Which SSD is better? Runcore SSD vs OCZ vertex

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by mastercool10, Jan 15, 2010.

  1. mastercool10 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2009
    #1
    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:)
     
  2. mastercool10 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2009
  3. yaroldb macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    #3
    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.
     
  4. LinMac macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    #4
    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. :)
     
  5. Raima macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    #7
    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
     
  6. LinMac macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    #8
    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.
     
  7. Davidkoh macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2008
    #9
    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.
     
  8. Gen macrumors 6502a

    Gen

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    #11
    You do realize that Kingston uses Intel SSD's and just rebrands them with their logo, right? ...
     
  9. joecool99 Suspended

    joecool99

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    #12
    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
     
  10. bugout macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Location:
    is everything!
    #13
    Wrong.. Some of them yes, but not all of them... careful..
     
  11. Raima macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    #14
    I'm deeply disappointed in intel if that's the case

    http://www.kingston.com/ukroot/ssd/v_series.asp?id=2

    100mb/s read with 70mb/s write is piss poor performance for an ssd
     
  12. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #15
    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.
     

Share This Page