Top HDDs & SSDs benchmarked in 15" MacBook Pro; who wants the review?

DaMarcus

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Aug 3, 2010
7
0
The Netherlands

I've benchmarked the following drives:

  • Western Digital Scorpio Black WD5000BEKT
  • Western Digital Scorpio Black WD3200BEKT
  • Western Digital Scorpio Blue WD5000BEVT
  • Seagate Momentus XT 500GB
  • Crucial RealSSD C300 64GB
  • OCZ Agility 2 120GB
  • OCZ Vertex Limited Edition 50GB

I've measured installation time, boot time, file copy performance, XBench and more. So, which site would be interested to publish this results? I've contacted MacRumors, if they were interested in publishing this review but I did not hear back from them. Who knows a website that would be interested in publishing this review for a small fee?
 

Philflow

macrumors 65816
May 7, 2008
1,270
3
Confirmed, DaMarcus is a friend of mine.

all of those drives have had published results elsewhere?
I am aware of a couple of sites that publish hard drive reviews but to my knowledge none of them have tested the real world performance of all these drives. Let alone in a Macbook Pro with Nvidia chipset. As you may know the chipset and SATA controller can have a large impact on hard drive performance.

The sites that do publish reviews are usually focused on Windows. Techreport has tested some of these drives on a desktop running Windows, Toms Hardware has only ran synthetic benchmarks on some of these drives, in a laptop with Intel controller running Windows. Anandtech performs his storage benchmarks on a desktop running Windows.

In my opinion: if you are a Macbook Pro user and want maximum performance you should look for a review that has measured real world performance on a Macbook Pro running OS X.
 

yosi199

macrumors member
Apr 12, 2010
55
1
The man took the time and compares several different SSD in the world of OSX and I for one, really waiting to see the results. I've just bought a macbook pro 13" and my next target is its HD.

To the OP, I hope you will find where to publish it and get paid for the effort.
 

aohus

macrumors 68000
Apr 4, 2010
1,771
379
sky
i highly doubt any major tech site would pay for your review.

they dont know your qualifications, and the approach you used for testing.


http://www.anandtech.com is a great site though.

you didn't even give a snippet of your work.
 

dr. shdw

macrumors 6502a
Aug 27, 2008
964
0
I can probably tell you the rankings just from the list..

Slowest -> Fastest

1. Western Digital Scorpio Black WD3200BEKT/Western Digital Scorpio Blue WD5000BEVT (faster/higher density but slower)
2. Western Digital Scorpio Black WD5000BEKT (faster and higher density)
3. Seagate Momentus XT 500GB (flash cache)
4. Crucial RealSSD C300 64GB/OCZ Vertex Limited Edition 50GB (pure flash but small capacity, a bit slower)
5. OCZ Agility 2 120GB (pure flash full speed)

Give or take..
 

DaMarcus

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Aug 3, 2010
7
0
The Netherlands
I can probably tell you the rankings just from the list..

Slowest -> Fastest

1. Western Digital Scorpio Black WD3200BEKT/Western Digital Scorpio Blue WD5000BEVT (faster/higher density but slower)
2. Western Digital Scorpio Black WD5000BEKT (faster and higher density)
3. Seagate Momentus XT 500GB (flash cache)
4. Crucial RealSSD C300 64GB/OCZ Vertex Limited Edition 50GB (pure flash but small capacity, a bit slower)
5. OCZ Agility 2 120GB (pure flash full speed)

Give or take..
I won't give or take it. Why? Because your prediction is wrong. Don't forgot that the chipset was one from nVidia, not from Intel. And I've used Snow Leopard, not Windows.

And if you still don't believe me, Philflow can confirm that the results in OS X (Snow Leopard) are quite different then in Windows.
 

Aboo

macrumors 6502a
Jul 7, 2008
879
50
The problem here is that although you have some reasonably good hard drives, your SSDs seem to be on the low end. Most people on here won't purchase such low capacity SSDs to begin with, so the interest might not be there. If however you had SSDs in the 80 to 256 GB range with name players like Intel, OWC, Crucial, Apple stock SSD (Samsung/Toshiba), etc. then it would be of greatest interest here. Also, I am not sure of any tech sites that would pay for such a review since most have their own review/testing departments that get truck loads of these products to test and publish.
 

peapody

macrumors 68040
Oct 7, 2007
3,126
73
San Francisco, CA
The problem here is that although you have some reasonably good hard drives, your SSDs seem to be on the low end. Most people on here won't purchase such low capacity SSDs to begin with, so the interest might not be there. If however you had SSDs in the 80 to 256 GB range with name players like Intel, OWC, Crucial, Apple stock SSD (Samsung/Toshiba), etc. then it would be of greatest interest here. Also, I am not sure of any tech sites that would pay for such a review since most have their own review/testing departments that get truck loads of these products to test and publish.
I agree with Aboo and was going to ask why you don't have the intel x25m on there since that is one of the favorites on MR.
 

Yimbie

macrumors member
Aug 3, 2010
77
0
Any good comparison review of HDDs and SSDs REQUIRE the Intel. It's one of the most popular SSDs out there, if not, THE most popular. It's the only one I'm looking at right now for my Macbook Pro.
 

circularforward

macrumors 6502
Jul 18, 2010
253
0
That's a great review that I would like to read. I hope some site takes up your offer. Any way you can add the 7k500 or the new 7200.5 to the review too?
 

Demthios

macrumors member
Jul 27, 2008
52
0
I too would love to see this seeing how I'm in the market for a SSD, and would like to see how the nvidia chipset and OSX makes a difference....Hope you find a site and hope you let us know where to go look for it.
 

dr. shdw

macrumors 6502a
Aug 27, 2008
964
0
I won't give or take it. Why? Because your prediction is wrong. Don't forgot that the chipset was one from nVidia, not from Intel. And I've used Snow Leopard, not Windows.

And if you still don't believe me, Philflow can confirm that the results in OS X (Snow Leopard) are quite different then in Windows.
Cause I don't want to pay money to find out answers I probably already know?? and I already have a Vertex 2 120gb which is plenty fast for me. And my prediction can't be that far off, the nVidia chipset is slower and SL has similar benchs to 7.

Plus xbench blows, it's old and inconsistent..

Slowest -> Fastest

1. Western Digital Scorpio Black WD3200BEKT/Western Digital Scorpio Blue WD5000BEVT (faster/higher density but slower)
2. Western Digital Scorpio Black WD5000BEKT (faster and higher density)
3. Seagate Momentus XT 500GB (flash cache)
4. Crucial RealSSD C300 64GB/OCZ Vertex Limited Edition 50GB (pure flash but small capacity, a bit slower)
5. OCZ Agility 2 120GB (pure flash full speed)

Give or take..

Actually, because the Crucial and Vertex LE are so small, the Seagate MXT may win some, but I'm sure the Agility 2 is top, or there is something wrong with your MBP. Also I hope your MBP isn't one of the ones with the fugly controllers that don't like 3gbps..

To rank the following..slowest to fastest

Apple (Samsung/Toshiba), Intel (G2), OWC/Crucial/OCZ (Sandforce 1200)
 

Kristine

macrumors 6502a
Feb 21, 2005
599
173
Since we don't know your experience, qualifications, method of testing etc, maybe you can post the review and then ask people to donate a few dollars to you via PayPal if they deem your effort/time worth it. This way, you will get some experience as a reviewer/technical writer, which may lead to further paid reviews from other technical review sites (maybe you can be their Mac tester or something).
 

Tmacfan4321

macrumors regular
Dec 21, 2007
239
0
University Park, PA
The problem here is that although you have some reasonably good hard drives, your SSDs seem to be on the low end. Most people on here won't purchase such low capacity SSDs to begin with, so the interest might not be there. If however you had SSDs in the 80 to 256 GB range with name players like Intel, OWC, Crucial, Apple stock SSD (Samsung/Toshiba), etc. then it would be of greatest interest here. Also, I am not sure of any tech sites that would pay for such a review since most have their own review/testing departments that get truck loads of these products to test and publish.
Capacity doesn't really make any difference for speed. It's 95% controller after you get past 120GB.

Any good comparison review of HDDs and SSDs REQUIRE the Intel. It's one of the most popular SSDs out there, if not, THE most popular. It's the only one I'm looking at right now for my Macbook Pro.
I agree with Aboo and was going to ask why you don't have the intel x25m on there since that is one of the favorites on MR.
The X25-M has significantly slower write speeds than drives with Sandforce controllers (OCZ Vertex 2, Agility 2, Corsair Force, OWC Mercury) or the newest Marvell controller (Crucial RealSSD).

The X25-M is only good for the extra space that it provides over the newer drives.
 

Philflow

macrumors 65816
May 7, 2008
1,270
3
Any good comparison review of HDDs and SSDs REQUIRE the Intel. It's one of the most popular SSDs out there, if not, THE most popular.
Keep in mind though that the Intel G2 is at the end of a product cycle. First G3 products are expected in Q3/Q4.

It's the only one I'm looking at right now for my Macbook Pro.
That doesn't sound very wise.
 

peapody

macrumors 68040
Oct 7, 2007
3,126
73
San Francisco, CA
The X25-M has significantly slower write speeds than drives with Sandforce controllers (OCZ Vertex 2, Agility 2, Corsair Force, OWC Mercury) or the newest Marvell controller (Crucial RealSSD).

The X25-M is only good for the extra space that it provides over the newer drives.
True enough, but the intel is still one of the most popular drives. You cannot deny that...which is why any comparison would do well to include it even if it is nearing the end of it's cycle.
 

Philflow

macrumors 65816
May 7, 2008
1,270
3
I agree, for comparison it would be nice if a Intel G2 SSD was included. Maybe DaMarcus can still arrange that.
 

Vyruz Reaper

macrumors regular
Dec 23, 2009
134
0
The problem here is that although you have some reasonably good hard drives, your SSDs seem to be on the low end. Most people on here won't purchase such low capacity SSDs to begin with, so the interest might not be there. If however you had SSDs in the 80 to 256 GB range with name players like Intel, OWC, Crucial, Apple stock SSD (Samsung/Toshiba), etc. then it would be of greatest interest here. Also, I am not sure of any tech sites that would pay for such a review since most have their own review/testing departments that get truck loads of these products to test and publish.
i 2nd this. I dont car about a small WD drive. I dont care about some old SSD. I want sandforce etc with drives that offer garbage collection for Mac OSX users. sorry bro
 

Similar threads

  • FilmIndustryGuy
1
Replies
1
Views
320
  • Spectrum
125
Replies
125
Views
13K
  • androidarmy
2
Replies
2
Views
373
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.