SSD Recommendation?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by RainCityMacFan, May 8, 2011.

  1. RainCityMacFan, May 8, 2011
    Last edited: May 8, 2011

    RainCityMacFan macrumors 6502a

    Jun 10, 2007
    I've been reading through nearly every thread about SSD that has popped up so far for the last three months, literally.

    It seems that EVERY SSD has its own problems whether in performance, design (ie OWC's latest and greatest with reworked PCB), or reliability (OCZ). So seeing that OCZ is a shady company and OWCs latest 6Gs aren't that great maybe I should look at lower performance drives such as Intel/Crucial/etc.

    The question I have is, will I notice that big or any difference between using a SandForce driven performance drive (V3 or OWC 6G) vs a more reliable Intel or Marvell driven SSD for my usage?

    So my daily usage involves using Word, Chrome, gaming, a bit of Photoshop/Indesign/Illustrator, and possibly VMware Win7. My plans are to get an SSD into the main bay and place the 500GB 7200 drive into the optical bay where I can run my music/downloads/movies/VMware. So my SSD will be solely for applications and boot. I also have a 15" 2011 MBP with a SATA 6Gbps, but then again, is the latest and greatest really necessary for me?

    So does anyone have any recommendation for which SSD I should get?
    Intel, Crucial M4, etc.?

    Price is a very important factor for me seeing that I'll be buying the data doubler and etc.

    EDIT: I also live overseas at the moment... Meaning that I can't order from Newegg. So no Newegg prices :S
  2. Malcolm. macrumors member


    May 7, 2011
    The Middle
    I got the Sandforce-based Mushkin Callisto 120 GB last week ($234) and I'm enjoying it immensely. One thing I noticed after I ran Speccy (yeah I'm on Windows 7) is that Mushkin's SSDs appear to be manufactured by Toshiba, which made me a bit leery since their mechanical drives are less than reliable.

    If performance is your main priority, I'd say take your pick from any of the major "performance-focused" brands, but if you need reliability over speed, definitely Intel. They've got the cold hard cash necessary for all the R&D in the world, and it seems to be paying off so far. A lot of the smaller SSD companies seem to be plagued with reliability issues (Mushkin is one, the first SSD I ordered arrived DOA, so I had to RMA it back for a replacement.) When I upgrade my desktop to an SSD, I'm probably going with Intel.
  3. Weaselboy Moderator


    Staff Member

    Jan 23, 2005
    Intel is very reliable and given your preference of saving a little money over absolute speed, I would say the Intel 320 SSD. Many users here have installed that drive and it seems to work well in a Mac.
  4. NickZac macrumors 68000


    Dec 11, 2010
    Speed is debated way too much. The SSD speed comparison is like seeing if a Ferrari Enzo can beat a McLaren F1, but they are racing in a 60MHP zone and can't break the speed limit.

    The factory may be the best bet if you are worried about reliability, and of course you can't go wrong with Intel. If you can find an OLDER OWC Mercury Extreme Pro (3.0GBPS) that is a golden performer as well. Unless you feel that Word booting up about .3 seconds quicker, SATA2 or SATA3 is not as important as many people imply, and so you should focus on reliability.
  5. kobyh15 macrumors 6502a

    Jan 29, 2011
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

    I would consider myself a mainstream user as yourself. The most demanding thing I would do would be to run Win7 in Parallels. I also have a 2011 MBP with the SATA III bus, but I ordered an Intel 320 300 GB last week. It should be here this next week. You get more GBs for the money, Intel reliability, and the performance boost of a SSD. I doubt I will ever even notice the difference between a SATA II or III drive. Not many people would.
  6. RainCityMacFan thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Jun 10, 2007
    Thanks for the replies guys :D

    I'm split between the Crucial M4/C300, Intel, and OWC's Mercury Extreme (Not 6G)... Does anyone know which is more reliable for Macs out of the two? Taking into account of price and a bit of performance as well? I keep hearing that the M4 beach balls and has horrible performance without TRIM :S But for a SATA3 drive, they are pretty cheap compared to the OWC 6G and V3.

    @NickZac: I really regret not getting the factory drive for 100$ more. But nonetheless, I must move on :p However, as for the OWC drive, are you talking about the old SATA 3Gbps OWC drives with 2xnm NAND or 3xnm NAND?
  7. NickZac macrumors 68000


    Dec 11, 2010
    The OWC drives with 34nm flash were proven to be the fastest of the fast and ridiculously reliable. Their 2x nm (x meaning they have not disclosed this information) is simply unproven, as is the Crucial M4. If you are most interested in reliability, saying one is or is not more reliable between those two choices is impossible. The older Crucial C300 was/is a great drive, as was/is the 34nm Mercury Extreme Pro. No one can say that the new ones are as well proven as they simply are too new to be longevity tested. More than likely they will both work well, but I personally would have an issue buying either at this point in time.
  8. kappaknight macrumors 68000


    Mar 5, 2009
    The Crucial m4 is the Micron M400, not C300. While the C300 does suffer w/o TRIM after extended periods, I don't think anyone has been able to test the m4 on a long term basis w/o TRIM.

Share This Page