im wanting to upgrade the harddrive on my new macbook but i cant really decide ssd speeds look amazing but there are so many people saying the lifespan is so short . anyone have any advice as to which one would be better?
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 or 7200 rpm harddrive
- Thread starter sosaysiburke
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That depends, if you need a lot of space get the 7200. If space is not a concern go for a SSD - like I did.
I don't have any numbers on lifespan, but I don't think that this is something to really worry about that much, at least I don't worry about that.
I don't have any numbers on lifespan, but I don't think that this is something to really worry about that much, at least I don't worry about that.
The short lifespan is somewhat of a myth now. It may have been a problem initially, however, SSD technology has come a long way in a short time. Also, most quality SSD's have more than their stated capacity to make up for dead cells, and they automatically space stuff around the drive to prolong lifespan.
Look at the write cycles on most SSD's available these days, and if you do the math, you'll see that the drives will generally last 5+ years even if you wrote to the drive constantly 24 hours a day.
Look at the write cycles on most SSD's available these days, and if you do the math, you'll see that the drives will generally last 5+ years even if you wrote to the drive constantly 24 hours a day.
If you do decide to get an SSD, I wouldn't recommend getting a cheap one. If you're gonna do it, do it right with the sweet Intel models. If you can't stomach the price-tag, get a 7200 rpm HDD. You won't be disappointed with a scorpio black or seagate 7200.4, but you very well could be disappointed with your SSD because of the high price you'll have to pay for it.
Even though on paper HDDs have longer life than SSDs, I came across too many HDDs failing within 2-3 years. The worst part is, not $, but data loss. However, when SSD fail, it will lose the ability to write, but you can still read and transfer data to new drive. That to me alone, is worth the extra $, in additional to the zero vibration, zero sound, less weight, less heat...
In my mind you need to prioritize
If you have good network storage, then go with SSD. If you're going to store your files locally, go with HDD.
I compared a 7200.4 and an Intel X25-M. 2 ends of the spectrum (X25-E is just too low GB IMO).
I do not store my music or files on my machine. I strictly run apps from this machine. In the end I chose the Intel solution based on my usage model.
If you have good network storage, then go with SSD. If you're going to store your files locally, go with HDD.
I compared a 7200.4 and an Intel X25-M. 2 ends of the spectrum (X25-E is just too low GB IMO).
I do not store my music or files on my machine. I strictly run apps from this machine. In the end I chose the Intel solution based on my usage model.
seems like the ssd is the best bet and i have some network space not to mention i was thinking of just using the current drive in my macbook as a usb drive with one of those cheap little conversion things
I've read somewhere that SSD loses its efficiency over time. You will see a drop between 5-30% in performance after 3 months of usage. It was also stated in the same article/review that the WD Scorpio (7200) is the fastest drive that can compete with the SSDs.
im a big fan of wd ive had 2 120 gigs from them for like 9 years? still running strong but some of the reviews on those speeds of ssd just seems to be the way to go
What you saw was a report on if you pound the hell out of these drives, they need to be reformatted.
It has to do with fragmentation (and I'm too lazy to google it right now). That being said, this Intel is a nice cheap way to get some mach speed out of your machine.
If money is no object, just pick up an X25-E 64GB. SLC doesn't have this issue and the write speed is obscene on this drive.