SSD or HDD and 2.2GHZ or 2.3GHZ??????? HELP!!

Rumor has it that SSDs are NOT AS RELIABLE as traditional hard drives. If you want more hard drive speed get the 500GB 7200rpm drive. Use the money you save by not getting the SSD to get 2.3ghz. And then you will still save money.

Message was edited by: Adam Adkins

My $0.02.

I agree with you on the processor speed increase.

I'd purchase a regular HDD, possibly consider stepping up to a larger size if you need the capacity. Solid State Drives might not be as long-term reliable as first thought, so along with the price, I'm not impressed UNLESS you absolutely need the improved performance. But at quite a cost!


Good Luck,

~Rick

I would do this:
Get the 750GB HD, keep the 2.2GHz processor and add an SSD in the optical drive bay (like a 120GB for the system software and applications). Store your files, iTunes media, etc on the hard drive. You will get MUCH more speed than the CPU upgrade and have much more storage. Put the optical drive into an external enclosure for those rare times you may burn or use a DVD.

Also, with proper care an SSD is NOT unreliable at all. Rumors are just rumors. As a matter of fact, Lion will be shipping with a feature to manage the SSD even better (I think it is called TRIM). I have had my share of hard disks fail over the years, anyway.

You can get an enclosure and SSD here. Cool solution, IMO http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other%20World%20Computing/DDAMBS0GB/

...is there a significant difference between the 2.2ghz and 2.3ghz...I just personally feel the extra .1 ghz isnt worth the $225...

The 2.3GHz CPU has a larger L3 cache (8MB vs 6MB.) The increase in cache is usually more important than the minimal increase in speed, depending on what you do in Ps & FCP. (Thus the seemingly outrageous difference in price.)

I would be leaning toward the 2.3GHz CPU, since you mentioned Ps & FCP. But the SSDs would give you more bang for the buck, if money is tight. On the other hand, how much disk space do you think you'll need? People often report issues with speed and stability of the computer when they run out of HD space. If you're doing a lot with FCP, then a 256GB SSD seems a bit small to me. (Unless you're going to be putting the videos on an external HD.)

Ross8ch wrote:
Most likely I'll get the 2.3ghz

And currently I have final cut pro set up using an external harddrive as my scratch disc and used for all video file storage.

It sounds to me that the "SSD VS HHD" is up
In the air, you guys seem pretty split on the subject.

To me, part of the issue is that you gave as examples Ps & FCP. Those types of apps tend to "aways need more of everything". It's like you "always" see the spinning beach ball when applying a Ps filter. And video is quite CPU intensive. So that would seem to indicate the better CPU. BUT video also has large files and don't like "hiccups" when accessing the disk. On that note, I've seen some projects that had to edit multiple RAW picture files, so even Ps could need disk space. In addition, Ps uses the HD as scratch space and the recommendation is to put the scratch file on the fastest disk. Thus the "need" for more CPU performance AND more HD performance.

Since you already have an external HD, then the SSD would be a good investment, even for the price. But your needs will determine whether you should get it. For example, I do a lot with virtualization. Specifically running multiple virtual machines simultaneously. Thus I have a need for more cores and memory first, then more CPU speed and HD speed. But it also needs HD space to store those multiple virtual machines. So for me, the decision would be for the 750GB drive over the 256GB SSD. I already replaced the 200GB drive in my MBP for a 500GB hybrid drive. Thus for me, the _+lack of space+_ on the SSD is a big deciding factor.

If you want a more realistic "assessment" of your situation: The SSD will get you the first 90% of the performance boost. The CPU will give you an additional 10%. Could even be closer to 80/20 if your work is more CPU intensive. (e.g.: applying Ps filters.)

Don't get me wrong, SSDs have some good advantages. My problem with them at this time is that they can cost about 20 times as much as traditional HDs per GB of storage (depending upon capacitym, manufacturer & product quality). For THAT much more, I want a device that is MUCH MORE reliable than traditional storage, and that doesn't appear to be the case. ZDNET posted an article in December 21, 2010 stating that the failure rates for the SSD drives are just about the same as standard drives. This was based upon a study of new product returns. That was short term reliability. Long term still remains to be seen. Overprovisioning and TRIM are great, but we'll just have to wait and see what the long-term result will be. Right now, your dollars spent on SSD get you a more rugged, faster, lower power, quieter and cooler hard drive. But it isn't any more reliable.

In any event, enjoy your new Mac! 🙂

~Rick

Hey there. I would keep the HDD that comes with it, and buy an SSD from here: http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/hard-drives/2.5-Notebook/

You could spend about $450 and get an SSD from that site, while also keeping the HDD, as opposed to spending the $450 thru Apple for just the SSD.

(Someone just introduced me to that site in my other thread about RAM, and it looks like they have some good stuff. I didn't even know they made 1TB laptop HDD's until I saw them on there.)

The best CPU in this range of options is the 2.2 Core i7. The 2.0 performance is great, as it is comparable to the top first generation Core i7 chip, however the 2.2 really steps it up the next level with almost twice the power of the 2.0, while the 2.3 is only slightly better than the 2.2.

Here are some benchmark results for you to consider.
2.3 i7 - http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=IntelCore+i7-2820QM+%402.30GHz
2.2 i7 - http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=IntelCore+i7-2720QM+%402.20GHz
2.0 i7 - http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=IntelCore+i7-2630QM+%402.00GHz

I would also recommend as one user pointed out, to get whatever HDD it comes up, and swap out of the Optical Drive for an SSD. Put all your large data on the HDD and keep your OS, Applications and working files on the SSD when you need it.

Enjoy

Personally I don't think you've made the right choice. A base spec+SSD would feel considerably faster than the minor Mhz+Cache bump.

Have a look here for the vids: http://www.markc.me.uk/MarkC/Blog/Entries/2011/2/25Early_2011_MacbookPro.html

Currently seeing sustained transfers on my SSD of some 300Mb/s. It absolutely revolutionises the performance of most machines.

I made the same choice. As I pointed out in another thread, a ~4.5% increase in clock speed isn't what that processor is about, it's the additional 2 MB of level-3 cache.

Disk latency really matters, and I doubt I'll feel constrained with 500 GB.

Lastly, I, too, am unwilling to gamble on the unspecified SSD Apple installs. In my iMac (2010) I had OWC install a Mercury SSD and use that for my system drive.


Randall Schulz

If the choice is to add a disk with the doubler, which should come in the stock enclosure and which should go in place of the optical drive?

Should you buy the Macbook Pro with a 750GB 7200 rpm drive and add an SSD or should you get a 256 GB SSD with the Pro and add the 750 GB drive later?

Any advantage either way?

Perry

If you watch MacRS4's video about this, linked just a few posts up from here, he reports that the standard HDD interface is SATA 3 (6Gb/s), the Superdrive interface is SATA 2 (3Gb/s)- he backs this up by showing the System Profiler info for the drives and interfaces. Because of this, he put his SSD into the original HDD space, and moved the 750 GB drive into the Data Doubler connected to the Superdrive connectors.

I'd buy the MBP with the HDD, buy the SSD and Data Doubler from OWC.

Makes sense to me!

Good luck! Joel.

Message was edited by: Joel Hall