SSD Again...

[nefan65]

Okay, I've decided to take the plunge on an SSD. I tried a couple different systems that had a 7200RPM drive and an SSD, and I was amazed! So, here's what I'm looking at...

• Crucial RealSSD C300 CTFDDAC128MAG-1G1CCA
• OCZ Agility 2 OCZSSD2-2AGT160G 2.5" 160GB SATA II MLC

The crucial is smaller, but it's Crucial [no pun intended], and has the transfer kit. The OCZ is a larger drive [160GB vs. 128GB], but I'm not sure how reliable they are? Either one is good, I'm sure. Just a matter of what one will be better in the long run...

Thanks in advance!

 

[bamf]

Which model MBP will you be putting the SSD in? Also, I think I'd steer clear of the OCZ Agility 2 - that's pretty old technology in the SSD world.

If you are looking for a 160GB option, the Intel 320 160GB works very well (it's in the machine I'm typing on now).

 

[kdoug]

Which model MBP will you be putting the SSD in? Also, I think I'd steer clear of the OCZ Agility 2 - that's pretty old technology in the SSD world.

If you are looking for a 160GB option, the Intel 320 160GB works very well (it's in the machine I'm typing on now).

I would also recommend the Intel 320 but only because of reliability and ease of firmware updates. In terms of technology, they're really on equal footing, both SATA II but the OCZ in some tests performs better.

 

[nefan65]

Which model MBP will you be putting the SSD in? Also, I think I'd steer clear of the OCZ Agility 2 - that's pretty old technology in the SSD world.

If you are looking for a 160GB option, the Intel 320 160GB works very well (it's in the machine I'm typing on now).

Thanks for the reply! It's a 2010 13" MBP/C2D. It has the stock 5400 Hitachi, and 4GB of RAM.

I'll look at the Intel as well. Didn't see that, but wasn't looking for it either.

 

[nefan65]

Which model MBP will you be putting the SSD in? Also, I think I'd steer clear of the OCZ Agility 2 - that's pretty old technology in the SSD world.

If you are looking for a 160GB option, the Intel 320 160GB works very well (it's in the machine I'm typing on now).

I noticed the 320, but it's only 120GB. Not a huge amount, but I'm told I need to keep at least 20% free, otherwise the SSD will suffer? Not sure if that's true, or not. That's why I looked at the Crucial and the OCZ.

 

[bamf]

I noticed the 320, but it's only 120GB. Not a huge amount, but I'm told I need to keep at least 20% free, otherwise the SSD will suffer? Not sure if that's true, or not. That's why I looked at the Crucial and the OCZ.

The 320 comes in 6 sizes - 40GB, 80GB, 120GB, 160GB, 300GB, and 600GB.

 

[nefan65]

The 320 comes in 6 sizes - 40GB, 80GB, 120GB, 160GB, 300GB, and 600GB.

Thanks, yes...saw that. Sorry, I didn't state I was trying to keep it under $300. Details Details...lol...

I guess I need to figure out if the extra 8GB matters or not? Like I said, my concern is that even though it says 120GB, I'm really only going to get like 110GB?

 

[bamf]

Thanks, yes...saw that. Sorry, I didn't state I was trying to keep it under $300. Details Details...lol...

I guess I need to figure out if the extra 8GB matters or not? Like I said, my concern is that even though it says 120GB, I'm really only going to get like 110GB?

The 160GB 320 is $310 on Amazon. Spend the extra $10 and all your problems go away...

 

[johnnyturbouk]

i'd also recommend the intel 320 for u're particular set of circumstances

ocz agility 2 is a solid drive - but it is a lil old tech
as is the crucial c300!

there has been a lot of praise for the 320

 

[kobyh15]

I have the 300 GB 320, definitely spend the money and get the 160 GB. It will be well worth. The drive has been a dream so far. Easy setup and OS X installed in a little over 20 minutes. It's incredibly quick.

 

[johnnj]

I know that the Intel SSDs win easily in terms of brand reputation, but the performance specs seem a little low on the 320 drives.

 

[cluthz]

I know that the Intel SSDs win easily in terms of brand reputation, but the performance specs seem a little low on the 320 drives.

SATA II, which won't be an issue unless you have a 2011 MBP.

It seems that Vertex2, Crucial C300 and Intel 320 is about similar in speed, but Intel seems to be the most reliable with best support.

 

[johnnj]

SATA II, which won't be an issue unless you have a 2011 MBP.

It seems that Vertex2, Crucial C300 and Intel 320 is about similar in speed, but Intel seems to be the most reliable with best support.

Oh, sorry. Was this an old thread? I assumed we were talking about 2011 machines.

 

[bamf]

Oh, sorry. Was this an old thread? I assumed we were talking about 2011 machines.

He has a 2010 MBP.

I've got a 2011 MBP, and I still went with the Intel 320 drive. Reliability to me is much more important than taking an extra few seconds to copy large files to my machine.

 

[johnnj]

He has a 2010 MBP.

I've got a 2011 MBP, and I still went with the Intel 320 drive. Reliability to me is much more important than taking an extra few seconds to copy large files to my machine.

Are all other SSDs besides Intel's smoldering powder kegs that can explode into a blazing shower of malfunction and beachballs at the slightest provocation or cross eyed glance?

How does OCZ, Crucial, and the others manage to stay in the SSD business if that is the case? I'm fairly certain that I've read some less than successful stories by Intel owners, too.

 

[cluthz]

Oh, sorry. Was this an old thread? I assumed we were talking about 2011 machines.

OP had MacBook Pro 2.4GHz in sig, which could be an 2010 i5 or a 2008/2009 C2D.


Don't get us wrong when we recommend Intel over OCZ and Crucial, they are solid brand with top notch performance, but Intel is the only (outside apple) that have firmware upgrades that works in mac osx

 

[johnnj]

Don't get us wrong when we recommend Intel over OCZ and Crucial, they are solid brand with top notch performance, but Intel is the only (outside apple) that have firmware upgrades that works in mac osx

Yeah, having to take the drives out for updates is not convenient. I also have PCs, so they were updating hosts. The pair of Vertex 1 drives were from early in the product life and there were something like 4 important firmware updates that I had to do. It did give me enough practice so that I could do a 5 minute round trip of taking the drives out of the bays and putting them back when I was done. When I read people saying it takes them 35 minutes to do an optibay install I do a little eyeroll.

Maybe I'm just lucky, but I'm up to having owned 5 SSDs from Patriot, OCZ, and Crucial in 4 different MBPs going back to 2008 and knock wood, none of them have ever failed or exhibited compatibility problems.

So other than the ease in doing firmware updates, what else does Intel have going for its SSDs? I know that the general feeling is that they are more reliable than anything else on the market, but are there actual statistics to back that up? I'm not trying to be contrary. If Intel drives really are better in a measurable way, then they'll be next on my shopping list of stuff I don't need but buy anyway.

 

[cluthz]

Anandtech claimed in an article that intel had the lowest failure rate of the major SSD suppliers.
It's to be said that all the major SSDs had pretty good reliability, much better than HDs.

When it comes to SATA-III it seems like the Intel 510 is slightly behind the SF2200 based SSDs, so atm Intel imho has the best SATA-II SSD.

 

[Weaselboy]

I know that the general feeling is that they are more reliable than anything else on the market, but are there actual statistics to back that up?

Yes.

 

[johnnj]

Yes.

That's it? The only data is that from a single French online retailer? The original article doesn't seem to mention how large the sampling is for each of the manufacturers.

There are variables which could skew these results and just stating these percentages applicable to all devices by manufacturer doesn't come close to painting an accurate picture.

 

[Weaselboy]

That's it? The only data is that from a single French online retailer? The original article doesn't seem to mention how large the sampling is for each of the manufacturers.

There are variables which could skew these results and just stating these percentages applicable to all devices by manufacturer doesn't come close to painting an accurate picture.

We have been through this before many times. No we do not know how large the data sample was or how the data was collected, but it is all we have at this point. I have not read anything that would cause one to just outright ignore the data. Do with it what you will.

Quote from Anand:

I should add that the numbers Marc published were accurate (confirmed by some of the manufacturers involved), although they don’t paint the complete picture of world wide failure rates - they are an important sample to look at.

 

[johnnj]

We have been through this before many times. No we do not know how large the data sample was or how the data was collected, but it is all we have at this point. I have not read anything that would cause one to just outright ignore the data. Do with it what you will.

Quote from Anand:

Thanks, then I will ignore it because it's vague to the point of being useless. Anand said that "some" manufacturers confirmed these stats. How many is some? One or two? If it was three then that would be "most".

I read his site regularly and I saw this article when it was posted. Of course my eye was drawn to the grid with the percentages and had the reaction to it that most people probably did. Then I read what it was based upon and my feelings about it changed greatly.

And as you stated, the is nothing to disprove these findings as being representative of the general reliability of SSDs. However, the lack of evidence disproving an argument does not automatically prove the argument.

The question I asked was "are there any actual statistics to back this up". Your answer was accurate. There are. I just don't see how anyone who isn't already an Intel devotee accept this "study" as valid.

It's not just the number of units sampled that changes how meaningful these statistics are. There are a numer of other factors which I'm sure everyone is aware of since we have been through this many times.

 

[RedTomato]

Sorry to come into this thread.

I'm looking to extend the life of my maxed Santa Rosa 2007 macbook by putting a SSD in it. (already have the max 4GB RAM thank you very much).

Has someone now found a way to unlock the SATA-II 3Gb/s on these machines?

Details:

I plan to move the existing 500GB HD to the optical drive bay. (not via Optiplex - too expensive - have found some cheaper solutions).

I note that the SR Macbooks are limited to SATA-I, even though the ICH8-M AHCI motherboard has SATA-II as default. I understand the reason for this was to ensure compatibility with the SATA-PATA bridge for the optical drive, and I'm fine with that.

Now that I'm taking out the optical drive however, is there a way to unlock the SATA-II 3Gb/s capability for the SSD in the main slot? Small SSDs that are faster than SATA-I are getting quite cheap now, especially second hand.

Thanks

RedTomato