2 240GB SSD: http://thetracktor.com/detail/B003NE5JCY/
Well the current SF1200 is revolutionary and most people agree that the Intel updates will be as well, but we really can't say legendary as of yet. You have to keep in mind that almost all of the initial SSDs were awful (and far more impractical because size v. price) and until the first release of the X-25, no one wanted anything to do with the SSDs for good reason.
I need a faster drive for my work 13" MBP. I must have faster boot and load times (system takes too long to boot and load the programs I need while the customer is standing there). I use very little space but I need to dual boot, Mac and XP.
Question is are there any problems that I need to consider before switching to an SSD for my application? Is XP fine or do I need to get win7?
I could get by with a 40gb HD but I think I'll go with a 60gb.
Question is are there any problems that I need to consider before switching to an SSD for my application? Is XP fine or do I need to get win7?
I could get by with a 40gb HD but I think I'll go with a 60gb.
Remember, the drive needs to keep some space empty, so if you are going to dual boot off the same SSD (like I do), the *least* I recommend is 80GB.
My Mac boot takes up 15GB, and my W7 takes up 18GB.
NickZac said:
I'm going to step in here for a minute. This thread is full of mis-information. Starting with Kingston = Intel, and Intel = slow. Both of which are not exactly true.
The Kingston V-series drives are JMICRON-based drives. They are the newer controller but they are still very slow compared to the higher-end SSDs on the market. They also have the V+ drives which have a Toshiba controller, and have better performance.
The M-series are Intel-based and they are fine.
To further confuse things, Kingston has a 40GB drive which is also Intel-based, but having only half the memory it only runs on 5 channels, not 10. So for a lot of things it's a much slower drive.
Here are some SSD benchmarks:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/SSD/65
Compare the Sandforce drives to the Intel offerings. They are close in some benchmarks but the Sandforce is noticeably faster in a couple. But this comes at a higher price.
As a final note, OCZ's quality control isn't very good, just as with their other products. So the reviews aren't so good and the return rates are high.
So wait, Kingston uses Intel for only half of their SSDs? And then they outsource to multiple other companies?
http://www.kingston.com/ukroot/ssd/e_series.asp
The E and M are clearly Intel; I didn't realize the others were made by someone else?
Most tests I have seen has put the Intel 25 at the bottom of SSDs and SandForce driven units on top. I may very well be wrong about this, but that is what looking around showed me. Read and write speeds of the X-25 are not nearly as high as other units; how much this affects real world overall performance however is probably negligible.
http://download.intel.com/design/flash/nand/322208.pdf
Specs right from Intel. I made a mistake in documenting performance though; the write speed is 100mb/s and 8,600I/O write which I will have to fix as I must have been using the 40GB as reference and not the 120. However, the specs on paper place the Intel pretty low. I would also imagine this is party why Intel is updating their systems (not just costs and 25nm shrinkage)
http://www.kingston.com/ukroot/ssd/e_series.asp
The E and M are clearly Intel; I didn't realize the others were made by someone else?
Most tests I have seen has put the Intel 25 at the bottom of SSDs and SandForce driven units on top. I may very well be wrong about this, but that is what looking around showed me. Read and write speeds of the X-25 are not nearly as high as other units; how much this affects real world overall performance however is probably negligible.
http://download.intel.com/design/flash/nand/322208.pdf
Specs right from Intel. I made a mistake in documenting performance though; the write speed is 100mb/s and 8,600I/O write which I will have to fix as I must have been using the 40GB as reference and not the 120. However, the specs on paper place the Intel pretty low. I would also imagine this is party why Intel is updating their systems (not just costs and 25nm shrinkage)
Last edited:
So wait, Kingston uses Intel for only half of their SSDs? And then they outsource to multiple other companies?
http://www.kingston.com/ukroot/ssd/e_series.asp
The E and M are clearly Intel; I didn't realize the others were made by someone else?
Most tests I have seen has put the Intel 25 at the bottom of SSDs and SandForce driven units on top. I may very well be wrong about this, but that is what looking around showed me. Read and write speeds of the X-25 are not nearly as high as other units; how much this affects real world overall performance however is probably negligible.
"Crippled" Intel-based Kingston:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2865/4
Toshiba-based Kingston:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2010/02/17/kingston-ssd-now-v-series-128gb-review/
The benchmarks can be confusing for certain drives. You've got large read/writes (say, 2mb), small reads/writes (4k), seek times... In a genearl benchmark that covers normal PC use, there's usually not a huge gap in performance, even when it comes to regular magnetic HD's. But on certain benchmarks, certain drives will have a huge performance gain. Choosing a drive will depend a lot on how much you have to spend and what you plan on using it for.
And Intel has different drives as well. The M is the drive you hear most about, V is crippled, and E is enterprise.
The write speed is the weak point of the Intel X-25, but unless you are using an application that is writing 200MB/second, you won't notice. Most of your time is going to be spent reading so the intel drives still do very well in 'real-world' benchmarks. Also, if you're writing smaller amounts of data (smaller files like kilobytes and not megabytes), you won't have that much throughput anyway.
I've used the M as an Intel reference as it is really the first good SSD and continues to this day to be a solid design. Also, it is the one bought by non-business consumers most often if we go off of the number of user reviews (may or may not be representative tho).
The Kingston variation is crazy. I'll have to edit that. You wouldn't think a company would subcontract so to many different companies due to it being a poor financial decision (and why use Micron or Toshiba over Intel?!).
Performance wise on SSDs versus other SSDs will likely be minimal gains and in real world usage you may not see a difference as all SSDs are insanely faster than the best HDDs. I think I can see a difference with my drive using a SandForce 1200 versus a friend's that is not SandForce, but 1) it could be psychological and 2) it is 2 different systems. Furthermore, we can do tests all day and the numbers may not mean a thing; we like to think tests let us generalize the quality and capability of products, but it is not always the case. With that said, that is the only way to put them in comparisons (I've used the manufacturer's websites as much as possible to derive specs but everyone may test and interpret differently).
I mention the Intel SSDs a lot as I feel they are probably the benchmark of a capable and reliable SSD and in order for a SSD to be as good or better than the Intel, they have to be a darn good SSD. All types of reviews on the X-25 are spectacular, and I have never heard anyone say they regret getting one (I have heard regret for not getting a larger on though). Having a quality product as your baseline/benchmark is always the way to go. Also, it is probably the best known SSD. I am not surprised to hear OCZ's quality is poor; a lot of reviews seemed to mention that the drive was DOA.
--edit--
I agree with you as few tasks on today's systems have you writing at 250-300mb/s. With that said, a year from now it could all change, so having something with a good write speed IMO is ideal.
A lot of people say the performance will not change with Intel's next released SSD but I don't believe that as it makes no sense to redesign a product that is going to perform the same, as R&D costs will naturally drive the price higher. I would bet the farm that wear-leveling improves, and I would imagine seeing Intel max out SATA 2 like the SF1200, and for their enterprise and performance SSDs see some sort of SATA 3 capability (Crucial C300 does this IIRC). If Intel releases an affordable 600GB SSD as rumored, that is a drive that most users could use for years to come as a stand-alone hard drive (I am an oddball as 120 GB will be far more than I need for at least the next 5 years as I don't use a lot of memory-heavy data). It would only make sense to have the read and write speeds as quick as possible and SATA3 ability simply because users should get years of service out of it and you want to make it as capable as possible to slow the process of it becoming obsolete.
One more edit: The current X-25 will still take years to become outdated, as will any drive, given the lesser capabilities of HDDs and because HDDs are the predominant storage, most everything for computers are made with the HDD in mind.
The Kingston variation is crazy. I'll have to edit that. You wouldn't think a company would subcontract so to many different companies due to it being a poor financial decision (and why use Micron or Toshiba over Intel?!).
Performance wise on SSDs versus other SSDs will likely be minimal gains and in real world usage you may not see a difference as all SSDs are insanely faster than the best HDDs. I think I can see a difference with my drive using a SandForce 1200 versus a friend's that is not SandForce, but 1) it could be psychological and 2) it is 2 different systems. Furthermore, we can do tests all day and the numbers may not mean a thing; we like to think tests let us generalize the quality and capability of products, but it is not always the case. With that said, that is the only way to put them in comparisons (I've used the manufacturer's websites as much as possible to derive specs but everyone may test and interpret differently).
I mention the Intel SSDs a lot as I feel they are probably the benchmark of a capable and reliable SSD and in order for a SSD to be as good or better than the Intel, they have to be a darn good SSD. All types of reviews on the X-25 are spectacular, and I have never heard anyone say they regret getting one (I have heard regret for not getting a larger on though). Having a quality product as your baseline/benchmark is always the way to go. Also, it is probably the best known SSD. I am not surprised to hear OCZ's quality is poor; a lot of reviews seemed to mention that the drive was DOA.
--edit--
I agree with you as few tasks on today's systems have you writing at 250-300mb/s. With that said, a year from now it could all change, so having something with a good write speed IMO is ideal.
A lot of people say the performance will not change with Intel's next released SSD but I don't believe that as it makes no sense to redesign a product that is going to perform the same, as R&D costs will naturally drive the price higher. I would bet the farm that wear-leveling improves, and I would imagine seeing Intel max out SATA 2 like the SF1200, and for their enterprise and performance SSDs see some sort of SATA 3 capability (Crucial C300 does this IIRC). If Intel releases an affordable 600GB SSD as rumored, that is a drive that most users could use for years to come as a stand-alone hard drive (I am an oddball as 120 GB will be far more than I need for at least the next 5 years as I don't use a lot of memory-heavy data). It would only make sense to have the read and write speeds as quick as possible and SATA3 ability simply because users should get years of service out of it and you want to make it as capable as possible to slow the process of it becoming obsolete.
One more edit: The current X-25 will still take years to become outdated, as will any drive, given the lesser capabilities of HDDs and because HDDs are the predominant storage, most everything for computers are made with the HDD in mind.
Last edited:
I think the problem will be the low capacity of today's lower priced SSD's, not so much the speed. People that have 40GB, and even 64GB and 80G drives will start realizing they can't fit enough on them to be useful. I have a 80GB now and it's not hard to fill it up.
It is definitely an issue. The footprint of both OSX and Win7 are by no means small. Add on a few programs such as all of Office, a stat program, a few games, etc and you will fill it up real quick if it a 40...even as you said the 80 is easy to fill up for most users. Because of the limited size, it also eliminates people who want to partition their hard drive for Windows and OSX...that would fill up well over half of a 40GB SSD. You would almost surely have to run certain apps from an external which kind of defeats the purpose of the SSD. I know people with the 64GB and it is not their only hard drive. It's almost a must to have an external (or second in the optibay) HDD if you are going under 100GB; even then, many users will still need additional storage. A friend of mine has the first MBA and opted for the 64GB SSD (which was a $1,000 upgrade at the time), and while he loves it, he does occasionally grumble over its limited capacity.
If Intel is able to produce a 600GB solid state drive with costs more around the current 256GB SSDs, they are going to open the practicality and possibility for many users who simply could not utilize a SSD prior (and make a lot of money in the process).
The current 500+/- SSDs are around $1,300 to $2,000 and I do not know a single person with a SSD over 256GB. Really, how many people are going to spend as much on a hard drive as you could on a very nicely loaded laptop? lol