BTO SSDs versus other SSDs

Question

Level 1

41 points

BTO SSDs versus other SSDs

I will be getting a new MacBook Pro very soon and I am very much looking forward to using an SSD as my boot drive. The past few days I have been doing a lot of research on the technical details surrounding SSDs, because I want to be getting the best performance and reliability possible for my budget. My first observation was, of course, the fact that the “built-to-order” SSD options Apple offers are very expensive – significantly more so than SSDs you can buy from other online stores, assuming more or less equal specs and quality. I've come here because I'm hoping that someone out there can answer a few (okay, several) questions to clear things up for me (and hopefully others).

In short, I want to know whether there would be any drawbacks to using a (good) third-party SSD instead of one of the Apple-branded SSDs selectable in the online store. Is it worth buying an SSD from someone else and replacing it for the MacBook Pro's internal drive, or is it better to pay the extra money for an Apple SSD?

Here is what I already know:

Smaller capacity SSDs last longer.
Writing data to SSDs decreases their lifespan a lot more than reading data, so it is better to use it only for system files, applications, and other infrequently changed files.
Apple's SSDs and OS X support TRIM, but OS X does not use it for third-party drives (but apparently there is a way to enable it for any SSD that supports TRIM).

Here are some things I would like to know:

Do Apple's SSDs support over-provisioning (level 2 and 3), wear-leveling that doesn't cause too much write amplification, efficient garbage collection, sequential writes and bad block management?

More importantly: does OS X support all of those features (except the ones that are opaque to the OS)? And is every feature supported with third-party SSDs, whether automatically or after some configuration?

Does HFS+/OS X's automatic defragmentation feature conflict with wear-leveling at all?

Is there anything else I should be aware of?

Finally, are there any manufacturer brands you can recommend or that should be avoided? I have read that Intel is one of the best makers of SSDs currently. I have also read recommendations for OWC.

Or are Apple's SSDs a good choice after all? (either because of their quality or because of incomplete support by OS X for other SSDs' features)

MacBook Pro, Mac OS X (10.7.3)

Posted on Mar 18, 2012 1:34 PM

Reply

Answer 1

Mar 18, 2012 5:40 PM in response to temhawk

My experience is with a MBP 2.3 ghz quad core, 17in early 2011 model, configured with 8 gb RAM and 500 gb 7200 drive. I decided to upgrade to OWC 3g SSD 240 gb because there were issues with the 6g connection. Since the 2.2 EFI update, the 6g in the main bay also works. I did subsequently order an OWC 6g 240 gb drive as an upgrade.

Starting with the first upgrade with the OWC 3g 240 gb drive, it was an obvious speed improvement. Boot time was under 30 seconds, and applications like Word were near instantaneous. AJA system test result were averaging write 242 MB/sec and 262 MB/sec for read. I was very pleased with these results.

For the next upgrade, I purchased the OWC 6g 240 gb drive. It was faster, but not as night and day between the original 500 gb 7200 drive and the OWC 3g SSD 240 gb. The average write speed was 383 MB/sec and 429 MB/sec read.

Installation is straight forward and not difficult, but if something goes wrong, it will be the installer's fault. I believe that for most computing, it is worth it to upgrade to 3g SSD and 8gb of RAM. These are factory BTO options. How much SSD gb is purely up to you on your needs and finances. The 15 and 17 in models do not have stable 6g connections in the optical bay, so if you were considering a RAID 0 option by installing another 6g SSD in the optical bay, it may not work. 3g SSD has worked in the optical bay for what OWC reports. And I have tried it myself when I bought the OWC 6g, and it does work, but I didn't RAID the two discs.

In summary, if you do not want to risk violating your Apple warranty by installing the SSD yourself, either order the BTO option or send in your laptop to OWC to install it for you. If you feel fairly confident in your technical skills inside a computer, order the SSD and install it yourself.

If I were to order again today, I would get Apple's SSD 128 gb and 8 gb RAM. I would probably order another OWC 6g 240 gb for the main bay and either get an enclosure for the Apple SSD or get the OWC Data Doubler to put the Apple SSD in the optical bay.

Reply

Answer 2

temhawk Author

Level 1

41 points

Mar 20, 2012 7:46 AM in response to temhawk

Thanks all.

I have been doing more research still and have come up with a list of all the SSDs that seem decent, and I would like some input on which of them are preferable. Basically, I'd like to roughly sort this list with the least prefered SSDs on one end and the best candidates on the other, and then simply choose one of the SSDs at the top.

I've already sorted it to the best of my knowledge, namely:

SSDs with SandForce controllers are likely to be good.
SSDs from OWC and OCZ are of a good quality (again, that's just the general feeling I've gotten from reading reviews and experiences on the web).

I haven't read a whole lot about about SSDs from Patriot, Kingston, Corsair and Plextor, so I placed them in the middle of the list.

Unfortunately, most of the articles and such that I read were from 2008–2010 and the first half of 2011, so not exactly reflective of current standings.

(I recommend skipping the next paragraph for the synopsis.)

Now, my priority for selecting an SSD is a long lifespan (and features that go with it, like TRIM, bad block management, write attenuation, etc), and a consistent performance throughout its life. I do not want an SSD that is going to slow down after two years, and I do not want an SSD that is going to die after four years. I want an SSD that is going to be circa as speedy after years of use as it was when it was new, and that I can trust with my data for at least 6 years, but the longer it lasts – the better. And I really don't mind not having the fastest SSD out there, if it means fulfilling my expectations of highly reliable performance and life expectancy. The capacity range I'm out for is about 240–300GB, but I've only selected SSDs for this list that are within that range anyway. The point that I'm making is: within that capacity range I don't care much about having the SSD with the most GBs, if it means that the SSD is consistently fast and lasts long.

TOO LONG, DIDN'T READ...

Don't consider the read/write speeds too much. The important thing is that the SSD drives at the top of the list should be the ones that are most likely to last long and are proven to perform fast after years of use.

So, please, please help me weed out the weakest of these SSDs and narrow the list down as much as possible. I am going to randomly select one of these (from the top end of course), but I'd immensely appreciate your input. This is going to be my first SSD ever and I really want it to be a great and long-lasting experience!

Brand and Series	Pros	Cons
Top candidates
OWC Mercury Electra 6G	SandForce 2281, ECC
OWC Mercury EXTREME Pro 6G	SandForce 2282, ECC, 5yr warranty
SanDisk Extreme	SandForce SF-2281, MTBF 2M hrs
OCZ Vertex 3	MTBF 2M hrs	doesn't specify controller type
OCZ Vertex 3 MAX IOPS Edition
OCZ Octane	Indilinx Infused™
OCZ Agility 3	MTBF 2M hrs
Kingston HyperX
Unsure
Patriot Mac Series XT	SandForce SF-2281, ECC, Read Disturb Management
Patriot Pyro
Patriot Pyro SE	SandForce SF-2281, ECC, Read Disturb Management
Patriot Wildfire
Corsair Performance Pro Series
Corsair Performance 3 Series
Corsair Force Series GT
Intel 520 Series Cherryville
Intel 520 Series Cherryville OEM
Plextor M3 Pro Series
Plextor PX-M2 Series
Plextor PX-M2P Series
Kingston SSDNow KC100 Series	SandForce SF-2281
Kingston SSDNow V+200
Seem to have had problems, but maybe fixed by now?
SAMSUNG 830 Series
Intel 510 Series (Elm Crest)
Crucial M4 Crucial M4 (Internal) with Transfer Kit	Marvell controller
Crucial RealSSD C300

Reply

Answer 3

willowpc

Level 1

42 points

Mar 18, 2012 3:14 PM in response to wjosten

I'm happy with my OCZ Octane solid state hard drive on my macbook pro. It works better for uncompressed data like photos, videos and music than many drives that are sandforce driven. You should not notice a difference in the length of time an ssd lasts at any size level, they are all more reliable than a conventional hard drive. Apple's ssd's are designed to minimize problems at the expense of performance from what I've heard. OSX won't use automatic defragmentation on a solid state drive. You should never use a defragmenter on a solid state drive though .

Reply

Answer 4

willowpc

Level 1

42 points

Mar 27, 2012 6:59 PM in response to LordPathogen

I think the octane is the best choice for an ocz drive, you have the better performance with uncompressed data than with the sandforce driven drives from ocz. You do need to load an iso image on usb key to use the linux tools to fix the 1.5g-3g issue on 2009 macbook pro's or update the firmware using the ocz tools. My computer didn't like the macbook pro firware update 1.7 apple made for some reason, might be an issue with all non-apple ssds not sure.

Reply

Answer 5

Mar 27, 2012 7:40 PM in response to willowpc

I'm leaning towards an OWC Mercury Electra, 240GB 3G

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/internal_storage/Mercury_Extreme_SSD_Sandforce/So lid_State_Pro/

I can do a 6G but there seems to be no value to doing so for my MBP (5,2)... :-(

2008/2009 MacBook/MacBook Pro 13", 15", and 17" models. (Model IDs: MacBookPro5,1; 5,2; 5,3; 5,4; 5,5 and MacBook5,1)

While a 6G SSD does function, it will only do so at SATA Revision 1.0 (1.5Gb/s) speeds rather that the SATA Revision 2.0 (3.0Gb/s) speed the machine can deliver. Should owners of these machines desire another SSD option, the Mercury Electra 3G SSD does run at the full SATA Revision 2.0 (3Gb/s) specification."

Reply