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

SSD Buying Guide

Status
Not open for further replies.
IngerMan said:
I would say your getting the advertised speeds. Below is my 256GB M4 in which I get 250write and 490read on the BlackMagic test.
Click to expand...

No, you are getting advertised speeds (500 read, 260 write). Sandisk advertises the 240gb extreme as 550 read, 520 write.

Don't get me wrong, I know 4k random reads and writes are much more important than 256k sequential numbers, but I just want to be sure everything is ok with my system.
 
rev.b said:
No, you are getting advertised speeds (500 read, 260 write). Sandisk advertises the 240gb extreme as 550 read, 520 write.

Don't get me wrong, I know 4k random reads and writes are much more important than 256k sequential numbers, but I just want to be sure everything is ok with my system.
Click to expand...

That is best case scenario figures. I just ran BlackMagic on my Sandisk and hit 501MB read and 279MB write. I think xBench is an outdated tool for testing SSDs as the figures are always much lower but it does give a truer figure for writes. Most reviews seem to use Windows tools for benchmarking which are probably more accurate as they include various extra parameters to test.
I would like it if Blackmagic gave more options including the option of compressible v incompressible data - if it is true they have moved to incompressible data then you will never see top speeds using this tool with a Sandforce based drive. Your average workload on the computer will be a mixture of compressible and incompressible data so your actual figures are probably somewhere in the middle of what BlackMagic is telling you and the advertised top speeds by Sandisk (especially given some reviews have tested speeds above advertised). The key things for you to note is that the drive is recognised correctly and negotiating at the full speed the connection will allow. Benchmarking is something of a black art and I would only take what you are seeing as a rough guide. The fact you are seeing read speeds of 500MB in BlackMagic does suggest your drive is performing at full speed.
 
Donka said:
That is best case scenario figures. I just ran BlackMagic on my Sandisk and hit 501MB read and 279MB write. I think xBench is an outdated tool for testing SSDs as the figures are always much lower but it does give a truer figure for writes. Most reviews seem to use Windows tools for benchmarking which are probably more accurate as they include various extra parameters to test.
I would like it if Blackmagic gave more options including the option of compressible v incompressible data - if it is true they have moved to incompressible data then you will never see top speeds using this tool with a Sandforce based drive. Your average workload on the computer will be a mixture of compressible and incompressible data so your actual figures are probably somewhere in the middle of what BlackMagic is telling you and the advertised top speeds by Sandisk (especially given some reviews have tested speeds above advertised). The key things for you to note is that the drive is recognised correctly and negotiating at the full speed the connection will allow. Benchmarking is something of a black art and I would only take what you are seeing as a rough guide. The fact you are seeing read speeds of 500MB in BlackMagic does suggest your drive is performing at full speed.
Click to expand...

Now I'm more relieved, as you are getting similar results. So it must be normal for this drive. Thanks.
 
rev.b said:
Now I'm more relieved, as you are getting similar results. So it must be normal for this drive. Thanks.
Click to expand...

What Mac and OS version are you using? You won't notice much of a difference in real world use between the Sandisk and your previous M4 SSD but if you Mac is booting very quickly 8-14 secs on average and most apps open up almost instantly then you are seeing the benefits of your SSD.
If you read through the reviews, certain parameters will bechmark this drive at it's full advertised speed whereas other parameters will benchmark it much slower. All the reviews I have read have the same conclusion though, this is easily one of the fastest consumer drives available at the moment - some have confirmed it is the fastest overall that they have tested.
 
jbzcar said:
Avoid Sandforce based drives with your MBP. I have a late 2008 (same chipset as yours) and just put in a 256gb OCZ Octane based on their Indilinx Everest and it freaking flies. No problems at all negotiating the correct link speed. :)

Got mine for $200, too. :cool:
Click to expand...

Thanks, so a general thread question. What non Sandforce SSD's do yall recommend? I really had my heart set on the Intel 330 but that is out :-/ I have never heard of OCZ... I'll have to dig up for reviews on them. Does the Crucial M4 use Sandforce? From the product page on newegg it doesn't look like it... What about the Samsung 830?

Thanks,
Brian
 
Last edited:
Donka said:
What Mac and OS version are you using? You won't notice much of a difference in real world use between the Sandisk and your previous M4 SSD but if you Mac is booting very quickly 8-14 secs on average and most apps open up almost instantly then you are seeing the benefits of your SSD.
If you read through the reviews, certain parameters will bechmark this drive at it's full advertised speed whereas other parameters will benchmark it much slower. All the reviews I have read have the same conclusion though, this is easily one of the fastest consumer drives available at the moment - some have confirmed it is the fastest overall that they have tested.
Click to expand...

Early '11 MBP 17", Lion 10.7.4.

Yes, I know the speed difference between this sandisk and my Crucial m4 is negligible in real world, and I wouldn't expect it to be otherwise. But I needed a SSD for wife's laptop, and I needed more space, so buying this 240 Gb beauty for my MBP was a very convenient solution... ;)

I was only afraid something went wrong with my install, as I did see those mactrast.com screenshots, and I wasn't getting nowhere near the same numbers. I wasn't aware that latest diskspeedtest had different benchmarking parameters, as non-compressible data.

Thanks anyway.

BTW, I do recommend this drive for any MBP. Early '11 17" MBP were a worst case scenario concerning SDD compatibility (if you remember all those beachballing / sata cables issues threads) and this Sandisk 240 Gb Extreme works just fine, fast, no unexpected behaviour, certainly no beachballing, even with TRIM enabled. A keeper.
 
I'm actually wondering if it will perform any differently with a clean install onto the drive as I cloned mine but very happy with the performance regardless. It's proven to rock solid so far and I haven't seen a single issue. I would certainly recommend this drive to any prospective Mac owners - at least with current gen Macs.
 
Donka said:
That is best case scenario figures. I just ran BlackMagic on my Sandisk and hit 501MB read and 279MB write. I think xBench is an outdated tool for testing SSDs as the figures are always much lower but it does give a truer figure for writes. Most reviews seem to use Windows tools for benchmarking which are probably more accurate as they include various extra parameters to test.
Click to expand...

There are various things to take into account when testing. Most SSDs only achieve a certain speed at certain file size - if you increase or decrease the size it will affect your results.

rev.b said:
Now I'm more relieved, as you are getting similar results. So it must be normal for this drive. Thanks.
Click to expand...

SandForce SSDs compresses the data they write, hence the great performance if the data is compressible. However, when you move to incompressible data you lose that advantage and it actually becomes a disadvantage.

BrianJ844 said:
Thanks, so a general thread question. What non Sandforce SSD's do yall recommend? I really had my heart set on the Intel 330 but that is out :-/ I have never heard of OCZ... I'll have to dig up for reviews on them. Does the Crucial M4 use Sandforce? From the product page on newegg it doesn't look like it... What about the Samsung 830?

Thanks,
Brian
Click to expand...

Crucial m4 and Samsung 830 are both great choices. Crucial is Marvell based, whereas Samsung uses their own controller.
 
Hellhammer said:
There are various things to take into account when testing. Most SSDs only achieve a certain speed at certain file size - if you increase or decrease the size it will affect your results.
Click to expand...

Agreed. That is the issue with the BlackMagic test. It lacks that granularity or options to select things like file size blocks.
 
BrianJ844 said:
Thanks, so a general thread question. What non Sandforce SSD's do yall recommend? I really had my heart set on the Intel 330 but that is out :-/ I have never heard of OCZ... I'll have to dig up for reviews on them. Does the Crucial M4 use Sandforce? From the product page on newegg it doesn't look like it... What about the Samsung 830?

Thanks,
Brian
Click to expand...

Crucial M4 uses a Marvell chipset. They are nice drives. Samsung 830 uses its own Samsung chipset.
 
Hellhammer said:
Crucial m4 and Samsung 830 are both great choices. Crucial is Marvell based, whereas Samsung uses their own controller.
Click to expand...

Should I be worried about a SATA III SSD with the MacBook 5,1? Some people think it is the Sandforce, others say it is SATA III that the NVIDIA chip in the 5,1 doesn't like.

Thanks everyone,
Brian
 
Sharky II said:
Crucial M4 has dropped in price so much recently - great obviously - but does this mean/hint that they're about to be replaced?

Thanks
Click to expand...

Marvell has a new controller out (88SS9187) but so far nobody is using (OCZ may be using it or a custom version in Vertex 4, but it's not certain). I know some OEMs are developing SSDs based on that controller but that's all I can say for now.
 
Hellhammer said:
Marvell has a new controller out (88SS9187) but so far nobody is using (OCZ may be using it or a custom version in Vertex 4, but it's not certain). I know some OEMs are developing SSDs based on that controller but that's all I can say for now.
Click to expand...

Is there much information out there on what this new controller offers? Would be good to see the direction it is headed.
 
BrianJ844 said:
Should I be worried about a SATA III SSD with the MacBook 5,1? Some people think it is the Sandforce, others say it is SATA III that the NVIDIA chip in the 5,1 doesn't like.

Thanks everyone,
Brian
Click to expand...

It's not a SATA III issue, my OCZ Octane is SATA III and negotiates perfectly to SATA II speeds. It's definitely a Sandforce issue with our older MBP's.
 
Hi all, I'm new here. It's my first reply actually. Haha.

My point is if you are going to upgrade your HD to SSD on basic 13.3" Macbook Pro, why don't you directly buy a Macbook Air?

I'd like to use some hybird HD instead, such as Seagate Momentus.
 
I installed a 128GB Crucial M4 about a month ago and I love it. I used the OWC data doubler to put the Crucial in the optical bay. I switched to it as the boot drive. My apps are installed there. I used symbolic links (ln -s) to point to my old drive and music/pictures directories.

The apps pop up as quickly as if they were just minimized. (Almost :) ).

I love it. I did not upgrade to the 000f firmware seeing how many users are having issues after upgrading.

A 256GB drive would let me move my primary vm to the M4. I use the M4 for small vms that I test out. Very snappy. I have 8Gb of ram and a 750GB 7200RPM drive as well. It is extending the life of my 2009 MBP 15. An MBP is more than an Air for typing and doing more than one thing at a time. //cheers
 
Last edited:
Hi

I' m waiting the WWDC to see if Apple releases the new MBP. If they don' t I wan' t to add a good SSD to my Early 2011 17" MBP removing the superdrive.

I' m searching a good performance SSD but I' m also really worried about reliability.

Can anyone suggest me a 256 GB drive with a really good performance and also a good reliability? Thanks!
 
Lucagfc said:
Hi

I' m waiting the WWDC to see if Apple releases the new MBP. If they don' t I wan' t to add a good SSD to my Early 2011 17" MBP removing the superdrive.

I' m searching a good performance SSD but I' m also really worried about reliability.

Can anyone suggest me a 256 GB drive with a really good performance and also a good reliability? Thanks!
Click to expand...

I think many of us would agree with the recommendation of the thread starter Hellhammer in his post here a couple days ago. Crucial M4 or Samsung 830.
 
Donka said:
Is there much information out there on what this new controller offers? Would be good to see the direction it is headed.
Click to expand...

Marvell didn't release much info about the actual controller, but reading this will probably give you an idea on what to expect. When it comes to Marvell controllers in general, the firmware plays a huge role. This means SSDs based on the same controller will have big differences in performance, so it's hard to say what the actual controller offers.

Either way, the biggest upgrade will be in random I/O performance as sequential performance is already being limited by the SATA 6Gb/s interface.

Lucagfc said:
Can anyone suggest me a 256 GB drive with a really good performance and also a good reliability? Thanks!
Click to expand...

For the best performance, Samsung 830 is the way to go. Crucial m4 is great too but its performance is a bit outdated, though most people won't notice any difference.
 
Hello again, just bought and installed my samsung 830 on my macbook pro mid 2009.
Just wanted to know if my write/read speed are good:
write - 194,7 MB/s
read - 253,5 MB/s
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back