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

Which SSD is better? Runcore SSD vs OCZ vertex

M

mastercool10

macrumors member
Original poster
Dec 23, 2009
34
0
Alright guys, so I got a 2.53 ghz 13' mbp. I'm wondering which one of these drives is faster? I've tried googling this info and can't find anything. Let me know your opinions:)
 
I have the OCZ and I am very happy with it. The speed is incredible compared to my stock drive. Never tried the Runcore, but to be honest. I doubt you'll see a big difference in real world use in either drive.
 
I'm using a RunCore SSD in my Macbook Air with the 1916 firmware update which implements garbage collection. It is badly needed on any Mac because OS X doesn't support TRIM yet.

Check price vs. performance and make a decision from there. I'm quite happy with my RunCore drive. :)
 
Not all SSD run at the same speed. Please use numbers rather than "The speed is incredible" as a gauge.

Last time I checked, Kingston were one of the slowest, but most affordable SSD drives. Those new ones posted seem faster, and with a price to match the new performance.

I myself went for the G.Skill Falcon II 128gb which does 220mb/s read and 150mb/s write

Macbook Pro 13 2.2Ghz cold boot up in about 10 secs and wake up is about 2 seconds
 
Keep in mind that the RunCore Pro IV series is nearly as fast as Intel's drives, but comes in at a lower price point for more space.
 
8767092 said:
I'm using a RunCore SSD in my Macbook Air with the 1916 firmware update which implements garbage collection. It is badly needed on any Mac because OS X doesn't support TRIM yet.

Check price vs. performance and make a decision from there. I'm quite happy with my RunCore drive. :)
Click to expand...

No it's not needed, I reinstalled OS X + Windows XP 3 times on my Intel 160GB, and I been low on diskspace and whatnot, so I written to my entire drive. It gets almost the same benchmark results as when I first got it though.
 
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Raima said:
Last time I checked, Kingston were one of the slowest, but most affordable SSD drives. Those new ones posted seem faster, and with a price to match the new performance.
Click to expand...

You do realize that Kingston uses Intel SSD's and just rebrands them with their logo, right? ...
 
Gen said:
You do realize that Kingston uses Intel SSD's and just rebrands them with their logo, right? ...
Click to expand...

Does it mean you can updade Intel firmware onto the kingston drives ?
If it's intel, how come Intel doesn't make 512GB themself ?

ps: also this model that's $1300 is old, the new one is $1900 and has TRIM support
 
Gen said:
You do realize that Kingston uses Intel SSD's and just rebrands them with their logo, right? ...
Click to expand...

Kingston uses both Samsung controller based SSD's and rebranded Intel G1 SSD's, too.

The G1 don't support trim and are a little slower than the current generation (G2).

If you want the best performance SSD, get the Intel G2. It is pricy, but its performance is outstanding.
No other drive can compete with its random reading speed.
I have to admit, sequential writes are pretty slow compared to other drives (100MB/s for the 160GB, 80MB/s for the 80GB), but a boot/app drive does not have to write large files, reading of small files is far more essential.
 
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