What's a good SSD under $200?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Chiuy, Jul 17, 2011.

  1. Chiuy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Location:
    NorCal, Bay Area
    #1
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)

    I'm trying to upgrade a friend's Harddrive to SSD but he has a limit of $200.
    Any recommendations?
    Mostly like to prefer 128gb.
     
  2. Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #2
  3. hawk1410 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    #3
    You can grab a Samsung 470 series 128gb for around 210$. You can grab a Micron C400(which is basically the Crucial M4) for 195$ from superbiiz.
     
  4. ahdickter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    #4
  5. altecXP macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    #5
    I have a 120GB Corsair Force3 I'm trying to get rid of for 180 shipped if you are interested. Was only used for a few weeks.
     
  6. Chiuy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Location:
    NorCal, Bay Area
    #6
    Are there reasons why there are some big price difference in SSD?
    Different speed?
    Like, intel brands, they're more expensive than kingston, samsung, etc.
     
  7. KJmoon117 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Location:
    NC
    #7
    http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/SSD/OWC/

    Their 115GB SSD is $199 and their 120GB SSD is $209.99.

    The difference in price comes from the type of controller they use and just how the company wants to market it really.

    Not to mention some SSDs will use sync SSD which I've noticed raises price by a lot.
     
  8. Minhthien macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    #8
    If you can catch a sale at NCIX then Intel 320 120gb would be 199!
     
  9. superericla macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    #9
    I haven't had any problems with my Agility 3.
     
  10. bozz2006 macrumors 68030

    bozz2006

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #10
    HERE is a Vertex 2 for $192 plus a $30 mail in rebate, bringing the total down to $162. That's the route I'd go.
     
  11. MJNBGA macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2011
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #11
    Will you ship to New Zealand? :)
     
  12. ctbear macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    #12
    This. I just recently bought it for $199 (128GB). $209 is still a good price. Note: this is virtually the same thing as OCZ Vertex 3.
     
  13. Chiuy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Location:
    NorCal, Bay Area
    #13
    What do you guys think?
    I'm also planning on upgrading to SSD soon so I'm also shopping for myself and my friend.

    Do you think I need 128GB?
    Or will 80GB suit me fine?
    I got an external with 750GB where I store all my movies/photos/etc.

    But I plan to use that 80GB for Adobe Photoshop and Premiere CS5.
    World of Warcraft
    And probably music. (Aprox 3GB)

    You think I'll survive?
    Currently using 120GB of diskspace.. most of it is movies/photos, but I'm about to transfer over, so I'm actually using like 40-50GB.
     
  14. Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #14
    Get 128GB. Larger SSDs perform better and last longer than smaller ones.
     
  15. nizmoz macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    #15
    :rolleyes:

    There will be NO DIFFERENCE in lasting longer for performance between a larger or smaller SSD of the same spec.
     
  16. jamisonbaines macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #16

    You say that but I'd much rather have 78/128 GB used than 78/80.

    When I bought a lower capacity SSD for my Dell the higher capacity drives (64, 128) did have better read and write performance than the 16 and 32. That might be brand dependent but it's not a straight up lie as you make it sound.
     
  17. Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #17
    Sorry man but that's just wrong... a larger SSD has more NAND and can handle more writes.

    [​IMG]
    Source: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/kingston-ssdnow-ssd,2550-2.html

    And of course larger SSDs perform better then their smaller brothers. The net is filled with examples.
     
  18. nizmoz macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    #18
    Just like how you say your XT performs just as good as a SSD in performance? LOL Like anyone will believe you.

    The XT is still a mechanical HD with a nice large cache. You have no control over that and it will become slow at times while a SSD will always be fast no matter what you use the computer for.
     
  19. Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #19
    Yeah nice try. Change the topic. You can't change the facts though.

    The facts about the Seagate XT can be found in the other thread.
     
  20. nizmoz macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    #20
    There are no facts. You have over the past few weeks/months been spewing BS with others correcting you but you refuse to listen. You are now known to do that by others on this site and people are warned to not even listen to you.

    Between sizes, of same spec, if you really THINK you as a human will notice a difference between them you will need to seek some help seriously.
     
  21. hawk1410, Jul 18, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2011

    hawk1410 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    #21
    Performance and Endurance is definitely affected by capacity of SSD. Below are the official specs of the Vertex 3 and the Crucial M4 from their websites, you can go check.
    Crucial M4 tech specs -

    [​IMG]

    vertex 3 tech specs -

    [​IMG]

    While differences are not so drastic on the Vertex they are pretty big on the M4 esp for the 64 to 128gb jump.
     
  22. Philflow, Jul 18, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2011

    Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #22
    I will stick to the facts again.

    [​IMG]
    Source.

    The Samsung 470 256GB comes out significantly faster than the 128GB and 64GB.

    The Intel 510 250GB is about 20% faster than its 120GB brother.

    [​IMG]
    The Crucial C300 256GB is twice as fast as the 64GB with copying files.

    [​IMG]
    The Vertex LE reviewed is a 50GB Sandforce drive, the Agility 2 is a 120GB Sandforce drive.
     
  23. nizmoz macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    #23
    EOD

    Random Read/Write Speed
    This test reads/writes 4KB in a completely random pattern over an 8GB space of the drive to simulate the sort of random access that you'd see on an OS drive (even this is more stressful than a normal desktop user would see). I perform three concurrent IOs and run the test for 3 minutes. The results reported are in average MB/s over the entire time.

    [​IMG]




    Random read/write performance is abysmal. You can't really make out the numbers here but that's 0.7MB/s for reads and 0.3MB/s for writes compared to 40MB/s+ for the SSDs. It's the poor random access performance that ultimately prevents the Momentus XT from feeling like an SSD most of the time.

    [​IMG]

    This is where it all counts if you want a HD to perform FAST period.
     
  24. mark28 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    #24
    The bigger size Vertex 3 have proven to be performing much better in speed than the smaller sizes actually in benchmarks. ( review and benchmarking was done by engadet I believe )

    Not sure how it holds up for other SSD brands.
     
  25. hawk1410 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    #25
    Why are you going off topic, i thought the point was about the performance differences between small ad large capacity SSDs, nothing to do with the XT. You are trying to go off topic to cover up for the fact that your initial statement was wrong. :p
     

Share This Page