Hmmm Intel = $449 and OCZ = $329, I know the Intel is a 160gb and the OCZ is a 120gb, but how much of a performance upgrade would you actually get? Maybe Photoshop would load up .2 seconds slower? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I really want to know because $120 is a lot of money to me. Space isn't really a premium for me, just want the most effective drive over 100gb. The WD passport 750gb will hold almost anything I need.
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.
SSD Comparison Chart
- Thread starter emt1
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hmmm Intel = $449 and OCZ = $329, I know the Intel is a 160gb and the OCZ is a 120gb, but how much of a performance upgrade would you actually get? Maybe Photoshop would load up .2 seconds slower? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I really want to know because $120 is a lot of money to me. Space isn't really a premium for me, just want the most effective drive over 100gb. The WD passport 750gb will hold almost anything I need.
well the intel sequentially will provide a faster performance.
most will say there almost even....but i own both and find the intel faster for me.
easily worth the extra 120
Something else to consider is that only the Intel drives are known for maintaining their speeds. The OCZ drives do slow down considerably with time and can only be returned to the original speed with the wiper.exe program, which is currently only for Windows.
indeed,
intel does maintain its speed even when its full.
i find overall the drive is perfect. it works all the time without issue.
i have 3 of these 80gb and soon 2 160gb gen 2 ones.
Just curious.. what makes the intel ssd maintain its speed and the other doesn't?
MacModMachine, so with both your ocz and intel drives, do you find the intel is still faster for transferring large files (ie: 5 - 15 gig) than the ocz, i thought for stuff like that intel might be a bit slower.. maybe I am wrong?
Thanks.
Which is why I am waiting on the updated 320 GB Intel drives. They will be faster and more storage. I can't go down to 160GB.
That is what I am thinking too. With Intel shrinked the die to 32nm, the 160GB only takes up one side, so they can easily make a 320GB with both side filled, hopefully it will be less than double the price.. If that becomes 600 - 700 bucks, I would buy that instead. Wonder when they are going to release that...
It'd definitely buy it. If they manage to go to 512 GB even more chances I'd buy.
I don't really see them being faster, will most likely use the same tech as the current 2nd gen drives. The 320 GB model is supposed to be coming in Q4 this year. Most likely the price will be double, like it is with the 80 and 160 GB versions.
Personally I don't see a huge need for more than 160 GB at the moment. At the moment my OSX drive has about 80 GB on it including apps, OS, downloads, a few movies etc. For something like music etc having them on an external hard disk drive won't slow things down much. Startup times and app responsiveness are the main benefits of SSD drives so data that is loaded fast even on regular hard drives can stay on those.
I need more than 160GB cause I keep all my media with me. So, anything lower than 250GB won't cut it. 250GB is the minimum I am willing to buy.
"Apple" 256GB SSD
I just reread this entire thread, and am still confused as to everyone's opinion of the 256GB SSD that Apple uses in the MBP. I understand that they have used Toshiba and Samsung in the past, but has anyone received a new MBP in the last week or so that can confirm what is shipping currently? The performance difference between the two brands and the numbers that have been quoted in this thread differ greatly. I would really appreciate any help.
I just reread this entire thread, and am still confused as to everyone's opinion of the 256GB SSD that Apple uses in the MBP. I understand that they have used Toshiba and Samsung in the past, but has anyone received a new MBP in the last week or so that can confirm what is shipping currently? The performance difference between the two brands and the numbers that have been quoted in this thread differ greatly. I would really appreciate any help.
While I agree with this advice entirely, let me just add a word of caution from my own mistake in this regard. I have a current-gen MBP and at some point of the swapping in and out process (didn't do it the smartest way and ended up putting the original hard drive back in after swapping a SSD in - the SSD is now in the optical bay so I have both). Somewhere during the swapping process I tore the very flimsy, paper-thin SATA connector ribbon. Not totally torn, but enough that it stopped working. Thankfully I had a cool Genius who didn't charge me labor or void my warranty. I paid around $30 and waited like 8 days for him to order the part, then drop off the MBP and then pick it up a couple days later. I had to take the optical-bay SSD out of course so it looked like normal when he got it - on his advice.
All that to say, yes it's absolutely worth it to swap it out yourself (you'll also net the stock HDD and have a great selection of SSDs to chose from) but do take care with the connector ribbon. I think I actually went wrong flipping the hard drives over, wrapping the ribbon around the drive to get it seated back in place - but I'm not totally sure when the damage occurred.
Beware of SSD with 2009 MBP
Buyer beware. I've a two month old 15" MBP that I purchased a new Intel X25 for. After the 1.7 Firmware update, it will not see the drive. Nor will it see a new replacement X25 either. In fact, it will not see any drive other than the stock that came with the unit.
There's a complete thread (57 pages at the moment) on this issue over at Apple Forums.
Buyer beware. I've a two month old 15" MBP that I purchased a new Intel X25 for. After the 1.7 Firmware update, it will not see the drive. Nor will it see a new replacement X25 either. In fact, it will not see any drive other than the stock that came with the unit.
There's a complete thread (57 pages at the moment) on this issue over at Apple Forums.
"New Feel" is nothing compared to "OMGWTFBBQ Fast!!!" feeling you will have later on.
Corsair Extreme x256
Anyone tried the new Corsair extreme series? They seem to offer good performance on paper with a pretty decent price.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/25/corsair-keeps-on-rolling-with-extreme-series-x256-ssd/
Anyone tried the new Corsair extreme series? They seem to offer good performance on paper with a pretty decent price.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/25/corsair-keeps-on-rolling-with-extreme-series-x256-ssd/
They only taunt read/write speeds in the Sequential mode. We need read/write speeds in the Random 4k mode. In real world, it's the random speeds you actually see.
I just bought the Corsair x256 256gb SSD (~$460 AR + cashback) so we'll see how it is when i get it soon in the mail.
I was really going to wait for the G2 Intel SSds but couldn't pass up the deal.
hopefully with the slower random access, I won't notice a difference. Then again, this is my first SSD so i'll probably be amazed anyways.
I was really going to wait for the G2 Intel SSds but couldn't pass up the deal.
hopefully with the slower random access, I won't notice a difference. Then again, this is my first SSD so i'll probably be amazed anyways.