Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

What is the best SSD to buy if you're looking for capacity greater than 160GB?

WardC said:
I am leaning against going with a stock Apple SSD because of the cheap Samsung SSDs that Apple uses. Samsung SSDs are the cheapest SSDs on the market, they degrade quickly and are NOT Sandforce-based. They won't last the long haul...I've read numerous threads about folks with the Apple SSDs that have had trouble with their drives becoming sluggish over the time forcing them to refresh the drive numerous time. With a Sandforce-based SSD, you don't have to do this. That's why I think either the OWC or the Vertex 2 are the best choice. PLUS, they are MUCH faster drives. I've seen the benchmarks on all of these, and the Apple stock drives fall way behind the OWC and Vertex 2 on speed, they are nearly half as slow!!!! I hope Apple starts using better SSDs in their computers, they are charging out the ass right now for second-rate components. That's why I think the end-user upgrade of the SSD is the best way to go.
Click to expand...

While I cannot speak for any particular Apple SSDs, the Samsung in my MBP has suffered zero degradation over the past few months. I posted a thread regarding degradation and SSDs not too long ago, very few complaints.
While SSD read/writes are critical to performance, the miniscule latencies is what gives any computer with such a drive that instantaneous feel with programs. That said, if I were to buy an SSD right now, the OCZ deal at newegg for the 240GB, 419 with rebate would be it.
 
I've got a couple quick questions regarding upgrading my Mac Pro's drive to SSD

Judging from what I'm reading here, if I were to upgrade now, it sounds like the OWC Mercury Pro Extreme drive is probably one of my best bets. I've heard the talk about Intel releasing new drives soon, but has there been any firm indication on when this will be? Lately my computer gets sluggish from time to time and I hear the hard drive working and is a bit worrisome, so I'm trying to balance out if it's worth waiting it out.


Also, I have my home folder mapped to a separate drive from my boot drive- so 1 drive holds the OS install and my apps, another has my home folder with all my saved files and such (then there are external drives for other stuff).
If I were to only replace the boot drive with an SSD, would having my home folder on a standard SATA drive affect everyday performance enough to make moving to SSD a waste? Or would I really need to spend the extra money making both SSDs? It seems to me that having the home folder drive on a SATA drive wouldn't be too bad since I'm only occasionally reading or writing files there, unless there's a lot of stuff being accessed behind the scenes that I'm unaware of (entirely possible).

edit: Actually, what are the thoughts on this particular drive? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227551
newegg currently has a coupon (BTEYXNV26) to make it $210
 
Just so I get this straight ...

Right now OCZ and OWC get props for being quite zippy? Old favorite is Intel-X25 which is quick as well with a history of reliability?

However, on the horizon ...
Intel G3 ... coming soon
and more Sanforce stuff from OCZ and OWC - coming early 2011?

Sorry for my ignorance - I'm gearing up for a holiday purchase of an SSD and wanted to know when the iron would be hot.

Intel does NOT use Sanforce? Does it support TRIM? Is there degradation of these drives, or not really? If it's not an SF drive, then how does it keep up?
 
rainkinz said:
Can you tell me what rev of the MBP you have? I have a 4,1 tried one of these C300 drives and it worked fantastically for the first week then died. Got another one RMA'd and debating whether to put it in or not. Thanks
Click to expand...

I'll get back to you on the MBP rev.!?
Give CRUCIAL one more chance and install the second RMA SSD...Some of us will get lucky some of us will get an RMA.:D
 
Looking up info on the OWC Mercury Pro Extreme now.

BTW....how do you find out what drives use SandForce?
 
I installed an OWC Mercury Extreme (240gb) in my macbook pro yesterday. Anecdotal performance gains are very pleasing. I'll be curious to see if there is any degradation over time. I made my decision based on reading forums and reviews that suggested the OWC was a reliable drive. OCZ Vertex 2 consistently gets good feedback as well.
 
psychsplash said:
I installed an OWC Mercury Extreme (240gb) in my macbook pro yesterday. Anecdotal performance gains are very pleasing. I'll be curious to see if there is any degradation over time. I made my decision based on reading forums and reviews that suggested the OWC was a reliable drive. OCZ Vertex 2 consistently gets good feedback as well.
Click to expand...

Smart choice. Enjoy!
 
I keep hearing "March 2011" as a release date for the G3 Intel x-25m.

That's quite the wait. The OWC Mercury Extreme is looking better and better. Haha.
 
Pressure said:
$/GB the Intel G3 Solid State Disk will win.

In the same price bracket we currently get 160GB we will in some months get 300GB.

Sure, it may not compete with the SandForce controller but it will be cheaper and deliver more than enough performance for mobile needs.
Click to expand...

over time a ssd with no sandforce controller (on mac) will degrade. so really it might be cheap in the short run, but in the long run it will fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back