Western Digital 128gb SSD on sale, good choice?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by nineohtoo, Aug 17, 2010.

  1. nineohtoo macrumors 6502

    nineohtoo

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    #1
    Hi guys. I just saw this for $200 on newegg and thought some of you might be interested. I was also wondering if any of you think the speed differences between this and an 80gb X25-MII would be worth the trade off in capacity? I know the WD SSD don't rate all too well, especially in test like Anandtech's. But at this price point, I'm kinda feeling it might be worth it. Any thoughts?

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...ital-_-20250002&AID=10440897&PID=1727683&SID=
     
  2. J&JPolangin macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2008
    Location:
    Thule GL @ the TOW
    #3
    I got the 64Gb version of that drive when it was on sale a couple months ago for $109 with an additional coupon I had... the intent was for in my eeePC (Atom N270) running winXP... its fine in that machine but I'd go with an Intel, Crucial or OWC drive in a Mac or better PC depending on what you own...

    I think a better choice would have been the crucial M225 128Gb SSD that was just blown out on their web site for $199 + free shipping and that comes with a 5 year warranty!

    I got it due to the warranty, onboard wear leveling, onboard GC and write hours listed for the drive (and the low price)...

    WD also has good warranty service so if this breaks, I'll hopefully be able to trade "up" at that point in time:D
     
  3. Kaviar macrumors member

    Kaviar

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    #4
    I've not used a WD SSD but they spees look good and as a brand I don't have a bad word against them. Always been solid for me.

    Intel SSD's are ok but like all Intel products they are overpriced and you can get something the same/similar for less by going with a different manufacture.
    You can spend a few $ more on the Intel and get a HUGE drop from 170MB/s write down to 70MB/s...
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...167018&cm_re=intel_x25-_-20-167-018-_-Product
    The you have to consider the WD is a 128GB and not a 80GB!

    If you want the same space and speed as the WD but from Intel your looking at $400! The WD is such a better deal.


    ---EDIT---
    Despite owning a 128GB M225 I forgot all about it :p
    $75 for and extra 2 years warranty and 20MB/s write speed doesn't seem like a bad deal at all.
     
  4. Gabriel GR macrumors 6502a

    Gabriel GR

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Location:
    Athens, Greece
    #5
    In real IOPS bound apps the WD is much slower than the intel drives.
     
  5. Kaviar macrumors member

    Kaviar

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    #6
    But if IOPS are a key thing i.e. they are running heavy apps then why use a MBP and not a desktop?

    As in... if you really need the IOPS for the Intel then surely you gonna want more kick to the rest of the system as well?
     
  6. ccashman92 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2010
  7. Gabriel GR macrumors 6502a

    Gabriel GR

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Location:
    Athens, Greece
    #8
    IOPS also represent how fast your computer can access random small files. Like those in the cache of your browser, scratch disk or application files.

    Sustained speed only shows how fast you can copy files to your drive. And there is pretty much no source of data that you can connect your MBP to, that can feed it with such a data rate. You can only get aroune 80MB/s with ethernet, wireless is even slower.

    Except for the newest sandforce drives, the Intel X25-M remains the fastest SSD in real life tasks. And the next generation coming in a couple of months will probably be even faster.

    As for intel hardware being overpriced, I don't think this applies. Intel pretty much plays alone in the CPU department for a few years now and has models for every budget that perform great.
     
  8. KyleKlink macrumors regular

    KyleKlink

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Location:
    Santa Maria, Ca
    #9
    Does the lack of TRIM support in Mac OS X make SSDs a bad choice? Don't the drives slow down over time without TRIM?
     
  9. dr. shdw macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    #10
    Nope if the controller is good enough.
     
  10. Kaviar macrumors member

    Kaviar

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    #11
    Granted but my point was about the price.
    The Intel might be the fastest in terms of IOPS but look at the price.... It's silly expensive and that brings me back to my original point.
    "If you really need the IOPS for the Intel then surely you gonna want more kick to the rest of the system as well?"
    Yes the HDD is one of if not the biggest bottle neck in systems but if you truly 'need' the speed of the Intel and are willing to pay a lot more then why use it in what could be consider a relatively slow system when compared to something like a Mac Pro?

    Not picking a fight or anything, It's just to me the Intel isn't worth the extra money. That's just me.

    I though we were talking about the speed of the OS? In which case the on-board controller should be more than capable of those sorts of speeds.

    Intel's market share might look damn good but (in my opinion) they chips are horribly over priced. You can get so, so much more for you money with AMD.
    Yes the i7's are faster than any of the AMD line up but how many people buy an i7 every day. Even apple don't buy the 'real' i7's. They use the cut down CPU's found on the 1156 socket. I might be wrong on what Apple use but this is how I understand it.

    AMD know they money is with the mid to high range CPU's. Not the super top end of things.
    Market share isn't everything. Look at Norton Anti Virus. Biggest market share despite being an industry joke.

    Again not picking a fight just my opinion on the situation. Guess it's a agree to disagree job :)

    From what people have said OSX doesn't seem to be effect too much.
    Not sure how that can be... some say HFS+ is better at dealing with SSD's than NTFS but I'll wait and see for myself.

    The OS, Controller (both on the drive and on board the MOBO) as well as the SSD's firmware need to support TRIM work it to work.

    Or id did you mean that if the controller has it's own version of TRIM (Garbage Collection) then you'll be fine. Sorry miss read that on :p
     
  11. flanamac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2009
    #12
    degradation

    You have to consider that, as far as I understand, the only drive out there that prevents speed degradation when seasoned is the OWC drives. That is why they are not cheap, but frankly, that is why I would never buy a used SSD except for OWC.

    You may want to keep that in mind.
     
  12. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    Intel G2 drives also do not degrade over time.
    I've got a 160GB in my Mac Pro for a year now and it is still as fast as on the first day (benched a few weeks ago).
     
  13. flanamac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2009
    #14
    Ah, I knew that OWC had to have some competition out there somewhere, but the other question is whether the Intel G2 is as fast as OWC?

     

Share This Page