SSD choice with limited choice

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Kajje, Dec 12, 2012.

  1. Kajje macrumors 6502a

    Kajje

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2012
    Location:
    Asia
    #1
    I work and live in a country where IT stuff is sometimes hard to find. After a long search I found a supplier which can deliver the SSD of my new MBP.

    This are the ones I can get over here, highest price on top.
    Code:
    USD 370 CORSAIR Force GS 350GB [CSSD-F360GBGS-BK]
    USD 315 TRANSCEND SSD Standard 256GB
    USD 315 INTEL Solid State 240GB [520 Series]
    USD 290 CORSAIR Neutron Series GTX 240GB [CSSD-N240GBGTX-BK]
    USD 290 SANDISK Extreme 240GB [SDSSDX-240G-G25] "Next-Level Speed For Your Graphic-Intense Games"
    USD 270 INTEL Solid State 180GB [520 Series]
    USD 265 OCZ Vertex 3 - 240GB [VTX3-25SAT3-240G]
    USD 260 SANDISK Solid State Drive 256GB [SDSSDP-256G-G25]
    USD 260 TEAM Xtreem-S3 Pro 240GB [T253SP240GMC103]
    USD 260 TRANSCEND SSD720 - 256GB
    USD 250 OCZ Vertex 4 Series - 256 GB [VTX4-25SAT3-256G]
    USD 250 CORSAIR Force GT 240GB [CSSD-F240GBGT-BK]
    USD 250 CORSAIR Force GS 240GB [CSSD-F240GBGS-BK]
    USD 245 TRANSCEND SSD320 - 256GB
    USD 240 TEAM Xtreem-S3 240GB [T253S3240GMC103]
    USD 240 CORSAIR Force Series™ 3 240GB Notebook Upgrade Kit [CSSD-F240GB3A-NB]
    USD 240 INTEL Solid State 240GB [330 Series]
    USD 235 CORSAIR Force 240GB [CSSD-F240GB3-BK]
    USD 230 OCZ Agility 4 - 256GB [AGT4-25SAT3-256G]
    USD 210 KINGSTON HyperX 3K Series 240GB [SH103S3/240G] (NEW ARRIVAL)
    USD 210 ADATA Solid State Drive Premier Pro 256GB [SP900]
    USD 210 CORSAIR Force GS 190GB [CSSD-F180GBGS-BK]
    USD 210 KINGSTON V+ 200 Series [SVP200S37A/240G] (NEW ARRIVAL)
    
    Which one I should choose - and probably more important - which ones are a big no-no? SSD's are new to me and I understand there are some issues with using some of them on a MBP.

    Thanks!
     
  2. davidlv macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Location:
    Kyoto, Japan
    #2
    Before anyone can give you any good advice, they will have to know what year and model your MBP is.
    Post that information soon, and I think you will have better luck. There are many people here with lots of expertise and experience, but without knowing what MBP you have that will be pretty useless.
     
  3. robvas macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    USA
  4. Orlandoech macrumors 68040

    Orlandoech

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #4
    Intel 330 uses SandForce controller and I highly recommend staying away from it, they dont perform well or play well with Macs.

    I suggest;
    1. USD 230 OCZ Agility 4 - 256GB [AGT4-25SAT3-256G] - Indilinx Controller
    2. USD 250 OCZ Vertex 4 Series - 256 GB [VTX4-25SAT3-256G] - Indilinx Controller
    3. USD 290 CORSAIR Neutron Series GTX 240GB [CSSD-N240GBGTX-BK
     
  5. robvas macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #5
    OCZ is the worst. They have insane failure rates.

    You know the 2012 MacBook Airs get Sandforce drives from the factory, right?
     
  6. ultra7k, Dec 13, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2012

    ultra7k macrumors 6502

    ultra7k

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2012
    #6
    I had an OCZ SSD in my PC and it worked fine for the two years I had it.

    Also had a G.skill Phoenix Pro with sandforce and it hummed along like a champ.

    I am using an intel 330 sandforce based SSD and it's going strong. My brother is also using a corsair sandforce SSD and it is also fine going on 2 years.

    I don't get the Sandforce hate.
     
  7. robvas macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #7
    They has some problems early on but got them ironed out. The problem is some manufacturers like OCZ use low-grade memory chips.

    I haven't had any problems with my Mushkin Sandforce drive in my iMac.
     
  8. SDAVE macrumors 68040

    SDAVE

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Location:
    Nowhere
    #8
    Wrong.

    Intel uses their own custom firmware.

    Intel has one of the most stable SSD's on the market.

    It's in the cream of the crop as far as SSD's go.
     
  9. Orlandoech, Dec 13, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2012

    Orlandoech macrumors 68040

    Orlandoech

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #9
    OCZ is NOT the worst lol. Ive owned every generation of Vertex SSD and NONE have failed. OCZ has great SSDs and better customer service. I recommend Samsung over OCZ, but OCZ still make great SSDs.
     
  10. WesCole macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #10
    I have had 3 OCZ Vertex drives and they have all been reliable...they are still working to this day and I got one over 2 years ago ***knock on wood***. That said, I have also used an Intel and Kingston SSD; they were both reliable, too.
     
  11. Orlandoech macrumors 68040

    Orlandoech

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #11
    Exactly!

    I actually like SandForce SSDs, just not on Macs because they dont perform the same as they do on PCs.
     
  12. Orlandoech, Dec 13, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2012

    Orlandoech macrumors 68040

    Orlandoech

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #12
    Few questions for you.


    1. Have you owned any of OCZ SSDs, if so, which model(s)?
    2. Can you provide statistics of their failure rates to backup your claim?
    3. Can you provide statistics of satisfied customers vs non satisfied?

    Comparison
    OCZ Vertex 4 256GB vs the widely popular/overrated/slower Crucial M4 256GB.


    OCZ Vertex 4 (256GB)

    OCZ Reviews: 342
    5-Star: 278
    4-Star: 27
    3-Star: 10
    2-Star: 6
    1-Star: 21

    Per Reviews, less than 8% of the users that POSTED reviews are NOT satisfied (1-2 star reviews) vs 89% that ARE satisfied (4-5 star reviews), then the other 2.9% (10 people) are some where in the middle.​

    VS

    CRUCIAL M4 (256GB)


    Crucial Reviews: 1188
    5-Star: 914
    4-Star: 130
    3-Star: 21
    2-Star: 32
    1-Star: 91

    Per Reviews, less than 10.4% of the users that POSTED reviews are NOT satisfied (1-2 star reviews) vs 88% that ARE satisfied (4-5 star reviews), then the other 1.8% (21 people) are some where in the middle.​


    Even if you multiply all OCZ reviews by 3 to bring the # of reviews closer together, there are still more satisfied OCZ customer than NON and less OCZ customers that arent satsified vs Crucials.

    But guess what? Not EVERYONE who bought these drives posted reviews, therefor is a HUGE discrepancy in data which makes this data null and void. Point being, you can't provide real data to backup your claim, ALL technology has failure rates. But your claim of "insane" aka "mentally damaged" failure rates is nor true or even logical considering the word insane doesnt mean anything of the word significant or large amount.

    Just because something is widely popular or even accepted isn't proof of its validity.
     
  13. Freyqq macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    #13
    anything from intel or samsung is best. Also, the crucial M4 is good too, but only that model from crucial.
     
  14. Weaselboy Moderator

    Weaselboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Location:
    California
    #14
    What are these "low grade" memory chips you are talking about? If you are referring to OWC's made up claims of OCZ using bad RAM, that was debunked.
     
  15. robvas macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #15
    A couple of Vertex and Agility drives. I haven't had -any- SSD fail in one of my machines yet. Then again I haven't had a hard drive fail in I don't know how long either.
    Sure: http://www.behardware.com/articles/881-7/components-returns-rates-7.html

    - Intel 0.45% (against 1.73%)
    - Samsung 0.48% (N/A)
    - Corsair 1.05% (against 2.93%)
    - Crucial 1.11% (against 0.82%)
    - OCZ 5.02% (against 7.03%)
    Sure, just go on your favorite computer shopping site and look at the 1, 2, and 3 star ratings given to OCZ's drives.
    I have a huge problem with you saying this. What are you even trying to say? SandForce drives have advantages in Macs like built-in garbage collection. Comes in handy when your OS doesn't have TRIM unless you ordered your computer with the factory SSD! Why do you think OWC uses Sandforce drives?

    ----------

    Remember when OCZ used to sell RAM? It all turned to junk and they had to quit.

    Remember when they switched to 25nm chips ffor the SSD's and they went down in capacity to 115G but kept selling them as 120GB?

    They are a scummy company.
     
  16. ultra7k macrumors 6502

    ultra7k

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2012
    #16
    LOL @ OCZ RAM.

    Though with the SANDISK SSD, aren't they using the highest binned chips since they are one of the manufacturers, and essentially cutting out the middleman? I thought I read that somewhere...

    By all reports the SANDISK 240gb is decent.

    I was tempted to get one but my intel 330 was just too good deal for $139 for 240GB.
     
  17. duervo macrumors 68000

    duervo

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    #17
    Only ones I've got any experience with in MBP's are:

    - Patriot Inferno 100GB in my wife's Macbook Pro 15" (4,1) which still works like a champ.

    - Crucial M4 256GB in my Macbook Pro 13" (9,2) and am not having issues.

    Unfortunately, I did not notice any of those in your list, so the only thing that I can add, is to recommend that you stay away from the Intel 520-series. A customer of mine bought a few dozen of these for their corporate laptops, and they had some serious quality control issues with them. They ended up returning the half dozen or so that they had yet to open, and replacing them with a different brand moving forward(don't know which brand they went with in the end, sadly.) In the meantime, they are going to continue dealing with the RMA process on a case-by-case basis for the ones that they've already deployed.
     
  18. Weaselboy Moderator

    Weaselboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Location:
    California
    #18
    Ah yes... OCZ switched their Vertex 2 from 34nm NAND to 25nm NAND and did not disclose this until they were called out on it. Fair enough if you want to hold this against them, but there is nothing "low brand" about the NAND in their SSDs. It is the same commodity NAND chips everybody else uses.
     
  19. ultra7k macrumors 6502

    ultra7k

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2012
    #19
    Is that what that whole Vertex 2 Extended fiasco was about?
     
  20. Weaselboy Moderator

    Weaselboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Location:
    California
    #20
    Yep. The 25nm chips have lower write cycle ratings (3,000), so OCZ set aside more scratch space to compensate for this. To OCZ's credit, they came clean about it and replaced drives for customers who asked, but it left a bad taste in some people's mouth. Interestingly, OWC switched from 34nm (5,000 write cycles) to lower write cycle rated 25nm chips without changing the model number or telling anybody, and nobody made a fuss over it. Good read here on the difference.
     
  21. rabidz7 macrumors 65816

    rabidz7

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Location:
    Ohio
    #21
    The intel 520's are the fastest ssd on the market besides the ocz vector. I would ask for the vector.
     

Share This Page