SSD upgrades - Apple or 3rd party?

Discussion in 'MacBook Air' started by iamsen47, Aug 18, 2012.

  1. iamsen47 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Location:
    Kobe, Japan
    #1
    Did a quick search but nothing similar popped up.

    I'll be getting a new 11" Air sometime before Christmas when I return to Japan.

    Anyone knows, besides costs, whether there's a difference between getting the 240Gb chip off OWC and Apple's 256Gb upgrade?

    It's not a significant price difference, only about 10,000yen (~US$100) or so, but I get to keep the 64Gb chip as a back up if I go the OWC route.
     
  2. dcorban macrumors 6502a

    dcorban

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    #2
    I haven't researched much into the differences, but I do know that Apple SSD have OS TRIM support, while third party does not. Also, does cracking open your Air case and replacing the SSD void the warranty?
     
  3. kodeman53 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    #3
    Unless forced to, why would anyone take a brand new MBA, open it up and install an aftermarket SSD? Makes zero sense.
     
  4. Orange Furball macrumors 65816

    Orange Furball

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Location:
    Scranton, PA, USA
    #4
    You can just stick the old one back in should you have a problem.

    I always say aftermarket, but with OWC I say just stick with Apple. The prices are the same, and you won't have to install it and clone your OS X. A lot easier if you ask me.
     
  5. asting macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2012
    #5
    The prices are not the same. It is much cheaper to buy from owc. You also get two drives that way and can sell the old recouping some of the cost.
     
  6. Skika macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    #6
    In this situation i would just go with Apple and call it a day.
     
  7. kierennyc macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #7
    Because its really not that big of a deal. Its just a computer - believe it or not, some of like to and are capable of upgrading our machines.
     
  8. asting macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2012
    #8
    And some of us don't like paying hundreds more than we need to.
     
  9. kodeman53 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    #9
    Where did I say it was a big deal? I didn't. Just because people like to and are capable doesn't mean it's not a stupid idea.

    ----------

    Hundreds? Google "hyperbole".
     
  10. asting macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2012
    #10
    Let's do the math, shall we?



    13" 4gb, i5 (for simplicity's sake) with 128gb ssd=$1199

    13" 4gb, i5 with 512gb ssd=$1999

    480GB ssd from OWC (which is really the 512 underpartitioned to preserve ssd health)=$644.99

    1199+644.99=1844.98 With the old 128GB to put in an enclosure or sell, which you could easily get $150 for on ebay (probably $200 is more realistic, but let's underplay it and give you the benefit of doubt).
    $150+(1999.99-1844.98)=$305.01

    So yes, hundreds. Thanks for the sassy remark though. Next time look up prices before you make a fool of yourself. ;)

    edit: link for lazy
    http://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/SSDAP2A6G480/
     
  11. Weaselboy Moderator

    Weaselboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Location:
    California
    #11
    I think what you missed is the OP is looking at an 11" MBA. and that really narrows the gap.

    So what we looking at is going from $999 to $1,399 with Apple OEM SSD versus $319 for the OWC 256GB. $80 US difference. Looks like people are getting around $60 for the used 64GB OEM Apple SSD on eBay, so I guess you can throw that into the mix also if you want.

    I guess I don't see a right or wrong answer here. OP needs to decide if saving $80 US is worth going with OWC and having no native TRIM and perhaps complicating warranty issues later on.

    I would not go through this hassle for $80, but OP has the info from this thread to make a good decision for themself.

    One issue that for me would point away from the OWC for the OP is OP will be in Japan. Anything goes wrong with that OWC SSD and you will be paying (and waiting) for shipping from Japan.

    Just my opinion. :)
     
  12. kierennyc macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #12
     
  13. LeandrodaFL macrumors 6502a

    LeandrodaFL

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    #13
    Go 3rd party, as the price diference is huge. moreover, its a good stimulus to the aftermarket of SSDs
     
  14. asting macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2012
    #14
    Sure I agree with that. The smaller the change (64-256, etc) the less the return will be, but again it's worth noting that you not only save $80, but also get a super fast 64gb drive you could get a bit of cash for or use externally when enclosures become available. The trim support also isn't really necessary with the sandforce controllers, or so I read (my technical understanding in this aspect is limited, but I've read that).
     
  15. kodeman53 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    #15
    128 gig from Apple = $100, $168 from OWC. Savings = -$68
    256 gig from Apple = $300, $320 from OWC. Savings = -$20
    512 gig from Apple = $800, $645 from OWC. Savings = +$155

    Yep, OWC saves you 'hundreds'. Must be the new math.
     
  16. asting macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2012
    #16
    Maybe you missed the bold part of my post, which points out you will still have the original drive to sell if you go aftermarket, while it's merely an upgrade cost for apple.
    But no, you must be right...
     
  17. kodeman53 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    #17
    Wow, you will have a whole 64 gig spare SSD. Still doesn't add up to 'hundreds' in savings.
     
  18. iamsen47 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Location:
    Kobe, Japan
    #18
    Thank all for the replies.

    I probably won't be selling the 64Gb chip, preferring to keep it for warranty purposes. And as mentioned by several folks above, the difference in cost isn't that significant between Apple and OWC. It seems that the 2012 chip uses a different slot and OWC doesn't have an enclosure ready for one yet, though honestly, a 64Gb external doesn't really seem that... enticing.

    I have seen a review elsewhere (that I can't seem to find at the moment, could be storagereview.com) mentioning the OWC 6G chips are almost twice the speed of the Toshibas or Samsungs in the Apple. I don't remember if it's for the '11 or the '12 model though.

    Also, I've not used any SSDs before, so the difference between fast and faster is very much lost on me. Anyone care to share their experiences on this?
     
  19. Weaselboy Moderator

    Weaselboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Location:
    California
    #19
    That would have been for the 2011 model which used SATA II flash drives from Apple. The OWC replacement was a SATA III drive and hence about twice as fast in synthetic benchmark tests. The 2012 MBA comes from Apple with a SATA III flash drive so you won't see the speed increase on a 2012 when going to an OWC which is also SATA III.

    So if you buy a 2012 MBA and put in a OWC flash drive you won't see a speed increase.
     
  20. JPamplin macrumors 6502

    JPamplin

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    #20
    Bingo! I was hoping someone would mention this. I have a 2011 11" i5 4/128 and I just bought a 240GB OWC SATA3 model. Trust me, having used a PC laptop with a SATA3 SSD, you notice the difference. The MBA is fast already, but this will max the speed of this unit and will allow me to have a small Windows boot camp partition.

    Plus I'm using the 128GB SSD as a boot drive for a desktop Hackintosh that only has SATA2 ports, so win/win.
     
  21. dcorban macrumors 6502a

    dcorban

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    #21
    Who is going to buy a used, low-GB, proprietary Apple SSD?
     
  22. magbarn macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #22
    Last years 2011 SSD models are slower than owc's SSD upgrades, but for this year the situation is markedly different. For the 64-128gb capacities, it's a wash as both the owc and toshiba 2012 SSDs have the same controller and essentially the same performance. For the 256gb on up, the Samsung sata III PM830 controller is a much better all around performer than OWC's sandforce controller. Sandforce controllers are basically 50% slower in moving incompressible data (sandforce drives are fast as they basically are hardware data compressors in addition to being a data controller). That means for FileVault, music/video, and other already compressed data, the Samsung drive is superior. Apple uses only Samsung controllers in their 256-512gb MBA ssds and their rMBP's.
     
  23. asting macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2012
    #23
    Plenty of people. It is most applicable to the 128gb 13" base model I guess as that can be a cheap doubling of memory for an 11" 64gb model.
     
  24. iamsen47, Aug 19, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 19, 2012

    iamsen47 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Location:
    Kobe, Japan
    #24
    I guess this settles it. Thanks!
     
  25. dcorban macrumors 6502a

    dcorban

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    #25
    If it's "cheap", then it is not much of an incentive for someone to go through all this effort to resell one.
     

Share This Page