Which SSD should I go with?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by jwxie, Jul 1, 2009.

  1. jwxie macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    #1
    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.
     
  2. UltraNEO* macrumors 601

    UltraNEO*

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Location:
    近畿日本
    #2
    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.
     
  3. jwxie thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    #3
    Yeah that;'s right too. Cool...
     
  4. vant macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    #4
    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.
     
  5. jwxie thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    #5
    if i decide to purchase one outside mac, do you think i could handle to install it myself?
     
  6. jwxie thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    #6
    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.
     
  7. artivideo.nl macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #7
    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)????

     
  8. jwxie thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    #8
    You aren't wrong but the price is way too much. It's double price as to the 80GB, around $620.
     
  9. artivideo.nl macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #9
    which size 1.8 or 2.5 inch SSD fits in the new June MBP 17inch??
    By the way Thosiba has a 512 Gb SSD

     
  10. screensaver400 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    #10
    You want the X25. The X18 is a 1.8" drive--your MacBook Pro takes 2.5" drives.
     
  11. artivideo.nl macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #11
    found it X25 is MLC and X18 is SLC (and thus faster)

     
  12. vant macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    #12
    X25 = 2.5in
    X18 = 1.8in

    X25-M = MLC
    X25-E = SLC
     
  13. kemo macrumors 6502a

    kemo

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2008
    Location:
    /Users/kemo
    #13
    Definitely yes, if you are not sure just search some videos on youtube, but I dont think you will need them...
     
  14. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #14
    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!
     
  15. eeriephenomenon macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Location:
    Miami, Fl
    #15

    Plus, rumor has it that these new drives will also be a little more cost efficient (though only time will tell)...
     
  16. friareunuch macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2009
    #16
    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)
     
  17. RealEvil macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2007
    #17
    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.
     
  18. ajsimeon macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    #18
    The Patriot Torqx is getting good reviews also and holds its own against the Intel x25m according to And1tech.
     
  19. Some Guy 555 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    #19
    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.
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=666140&highlight=SSD

    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.
     
  20. antskip macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    #20
  21. Unprocessed1 macrumors 65816

    Unprocessed1

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    #21
    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).
     
  22. jwxie thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    #22
    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:
    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
     
  23. Some Guy 555 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    #24
    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.
     
  24. nuckinfutz macrumors 603

    nuckinfutz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page