What brand of SSD do you recommend

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by MacCrackAddict, Apr 1, 2011.

  1. MacCrackAddict macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    #1
  2. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #4
    Nope. I just looked all those up.
     
  3. MacCrackAddict thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
  4. Weaselboy Moderator

    Weaselboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Location:
    California
    #6
    Here is some reliability data showing Intel significantly ahead of others.

    As far as OCZ, they pulled a stunt switching to lower quality and slower NAND chips in their SSD while keeping the same model numbers. Not someone I would want to do business with.
     
  5. propower macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    #8
    Hi there..........
    I have tried to duplicate your search results for 20 minutes with some success...... but nowhere near as good.....

    Could you please note the exact search string used.... also did you some how tag this to yield results sorted by date (tried adding more:recent4 but got stranger and more off results.....? Many times I try this but the results are nowhere near as "well targeted" as yours.....

    Thanks.....
    -Lee
     
  6. TRUCRACKER macrumors 6502

    TRUCRACKER

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Location:
    VA
    #9
    Yeah I never get good results like he apparently always does.
     
  7. GGJstudios, Apr 3, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2015

    GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #10
    In this case, (for link formatting purposes) I simply used the forum's Advanced Search:
    ScreenCap 15.png

    ScreenCap 13.png

    ScreenCap 14.png
    If you're looking for threads, the forum's Advanced Search is better than MRoogle, since the latter doesn't distinguish between posts and thread titles when searching. If you're looking for text within posts, regardless of the thread(s) in which they appear, MRoogle works better.
     
  8. kierennyc macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #11
    So after all that and your sig, you actualy DONT use MROOGLE to find your answers? ha
     
  9. GGJstudios, Apr 3, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2015

    GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #12
    Yes, I do use MRoogle to find answers. For formatting links to post in a thread, the forum search works better, but for finding answers to questions, MRoogle works better.
     
  10. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #13
    They didn't pull any stunts; they switched from 34nm chips to 25nm like any respectable technology company would do (increase capacity and lower costs). The problem is 25nm chips are less durable and somewhat slower, but it's not a stunt they pulled. If it's worth anything Intel released their 310 series SSDs which is nothing more than just a change from 34nm chips to 25nm and it's now a new line.
     
  11. bozz2006 macrumors 68030

    bozz2006

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #14
    Is there any good documentation of the implications of the move from 34 nm to 25 nm? I don't get the problem. I'm looking at getting the OWC SSD and they're drives us 25 nm chips.
     
  12. kierennyc macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #15
    The problem which you fail to see or acknowledge is that they didnt make any alteration to the line number or packaging indicating the switch to the less durable and slower chips.

    So, for instance, anybody who'd read a review on the original 34nm vertex 2 drives when they were first released and had made their purchasing decision based on those benchmarks, would have received an inferior product at the same price. Its kind of like 'bait and switch'.

    Whats respectable about that???

    Unfortunately for OCZ, I (like many) will be very hesitant to spend a dollar on any of their products (and I was literally days away from buying a vertex 2 before I read about all of this).

    Its not good business and hopefully they've learned their lesson.
     
  13. bozz2006 macrumors 68030

    bozz2006

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #16
    so 25nm is slower and less durable? Who will you be buying from instead?
     
  14. brentsg, Apr 3, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 4, 2011

    brentsg macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    #17
    They rode the success of the Vertex 2 name and released a slower drive, with less capacity and longevity, but without any notice to the consumer.

    So go read those stellar reviews, soak up that positive word of mouth, and spend your money. Of course you were getting something less on every front and they were hopeful nobody would notice.

    25nm can be made to work fine, you just need a drive that is engineered for it. The OCZ debacle was that the drive wasn't redesigned at all.
     
  15. kierennyc macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #18
    Im going to go for the Intel 320, but im holding off for a few weeks just to see if any issues pop up.

    I dont have a SATA III Mac so im only interested in SATA II drives.

    I was going to go for either the Crucial C300 or OWC Mercury extreme but the sleep/hibernation issue is a concern for me.

    From what Ive read the Intel is the safest bet (even if a little more pricey). Id rather pay extra for the reliability and compatibility that Intel supposedly delivers.
     
  16. bozz2006 macrumors 68030

    bozz2006

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #19
    Oh, ok. So am I safe with the 25nm OWC drive? Or should I go with Crucial instead? Maybe they're crap too? Oh boy. TOO MUCH TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND!
     
  17. Weaselboy, Apr 4, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 4, 2011

    Weaselboy Moderator

    Weaselboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Location:
    California
    #20
    I respectfully disagree. You can call it what you want, but to switch to a lower quality and poorer performing NAND and keep the exact same model numbers is not an honest way to operate. It is the fact they kept the same model number that bothers me and many others.

    You are correct that Intel, for example, has moved some of their SSD to 25nm NAND. However, unlike OCZ and OWC for that matter, Intel completely changed the model name. They went from 34nm NAND in the X25-M to 25nm NAND in the new Intel 320. If you want the "premium" 34nm NAND you can move to the new Intel 510. The specs for for both the Intel 510 and Intel 320 are available on the Intel web site showing what type of NAND they use.

    If you want a fun little exercise, go to the OWC site and try to find the specs for their SSD and see if you find the specs for the NAND. You won't find it (at least I could not). They also just went from 34nm to 25nm NAND while keeping the exact same "Mercury Extreme Pro" product name and they do not disclose the change on their web page. So OCZ is not alone in this behavior.

    Here is a good article. Short version is 34nm NAND has 5,000 write cycles per cell and 25nm NAND has only 3,000. In normal usage you will likely never hit either of these limits. To offset the problem of fewer write cycles vendors allow more unused space for wear leveling, thus reducing space available to the user. For example, OWC recently swapped to 25nm (with same product name and not mentioning it on their site either I might add), and their 120GB drive became a 115GB drive.

    OWC and others using the Sandforce chipset have had problems getting a firmware out that does not cause problems in OS X (sleep and hibernation bugs). They have recently released a new firmware they say fixes everything after many months and many firmware versions.

    There is an entire thread about it here with varying reports on the new firmware. Give it a read before you jump on a OWC drive.

    The big problem I have with OWC is they tout themselves as a Mac specialist supplier, yet they have provided no way to upgrade SSD firmware without installing Windows under Bootcamp. For months now they have been saying an OS X firmware updater is coming. Still nothing.

    I shouldn't say OWC has provided no way to upgrade firmware outside Windows. You can mail in your SSD and they will upgrade it for you, but do you really want to mess around with that?
     
  18. bozz2006 macrumors 68030

    bozz2006

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #21
    I'm reading the article now. Thanks for sharing it.
     
  19. Tyrion macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    #22
    It is a stunt, because they never officially announced the change (they only did so when users had found out the hard way) and didn't change the model names, packaging, spec sheets etc.
     
  20. bozz2006 macrumors 68030

    bozz2006

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #23
    So now I'm trying to figure out which SSDs don't suck. lol. Crucial? Intel X-25M and 510? Is that about it?
     
  21. Tyrion macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    #24
    The X-25M is obsolete, get its successor, the 320.
     
  22. bozz2006 macrumors 68030

    bozz2006

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Location:
    Minnesota

Share This Page