SSD for boot drive

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by bsblvnv, Mar 26, 2010.

  1. bsblvnv macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    #1
    I am looking to do the optibay or DIY version, but what I want is a ssd for the boot drive, how big of one do I really need? Do all of the applications need to be on the boot drive as well or can some of them run off the secondary drive, which will be the 1TB WD Scorpio?
     
  2. runtohell121 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    #2
    I think it is about 20-25gb total for all the ilife programs with some other programs. I'm currently running Intel X25-M G2 80GB. I think it is under 20gb without all the random stuff I have on mine. You can get the OCZ Vertex or Intel X25-V.
     
  3. bsblvnv thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    #3
    But would I be able to run things like Photoshop & Aperture of the secondary hard drive or do all of the applications really need to be on the boot drive?

    Programs I use daily -
    Aperture
    Photoshop
    iWork
    Final Cut Studio
     
  4. MikhailT macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    #4
    Yes, you should place all the applications on the boot drive to benefit from the SSD but the media files or other files can be stored on secondary hard drive.
     
  5. bsblvnv thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    #5
    Ok thanks think I might just go with the 128GB
     
  6. runtohell121 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    #6
    If you're willing to spend that much, I would go with the Intel X25-M 160GB G2.
     
  7. jjahshik32 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #7
    If you dont want to spend the price of a mac mini on the 160GB intel x25-m version, I believe the 80GB is more than sufficient for your boot drive, especially if your going to install an optibay.

    I dont have the optibay installed on my mbp but 80GB is plenty for me. I still have 53GB left after all my apps is installed and thats including vmware fusion.
     
  8. bsblvnv thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    #8
    I was actually thinking about this and I can get it for $399
     
  9. ayeying macrumors 601

    ayeying

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Location:
    Yay Area, CA
    #9
    Depending on how much plug-ins and stuff you install for Final Cut Studio. FCS takes up ~60GB of space for a full install.
     
  10. runtohell121 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    #10
    My concern is, for $400, I rather just get the Intel X25-M 160GB for $420 - Bing Cash Back (if you use it). But I think 80gb is actually enough for most applications and the operating system itself. You don't really need that much storage unless you're planning store photos, movies, and music...
     
  11. bsblvnv thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    #11
    Well my concern is that I am basically living in the stoneage and I NEVER buy anything online. The only intel ssd I can find locally is the 80BG and it may be enough for now but I don't plan on upgrading again for a few years. I will definately be getting Photoshop CS5 and I don't know how much space that will take plus I am sure there will be other must haves. I can run movies, pics, and have most of my files on the second drive, but I just don't want to buy the 80GB for now at 379 then in a month wish I would have bought the 128 from patriot for 30 bucks less.
     
  12. FieryFurnace macrumors 6502

    FieryFurnace

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Location:
    Berlin, Germany
    #12
    I have a 60GB Vertex in my MB.
    MacOS + CS4 Design Premium + ~8.5GB files, I still have 20GB free. :)
     
  13. runtohell121 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    #13
    locally ehh.. not much choices for sure.. and I'm guessing you're going to be going to Fry's to buy it if your in Las Vegas. Maybe look at some reviews on what drives you find at your local store (Fry's) before buying one locally. Fry's do have the 80gb Intel SSD which is $380 or so in store price (from what I saw in the Bay Area and LA). Kingston, Crucial, and Patriot is usually the cheapest SSD at Fry's.
     
  14. bsblvnv thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    #14
    What is wrong with Patriot though, I have seen nothing bad about it on the net, and I have always purchased Patriot memory, and sd cards in the past and have never had a problem with any of them. Why is intel so much better, personally to me it's just a name. Ironically I say that as I look through my Gucci glasses at my MacBook Pro, but really many of the smaller brands are just as good as the big boys, Right?
     
  15. Dr.Pants macrumors 65816

    Dr.Pants

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    #15
    Intel apparently sets the standard for SSDs. I haven't used one of theirs yet, but for a machine that needs an edge, go with Intel.

    However, drives that are "just as good" are mainly based on the memory controller in the SSD - the top non-Intel drives use the Sandforce and Indilinx controllers. You have to do some digging to find out which series of SSDs have them, though.
     
  16. runtohell121 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    #16
    wriong on the small brands. Some of the small brands uses the Jmircron controller which is what people need to avoid. For myself, I tested a Kingston SSDNow V- Series which had the Jmircron controller in it. It didn't stutter with Kingston's firmware, just slow.

    Patriot is a good brand. It's just the fact that you need to know what controller is inside the SSD. Most people recommend OCZ and Intel for SSD. Those two companies basically set the standard at a reasonable price for consumers.
     
  17. Gen macrumors 6502a

    Gen

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    #17
  18. Ice Dragon macrumors 6502a

    Ice Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    #18
    I now see this topic and I am back to a decision again. Intel X-25 G2 or OWC Mercury Extreme?

    I'm not sure what to believe.
     
  19. brentsg macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    #19
    I wouldn't consider any SSD that isn't Intel or OCZ. There are simply far too many issues with the firmware still.

    Then again I wouldn't consider any SSD with a Mac right now, due to the lack of TRIM support and/or optimization tools.
     
  20. Ice Dragon macrumors 6502a

    Ice Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    #20
    Including OWC despite a five year warranty? If so, I am shifting back to Intel as I was before. Still, the OWC Mercury Extreme does have me curious.
     
  21. brentsg macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    #21
    The OS doesn't properly work with SSD yet in my opinion. SSDs will all gradually lose performance if the proper housekeeping isn't done. Initially some manufacturers created utilities you could use periodically, and then Windows 7 came out with proper TRIM support. Now the major drives work with this function of W7 to keep things tidy and performance high. So far Apple hasn't seen fit to facilitate this and to my knowledge none of the vendors tools work with OSX.

    I can't wait for Apple to remedy this. I have an Intel X25 160 in my windows box and it's wonderful. It will be even better in my MBP.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIM
     
  22. MikhailT macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    #22
    TRIM isn't a must right now. OCZ Indinilix drives and Intel drives are capable of cleaning after themselves over time using internal garbage collection. This works perfectly for Linux and OS X users.

    I have owned Vertex for a year now, after upgrading to 1.3/1.4 firmware that includes the latest IGC, the drives are at same performance levels at months apart. No issues anywhere.

    I also strongly suggest waiting for next generation of SSDs, they are coming Q3/Q4 of this year. Intel G3 will come out by fall or close to Winter, it'll be twice the storage with 2/3 of the price while being much faster.
     
  23. bob5820 macrumors 6502a

    bob5820

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2006
    Location:
    35°0′36″N 80°40′45″W (35.0
    #23
    I'd say that Intel is currently the safe bet. Until the release of the Sandforce based SSD's and the Corsair C-300 the Intel was pretty much the undisputed top dog Performance wise. Though the Sandforce and Corsair SSD's have taken the performance crown are still compelling reasons to go for the Intel. The controller is fairly mature while the new comers are largely unproven. The Intel is a better value at $2.80/GB while the OWC and the Corsair come at a premium of $4.00/GB or more. The smart money right now is on the Intel SSD's. My money however is going towards the Sandforce and the OWC Mercury Extreme. The downside to most SSD's with Mac's is the lack of TRIM support in OSX. My understanding is that the architecture of the Sandforce controller mitigates the need for TRIM. Its a gamble but I think that the OWC is a better option on the Mac.

    Here is a good reference to which SSD's use which controllers
    http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=736&type=expert&pid=1
     
  24. MikhailT macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    #24
    Don't get the C300 yet, their firmware is crappy right now. It managed to brick themselves and they have no idea why. Read Anandtech site about C300.
     
  25. Ice Dragon macrumors 6502a

    Ice Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    #25
    Time will definitely tell though you definitely helped me bob.

    Cost is not an issue, it's quality. I'm already paying for the Apple name to avoid Windows for a few years, so OWC seems to have a slight edge. Plus I know the 200 GB drive will drop in price and the 160 GB Intel will be even cheaper soon enough.
     

Share This Page