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

Which SSD should I go with?

J

jwxie

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jun 17, 2009
16
0
I am planning on getting either a 13" or 15" MBP.... but I have problem with getting a SSD myself.

1. Should I get the SSD from Mac? (I think I would take the 128GB)
2. What is the model of the SSD provide by Mac (the 128GB one)?
3. If I decide on getting a non-stock SSD, which one do you recommend and why?
4. Where should I get that SSD you suggested in #3?

Thanks.
 
Buying the stock one keeps the warranty in tack,
don't need to mess about with opening up your machine
but it's a little small in my opinion.

IMO. all the current SSD's are a little on the small side for me.
 
UltraNEO* said:
Buying the stock one keeps the warranty in tack,
don't need to mess about with opening up your machine
but it's a little small in my opinion.

IMO. all the current SSD's are a little on the small side for me.
Click to expand...

Yeah that;'s right too. Cool...
 
The SSDs included in Apple notebooks do not perform as well as the Intel X25-M.

The X25 is seriously the king of SSDs right now.
 
if i decide to purchase one outside mac, do you think i could handle to install it myself?
 
vant said:
The SSDs included in Apple notebooks do not perform as well as the Intel X25-M.

The X25 is seriously the king of SSDs right now.
Click to expand...

apparently, X25 has less GB (the 80 GB one) but the price is about the same as to the 128 stock SSD. As you see 80GB will reduce to about 70GB in the conversion.
 
But the X25 is max. only 160 Gb or am I wrong ???
And what is the diference between the X25 and X18n (the latter is more expensive at same capacity)????

vant said:
The SSDs included in Apple notebooks do not perform as well as the Intel X25-M.

The X25 is seriously the king of SSDs right now.
Click to expand...
 
jwxie said:
if i decide to purchase one outside mac, do you think i could handle to install it myself?
Click to expand...

Definitely yes, if you are not sure just search some videos on youtube, but I dont think you will need them...
 
Wait two weeks and the Intel X25-M may reach 320GB.

Intel is rumoured to be announcing their new line of Solid State Drives by then.

I own the Intel X25-M 80GB and it is an amazing piece of technology. Totally "rewrote" how I perceived a computer experience should be. Smooth sailing!
 
Pressure said:
Wait two weeks and the Intel X25-M may reach 320GB.

Intel is rumoured to be announcing their new line of Solid State Drives by then.

I own the Intel X25-M 80GB and it is an amazing piece of technology. Totally "rewrote" how I perceived a computer experience should be. Smooth sailing!
Click to expand...


Plus, rumor has it that these new drives will also be a little more cost efficient (though only time will tell)...
 
Pressure said:
Wait two weeks and the Intel X25-M may reach 320GB.

Intel is rumoured to be announcing their new line of Solid State Drives by then.

I own the Intel X25-M 80GB and it is an amazing piece of technology. Totally "rewrote" how I perceived a computer experience should be. Smooth sailing!
Click to expand...

I'm looking at that drive for my new MBP. Probably going to wait until the end of the month to see if these rumors have any truth to them.

How do you use that drive? I was thinking of trying to make it a dedicated boot/application launching drive, only keeping documents and apps on it, and then keeping all my media and big CS and Pro Tools sessions on an external.

Just wondering the overall use strategy for SSDs, since I've never had one before, and I've read that you can't defrag without a hard reformat, which is a pain. (allegedly)
 
There are more vendors out there than Intel, and until Intel make an announcement about 320GB drives and then readjust all their prices down, they are not competitive on price/capacity. Yes, they are the best in most (not all) benchmarks, but there are other options:

Samsung 256
OCZ Vertex
Corsair

All are basically the same drive, all get good reviews. Otherwise, OCZ Summit or if you are really on a budget, look at the GSkills.

Alternatively you might want to hang on for Microsoft to sort out trimming in Windows 7 before you decide. Until that is ratified there is no clear technique and some manufacturers may abandon the current drives and launch new models with the Windows 7 Support. And dont be foooled into thinking this isn't a big deal just because we are all Mac fans - Microsoft *are* computers and Windows is the defacto O/S.
 
The Patriot Torqx is getting good reviews also and holds its own against the Intel x25m according to And1tech.
 
jwxie said:
I am planning on getting either a 13" or 15" MBP.... but I have problem with getting a SSD myself.

1. Should I get the SSD from Mac? (I think I would take the 128GB)
2. What is the model of the SSD provide by Mac (the 128GB one)?
3. If I decide on getting a non-stock SSD, which one do you recommend and why?
4. Where should I get that SSD you suggested in #3?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

1. No. These are considered to be crap compared to just about every aftermarket SSD out there. The only reason to EVER get the stock mac ones is if you don't know how to use a screw driver to install a new drive which, in my opinion, is easy.

2. I believe its a Toshiba SSD. That, or a Samsung. Both are around 70-100 mbps read/write while the intel and other drives reach 250/170+ read/write speeds (sequential) and the random times are 10 times that of any other drive for the intel.

3. Intel X25-M. I hate to be a little bit of a fanboy for intel, but facts back it up. Nothing compares, nothing can compete with it. And they have no "stuttering" problems that most of the other drives do. In short think of all other SSD's as a PC (can crash alot) and an intel SSD as a MAC (better than PC for stability).

The random speeds of the X25-M are superior to other drives by alot.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/666140/

The above link shows the comparison of speeds (mostly sequential) however look at the random read/writes of the intel drives versus OCZ's vertex drives. Its like 30/20mbps (intel) versus OCZ's 2mbps. Big difference.

4. Get it from newegg.
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167015

That is the 160GB version in Canadian Dollars. For US it will be cheaper than that.
 
To the OP: wait a few week until Intel updates their lineup and slashes prices. The original 80GB drive will no doubt be under $300, and their 160 GB SSD should be around $500 (maybe even less).
 
I was impressed to see all these helpful comments. Thank you.

I actually looked into those links provided by members here.

According this link
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=799&pageid=1
Super Talent is doing a better job than Intel X25 - 80GB thus the price is higher (but also 40GB more than Intel at $369)

The OCZ Summit is also ranked between Intel X25 and Super Talent.
But what makes this whole thing interesting is a comment from an newegg customer:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227450
Pros: As can be PROVEN by the recent test on anandtech.com, these are the exact same controllers and 1275 firmware for those controllers as the Vertex drives, and no, they don't "beat the intel drives" in any way except the totally useless artificial world benchmark of sequential read speeds.

Why?
Because they are optimized to give high SR numbers to go after the people who buy on the "ooooo shiney" mentality.

I own several of the vertex drives, two of these drives, and several of the Intel X25-M drives.

The Intel drives stomp all over the vertex and ST drives in real world random access situations.

The difference is of course, the price. For the price of this drive (or the Vertex drive) these are a GREAT value and unlike any of the JMicron based drives, you will not have the same stuttering and pausing issues.
Cons: The new Indilinx Barefoot controller used on this drive is totally untested and has no history for durability and longevity.
Other Thoughts: Indilinx appears to putting out firmware updates for their controller on a fairly regular basis, so you might want to keep up with that as well as watching anantech.com for their upcoming tests of these controllers.
They appear to be the only online reviewer who actually cares about anything other than Sequential read/write performance as well as understanding the way in which SSD's work and do not work.
Click to expand...

I personally think it is very true that many of these so called super SSD are also well design in a way that best fit the benchmark. Still, money is a big matter. It would be a shame if I spend $369 on something that is only good for the "show" (the review).

Now, the report from this site offers a total different result compare to the link I mentioned above
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16848/8
Here and from any page within this review, the general read and write speed is less than what is being known too. And also, Super Talent is far behind among other SSD products.

Also, TRIM is an important element. It seems like none of these SSD has any good solution to the problem, though some of them have been working on it.
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviewimages/ssdjuneroundup/pictures/comparison.png


Now down to my questions:

Since controllers and cache are more important (due to the fact that many of these SSD are using the same chips)

1. Why is Intel X25-M still winning when the cache is only 256kb?
2. The read / write speed for X25-M is 250 to 70. The gap is so huge.... what is more important?

3. and please discuss more and more feedback is welcome.
4. last but not the least, power is also a big thing here. Intel appears to be a good choice according to this: (0.15 / 0.06 W)
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=179925&d=1246327110
 
jwxie said:
I was impressed to see all these helpful comments. Thank you.

Now down to my questions:

Since controllers and cache are more important (due to the fact that many of these SSD are using the same chips)

1. Why is Intel X25-M still winning when the cache is only 256kb?
2. The read / write speed for X25-M is 250 to 70. The gap is so huge.... what is more important?

3. and please discuss more and more feedback is welcome.
4. last but not the least, power is also a big thing here. Intel appears to be a good choice according to this: (0.15 / 0.06 W)
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=179925&d=1246327110
Click to expand...

Not sure why the intel is winning with its M series because of the small cache. My best answer for that would be superior algorithms in the controller.

Intel has probably designed them so that they don't even need a cache. Again though, I am not sure and I doubt that its an issue.

One thing that I would like to mention, and I know it has been said many times, is that if you are thinking of buying an intel SSD then you should wait 1-2 weeks because of the rumored price drops and new releases.
 
Intel's controller is more sophisticated than the competition. 10 channels and the ability to coalesce writes for efficiency (i'm paraphrasing from what I've read) give the X25-M efficiency without the need for large cache.

Intel does need to improve the sequential write speed though as it is lagging a bit.

I do hope they decide to bring out 34nm parts which are faster and support TRIM.
 
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