Closed Solved

SSD vs HD

SSD vs HD for ordinary computer usage which is better to use with a MBP 13 inch 2011 model? thanks
35 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about tomshardware
  1. If you're just using the mac for general tasks (e-mail, internet, flash games, etc) I'd stick with the HDD.

    You'll only need a SSD if you're spending long amounts of time reading/writing to the disk. Examples would be burning A LOT of movies, video/photo editing, etc.

    If you really want to increase performance, get more RAM. Don't waste the money, keep the HDD.
  2. Best answer
    calmstateofmind said:
    If you're just using the mac for general tasks (e-mail, internet, flash games, etc) I'd stick with the HDD.

    You'll only need a SSD if you're spending long amounts of time reading/writing to the disk. Examples would be burning A LOT of movies, video/photo editing, etc.

    If you really want to increase performance, get more RAM. Don't waste the money, keep the HDD.


    I can't quite agree with that. I use an SSD (or RAIDed SSDs) in all my Macs...from this old 2007 17" Macbook Pro up to the 2010 Mac Pro. Marv, an SSD will make your entire MacBook Pro feel faster, from startup to launching programs to web browsing. Why? Because your drive is constantly being used. Caching...virtual memory...all of it uses the drive. ...and the faster the drive...the faster your system. Enough of that, this isn't SSD 101

    Your 2011 MacBook Pro supports SATA 3, the latest. So, your very best performance will come from an OCZ Vertex 3. These will also be your most expensive drives. There are a lot good SSDs right now. Those with the SandForce controllers seem to be very popular and perform very well. I've used OCZ Vertex 2 or Vertex 3 drives in my 4 Macs and all perform well (even though the Vertex 2 in this 17" is wasted as it only supports SATA I...but its still faster than a HDD would be and its noticable).

    The simple answer is, yes, you can benefit from an SSD, IMHO. ...even the very latest. I wouldn't recommend getting anything cheap though. Think about how much you're willing to spend and how much capacity you really need.

    If you're willing to make some compromise between ultimate SSD performance and the capacity you'd get with a HDD then look at the Seagate Momentus XT Hybrid SSD/HDD. It gets pretty good reviews.

    Hope this helps
  3. halcyon said:
    I can't quite agree with that. I use an SSD (or RAIDed SSDs) in all my Macs...from this old 2007 17" Macbook Pro up to the 2010 Mac Pro. Marv, an SSD will make your entire MacBook Pro feel faster, from startup to launching programs to web browsing. Why? Because your drive is constantly being used. Caching...virtual memory...all of it uses the drive. ...and the faster the drive...the faster your system. Enough of that, this isn't SSD 101

    Your 2011 MacBook Pro supports SATA 3, the latest. So, your very best performance will come from an OCZ Vertex 3. These will also be your most expensive drives. There are a lot good SSDs right now. Those with the SandForce controllers seem to be very popular and perform very well. I've used OCZ Vertex 2 or Vertex 3 drives in my 4 Macs and all perform well (even though the Vertex 2 in this 17" is wasted as it only supports SATA I...but its still faster than a HDD would be and its noticable).

    The simple answer is, yes, you can benefit from an SSD, IMHO. ...even the very latest. I wouldn't recommend getting anything cheap though. Think about how much you're willing to spend and how much capacity you really need.

    If you're willing to make some compromise between ultimate SSD performance and the capacity you'd get with a HDD then look at the Seagate Momentus XT Hybrid SSD/HDD. It gets pretty good reviews.

    Hope this helps
    Thanks for this informative knowledge.I will think about getting a SSD eventually.It is a different animal completely I hear from people.marv
  4. musical marv said:
    Thanks for this informative knowledge.I will think about getting a SSD eventually.It is a different animal completely I hear from people.marv



    It is indeed and I think you'll love the performance. My 2011 MacBook Pro literally starts up in less than 20 seconds. It just make a machine feel much faster.
  5. Total space is the break point for SSD vs HDD. If you require more than 120 Gigs, stay with the HDD otherwise go with the SSD as Performance gain is great. Have 3 laptops that I use all now have a SSD - would not think of going back. In addition to performance, most of the SSDs draw less power.

    Would recommend that you look ar the reviews on New egg for compatability with the mac (I hav PC based laptops) - very Important if going with the SATA III SSDs.

    While the Vertex III may have the "king of the SSDs" for performance, there really is not that big of a difference in real life.
    Ref: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-ssd-caching,2966-7.html
    Quote As a point of comparison, a file operation completes 85% faster on a low-end SSD than it does on a high-end hard drive, but there is only an 88% speed difference between a high-end hard drive and a high-end SSD. End quote
    Vertex III used the SF22xx controller; has the highest Sequencial read/write performance, but this is the least important parameter. This applies to all SF22xx Controller based SSD.
    Should also visit the OCZ Forum and look at the Comments regarding this series - my take "Plug-&-Pray"
    At this time Only recommending the Marvel based controller SSds and the Sata II SSDs, excluding the Intel 320 (until they resolve the "Bug" which causes the SSD to decrease to 8 Mbs and ofcoaurse you loss all data on it (Ouch).
  6. I'm using a Vertex 3 in my 2011 MacBook Pro (same class of machine as Marv) and the performance is good. In OS X SL TRIM is not natively supported but the drive still seems to perform pretty well and I'm satisfied.



  7. Yes, that looks good, but (correct me if I'm wrong) that is for large file, mostly Sequential.
    OCZ Vertex 3 is great for compressible data, but not much better on uncompressible data such as used by the AS-SSD bench mark.

    Seq read/write performance is very important for a Data disk and when working with large files such as Video: DVD 1 gig, Blu-ray up to 40 gig, large spreadsheets, cad/cam drawings and photos (large jpeg/bitmap files).
    For a Boot drive and programs it is the small file random that is important. With the typical 120->128 gig SSD, the files that benefit from seq are on the HDD.

    A quote from the manfactor's Rep to user who stated good Seq, but Random, not so good. "Hello, the new drive versions may be faster in some respects, but whether you will actually notice the difference in day to day use is debatable.”
    This is backed up by looking more at "real world" tests (both at anandtech and Tom's) than pure benchmark results.

    From new egg, Sata III drives, 120->128, Gig with 40 or more respondents.
    .. Vertex III ....... 126 - 26% 1/2 egg
    .. Agility III .......... 51 - 47 % 1/2 eggs
    .. Vetex III Max ... 78 - 19 %

    Compared to:
    .. Intel 510 ........ 101 - 11%
    .. Crucial C300 ... 347 - 7%
    .. Plextor PXM2 .... 41 - 5%
    .. Crucial M4 ......... 69 - 2%

    (A)..The rational when looking at Agility III or vertex III is that they are user caused which is probably true, but that same statement would be true for the Marvel controller based Sata III SSDs and does not justify the LARGE disparity of dissatisfied users.
    (B).. Go through the reviews looking specifically for Mac laptops for SF22xx SSDs then compare to Marvel based SSD - speaks for itself.
    (C).. for the small increase in performance on the day-to-day usage, there is NO way I'd recommend the SF22xx based SSDs until they improve.

    (D)..As to OCZ, well they lost my endorsement with the very poor resolution of the problem. OCZ states that it only effects about 1% (There number, not mine) and they still do not have a solution. FW 1.09 solved some, but still left people with stuttering. Causing BSOD, and/or degraded performance and my impression is No biggy. When the SF22xx problems are fixed, I WILL buy, just not OCZ.

    PS: I have 7 SSDs installed; THE only one I've had a problem with is the OCZ Agility III.
  8. RetiredChief said:
    Yes, that looks good, but (correct me if I'm wrong) that is for large file, mostly Sequential.
    OCZ Vertex 3 is great for compressible data, but not much better on uncompressible data such as used by the AS-SSD bench mark.

    Seq read/write performance is very important for a Data disk and when working with large files such as Video: DVD 1 gig, Blu-ray up to 40 gig, large spreadsheets, cad/cam drawings and photos (large jpeg/bitmap files).
    For a Boot drive and programs it is the small file random that is important. With the typical 120->128 gig SSD, the files that benefit from seq are on the HDD.

    A quote from the manfactor's Rep to user who stated good Seq, but Random, not so good. "Hello, the new drive versions may be faster in some respects, but whether you will actually notice the difference in day to day use is debatable.”
    This is backed up by looking more at "real world" tests (both at anandtech and Tom's) than pure benchmark results.

    From new egg, Sata III drives, 120->128, Gig with 40 or more respondents.
    .. Vertex III ....... 126 - 26% 1/2 egg
    .. Agility III .......... 51 - 47 % 1/2 eggs
    .. Vetex III Max ... 78 - 19 %

    Compared to:
    .. Intel 510 ........ 101 - 11%
    .. Crucial C300 ... 347 - 7%
    .. Plextor PXM2 .... 41 - 5%
    .. Crucial M4 ......... 69 - 2%

    (A)..The rational when looking at Agility III or vertex III is that they are user caused which is probably true, but that same statement would be true for the Marvel controller based Sata III SSDs and does not justify the LARGE disparity of dissatisfied users.
    (B).. Go through the reviews looking specifically for Mac laptops for SF22xx SSDs then compare to Marvel based SSD - speaks for itself.
    (C).. for the small increase in performance on the day-to-day usage, there is NO way I'd recommend the SF22xx based SSDs until they improve.

    (D)..As to OCZ, well they lost my endorsement with the very poor resolution of the problem. OCZ states that it only effects about 1% (There number, not mine) and they still do not have a solution. FW 1.09 solved some, but still left people with stuttering. Causing BSOD, and/or degraded performance and my impression is No biggy. When the SF22xx problems are fixed, I WILL buy, just not OCZ.

    PS: I have 7 SSDs installed; THE only one I've had a problem with is the OCZ Agility III.
    Another important factor is the ISP connection I presume.
  9. musical marv said:
    Another important factor is the ISP connection I presume.



    The only connection between this topic and your ISP is in general performance experienced on your laptop. If internet activity is your primary use than the quality of your ISP has a factor. An SSD affects the general responsiveness of your laptop but will not make your internet connection faster. That's up to your ISP...so, in a round-about-way you presume correctly.
  10. After I put in an intel X25M in my MBP Facebook and Yahoo ran much smoother. I highly recommend it.
  11. I would 2nd that, The "older" Intel G2 is a great drive. have one that I've moved around: first as the boot drive for I5-750 (replaced with pheonix pro), then as a data drive in the I5 aqnd most recently as the Boot drive form My SB Notebook (Bought the Agility III which did not work). The Intel 320 replaces the X25M and the X25M isgetting harder to find (newegg is out of stock).

    Ordered the Curcuial M4 128 Gig (Has some problems, but nowares neer OCZ) last night - here's hoping!!!
  12. I guess I've been really lucky that I've never had a problem with any OCZ Vertex 2 or Vertex 3 drives. I'll keep my fingers crossed.
  13. Not heard about much problems with the vetrtex II, not more than other sata II (excluding the Intel G2/X25M line ).
    When it first came out almost bought it, but opted for the Pheonix Pro - same controller.
  14. halcyon said:
    I guess I've been really lucky that I've never had a problem with any OCZ Vertex 2 or Vertex 3 drives. I'll keep my fingers crossed.
    Where can you buy these SSD used? thanks marv
  15. musical marv said:
    Where can you buy these SSD used? thanks marv


    That's an interesting thought...a used SSD.
  16. New, and used
    http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p5197.m570.l1311&_nkw=ssd+drive&_sacat=See-All-Categories
    Or just go to ebay and do a search for SSDs - Several catagories will pop up Like Intel, ect

    Some caution, Know what you are getting. EX: Dane-Elec 80 GB Laptop Solid State Drive (SSD) Kit (Link below) Current bid is $41, Buy it Now is $129.
    It does not Identify the SSD (Use to say Intel)-But what they left off was that it was the G1. I bought one shortly after the G2 came out, when I got it I found out it was the G1 after I recieved it, which does not support trim. For what it's worth, I'm still using it in a laptop that I use at work - No problems, just not as fast as the newer Sata II, still better than a HDD.
    http://cgi.ebay.com/Dane-Elec-80-GB-Laptop-Solid-State-Drive-SSD-Kit-/130547075270?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e653648c6

    You may start to see some of the Newer SATA III start to show up as users who are having problems switch to a different on. Users that have the Sata II and buy a sata III (like I'm doing) as a replacement; If the Sata II drive is still good will migrate the drive to a data disk.

    A comment made to me by the Loan officer at my CU several years ago. Was asking about a used car they had (Repossessed)- Her Comment -"No, rode hard and put up wet" May also apply to SSds
  17. That's why I responded that way, sometimes I'm overly efficient with words. I would never want a used SSD...or a used HDD for that matter. ...not knowing what the previous owner did to or what condition its really in.
  18. halcyon said:
    The only connection between this topic and your ISP is in general performance experienced on your laptop. If internet activity is your primary use than the quality of your ISP has a factor. An SSD affects the general responsiveness of your laptop but will not make your internet connection faster. That's up to your ISP...so, in a round-about-way you presume correctly.
    Thanks for your answer.Incidentally are you going to download the new Lion OS now as it came out already today?
  19. I'll download it in the next couple of days...I'm really not all that excited by it. The only thing it really has that I'm looking forward to is TRIM support for SSDs.
  20. Using Lion at the moment, using a Crucial M4, so far it appears (as with Snow Leopard) you only get TRIM support if you have an Apple SSD; it's (very) early days so this could well change...
  21. JustSomeJoe said:
    Using Lion at the moment, using a Crucial M4, so far it appears (as with Snow Leopard) you only get TRIM support if you have an Apple SSD; it's (very) early days so this could well change...


    I didn't think I'd care for Lion...but I like it...a lot. It does some neat things. I thought the whole "works like iOS" would be stupid...but its actually slick. I'm saddened and I'm disappointed in myself...but I like it. I like my MBP more with 10.7 than with 10.6.8 :(


    Now I have 3 other machines to upgrade...legally for $30. I hate you Apple.
  22. halcyon said:
    I didn't think I'd care for Lion...but I like it...a lot. It does some neat things. I thought the whole "works like iOS" would be stupid...but its actually slick. I'm saddened and I'm disappointed in myself...but I like it. I like my MBP more with 10.7 than with 10.6.8 :(


    Now I have 3 other machines to upgrade...legally for $30. I hate you Apple.
    How can you like something and then say you do not care for it? I heard Lion has some flaws in some apps also.
  23. musical marv said:
    How can you like something and then say you do not care for it? I heard Lion has some flaws in some apps also.


    Its a lighthearted tone. I want to dislike Apple ...but I don't.
  24. halcyon said:
    Its a lighthearted tone. I want to dislike Apple ...but I don't.
    I understand it is a love hate relationship. Maybe you can really help me I own no credit card at all and I want to download the LION OS how can I if I only have debit cards? This sucks on Apple's part really. Thanks Marv
  25. Marv: Never tried it, but I believe you can create an iTunes account without a Credit Card ( http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2534 ), then buy iTunes TopUp vouchers and use them to buy Apps through the App Store.
  26. musical marv said:
    I understand it is a love hate relationship. Maybe you can really help me I own no credit card at all and I want to download the LION OS how can I if I only have debit cards? This sucks on Apple's part really. Thanks Marv



    Are you able to get a pre-paid Visa or Mastercard?
  27. halcyon said:
    Are you able to get a pre-paid Visa or Mastercard?
    No I only own a Chase debit card.
  28. musical marv said:
    No I only own a Chase debit card.



    Hmmm...Well, you could buy a prepaid card. ...but in August Apple's gonna release Lion on a USB flash drive, so you could order that, if that's the most convenient...but @ $70 you're gonna pay a $40 premium. Ouch.
  29. halcyon said:
    Hmmm...Well, you could buy a prepaid card. ...but in August Apple's gonna release Lion on a USB flash drive, so you could order that, if that's the most convenient...but @ $70 you're gonna pay a $40 premium. Ouch.
    This not fair on the consumer to spend more money! Apple is screwing people like that.
  30. musical marv said:
    This not fair on the consumer to spend more money! Apple is screwing people like that.



    You're definitely correct there, IMO. They're really trying to encourage the download path. What is surprising, by this, is that their pricing and policy, otherwise, seems almost too good to be true...$30 and if you have 10 macs in your house they don't care if you use that one $30 license on all 10 macs. ...but if you need to purchase physical media they're...punishing you for it. :non:
  31. halcyon said:
    You're definitely correct there, IMO. They're really trying to encourage the download path. What is surprising, by this, is that their pricing and policy, otherwise, seems almost too good to be true...$30 and if you have 10 macs in your house they don't care if you use that one $30 license on all 10 macs. ...but if you need to purchase physical media they're...punishing you for it. :non:
    What is the solution to this? How is the LION OS you have?
  32. Well Marv, if you're near an Apple store you could take it in and they'll let you use their bandwidth to upgrade to Lion. I've heard feedback that that has been a positive experience.

    As far as how Lion is. Well, I like some of the UI changes...they make it a little slicker. The Launch Pad thing doesn't appeal to me right now, but its neat that its there. If I ever want my machines to act like an iPad I have the option...and options are generally good.

    Performance-wise? Mixed reviews here. On my Mac Pro, at first I did just a straight upgrade and it didn't perform so well. Really noticed a lag when conversing with my NAS (network attached storage). ...so I rolled back to 10.6.8, which performs very well. ...then I noticed I missed the little UI tweaks in Lion...so I re-installed from scratch and then restored my apps/files/settings from a time machine backup and everything seems to work fine so I'm happy there.

    On my 2011 MacBook Pro I'm having similar performance issues as noted above. It takes nearly a minute to boot up and I have a very quick SSD which took ~20 seconds to boot under Snow Leopard. ...so I rolled it back to 10.6.8. I may try the same method that I did with my Mac Pro to see if that works...or I may just wait until 10.7.1 or 10.7.2 releases and try again then

    Overall, I think Lion is neat, but right now 10.6.8 is obviously more mature. Is Lion worth $30? Heck ya. Is it worth $70? I'd say it is.

    If I may ask, do you live in the US?
  33. I've tried a Intel 510 (120 gig) and a Seagate 1 TB drive on a 10.6.8 OS X machine. It just so happens I'm in the middle of a video project. I did one DVD on the platter drive another DVD on the SSD.

    Observations: Yes, startup and apps launch much faster on the SSD. I did run some basic benchmarks and the SSD hit 240 MB/s max while the platter drive hit about 110 MB/s max. I left a drive activity graph run in the background while I was doing my video project and I was surprised at how few peeks there were. Constant was under a meg per second, a couple dozen peeks of 10s of megs and two or three peeks of a 100 megs/second.

    Reality: How often do you startup the computer and launch apps? Most of my computers sleep so startup is not that critical and I spend a very small percent of my time waiting for apps to launch. How often does the computer actually get to use all that hard drive bandwidth? Not often.

    I haven't quite come to a conclusion but I'm having a hard time justifying storing video @ $2.30 per gig. Yes, I will move the project off the expensive SSD when I'm done with it but still..... However, it does give the computer a nice feel/rhythm but.... 240 bucks nicer? Not really.
  34. Best answer selected by musical marv.
  35. This topic has been closed by Area51reopened
Ask a new question

Read More

SSD Computers HD Mac OS X Product