Want to highlight a helpful answer? Upvote!

Did someone help you, or did an answer or User Tip resolve your issue? Upvote by selecting the upvote arrow. Your feedback helps others! Learn more about when to upvote >

Looks like no one’s replied in a while. To start the conversation again, simply ask a new question.

User profile for user: amstos
amstos Author
User level: Level 1
0 points

Serial ATA vs Solid State Drive

Hi, i was configuring a new MacBookPro and found that Apple had introduced a new HDD "Solid State Drive". Costing wise the new 512Gb Solid State Drive is really really high when compared to the old 500GB Serial ATA drive.

I understand that the new HDD has "no moving parts for enhanced durability". Have anyone used it and can you post here the advantages you found compared to the old HDD.

Thanks
-Amstos

MacBookPro, Mac OS X (10.6)

Posted on Jun 6, 2010 9:39 PM

Reply
19 replies
User profile for user: MacRS4
MacRS4
User level: Level 2
330 points

Jun 7, 2010 6:43 AM in response to Kappy

Hardly worth the cost Kappy? That's a pretty big statement 🙂 The cost issue really is for the individual to decide about isn't it based on their requirements?

Personally, given the type of work I do, I would never, ever go back to a physical drive for OS & Apps.

The performance difference between an SSD equipped machine and a traditional physical hard drive is night and day.

There's some videos on an old blog article of mine here: http://www.markc.me.uk/MarkC/Blog/Entries/2009/9/2Crucial_M225_128GbSSD.html

I'm not convinced I'd splash 1k US$ on a 512Gb unit though - I wouldn't use an SSD as a general storage device given that OSX currently doesn't support TRIM. You'd end up having to write-erase it every 6 months.

My unit has a 128Gb SSD in it, and a 640Gb SATA unit for storage, the best combination IMO. I don't miss the DVD in the slightest.

SSDs have to be the future of storage - maybe not in their current form, and certainly not at the current cost.

Are they worth it? It depends really doesn't it?
Reply
User profile for user: Kappy
Kappy
User level: Level 10
361,709 points

Jun 7, 2010 1:06 PM in response to MacRS4

You have your opinion, I have mine: they are not worth the cost. I don't know what you paid for your 128 GB SSD and hard drive combination along with the loss of the optical drive, but to me it's a lot more than just buying a very fast, very large hard drive.

SSDs may become the future of storage, but not until you can buy a 500 GB SSD for less than $150.00 USD. And you've even provided some additional reasons why they are not yet displacing hard drives.

I wouldn't say my remark is "big," but nothing in your message seems to dispute it. User uploaded file
Reply
User profile for user: JoeyR
JoeyR
User level: Level 6
8,305 points

Jun 7, 2010 1:17 PM in response to amstos

It's a matter of performance vs. price. There are plenty of people who don't need a lot of storage space and they would like the performance boost you get with an SSD. I'm using a 120GB OCZ Vertex SSD. It was WAY more expensive than a comparable platter drive. I value the performance "more" than the space... so the fact that I could get a 500GB drive for about a quarter of what I paid for the SSD is irrelevant. The capacity alone is not the only consideration that every one has when selecting a drive. I find notebooks with platter drives painfully slow since I've been using SSDs. A MacBook with a modern SSD will boot nearly as fast as waking from sleep and I find value in better performance... whether it's the CPU, the GPU, RAM, or the drive.
Reply
User profile for user: MacRS4
MacRS4
User level: Level 2
330 points

Jun 7, 2010 1:50 PM in response to Kappy

I'm not even sure what that means Kappy?

SSDs are a lot faster than physical drives? Or are you disputing that bit? I'm not understanding your point.

Of course the 'value' is subjective to the person having to shell out the funds for it isn't it? If it's too expensive, don't buy it - works on so many things 🙂

Like I say, personally I rarely use optical media so I'm more than happy to lose it, and shell out to get the massive performance boost from an SSD and to have access to relatively fast large physical storage too.
Reply
User profile for user: MacRS4
MacRS4
User level: Level 2
330 points

Jun 7, 2010 1:57 PM in response to MacRS4

On the costs front:

SSD 250GBP (361US$ on today's XE rate)
Optibay about 80GBP (115US$)
640Gb SATA 90GBP (130US$)

Total: 420GBP = 606US$

Lots. The result though is a very formidable machine in terms of performance. As to whether who would use such performance? Or whether that's of value to them? Well, you can only decide for yourself really can't you? Most of my stuff is quite demanding virtualisation type stuff so I often have 5 or 6 Fusion Windows Server sessions running at any one time - my use is hardly average I don't think.

So for me, the money is more than worth it. When I use our more normally equipped units (I.e. running non-SSD units) the performance difference really is astonishing.

Previous to my switch to SSDs I used to use 7200RPM physical units - their performance just doesn't come close.
Reply
User profile for user: Kappy
Kappy
User level: Level 10
361,709 points

Jun 7, 2010 2:05 PM in response to MacRS4

No. SSDs today are faster than hard drives. I'm not disputing that. What I mean is that often people do not base their decisions on objective data meaning they do not have valid cost-benefit information. Value is only "subjective" when there's no objective information to support it.

As a simple example one might think the SSD is beneficial because of it's fast boot time. But if you never shut down your computer then it's a lot faster waking from sleep and doing so is just as fast if you have an SSD or a hard drive. Just a simple example to illustrate my point.
Reply
User profile for user: Kappy
Kappy
User level: Level 10
361,709 points

Jun 7, 2010 2:32 PM in response to MacRS4

Yes. I am simply making the additional point that the benefits must be compared with the costs in order for such a decision to be made objectively rather than subjectively. After all for what you have the cost was $606 for 768 GBs of storage versus $130 for 640 GBs without the SSD and cost to remove the optical drive and the interface to connect the hard drive in the optical bay. That's a comparison of $.79 per GB versus $.20 per GB. Your system represents a cost/GB that's nearly four times that of a hard drive alone. Unless the benefits you receive amount to at least $.80 per GB then the upgrade is not worth the cost.
Reply
User profile for user: amstos
amstos Author
User level: Level 1
0 points

Jun 7, 2010 9:42 PM in response to Kappy

'Kappy' and 'MacRS4', you guys had a good fight, but though, it was nice information you guys shared, thanks.

MacRS4, i see that you had mentioned "Fusion server" on one of your post. If you are referring to Eyeon Fusion, then i caught you on the right time. I use majorly Maya for 3D and Fusion for comp. I had already been running it under my current MacBookPro, which performs a decent rendering time.

I am sure that the current SSD will definitely increase the performance. As i also need more storage, for 512GB, SSD is way too much price that i can afford. So my plan is to buy 2.66GHz i7, 8GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x4GB, 15in Antiglare Display and 500GB Serial ATA@ 5400 rpm. I have 2 questions here.

Q1) If the price goes down in the future, can i replace the existing Setial ata with SSD hdd??

Q2) With my existing MacbookPro (Core 2 CPU T7600 2.33GHz) i wasn't able to run Windows XP 64bit operating system. With the new MacBookPro (2.66GHz i7), can i run 64bit sofwares?
Reply

Serial ATA vs Solid State Drive

Welcome to Apple Support Community
A forum where Apple customers help each other with their products. Get started with your Apple ID.
Learn more Sign up