MacBook 13 SSD performance

I've got my heart set on getting a Mac laptop but i'm struggling between the MacBook 13" and MacBook 15". Right now i'm trying to figure out whether I get a 13 inch with a SSD drive or a 15 inch with 7200rpm drive. I know the i5 processor will give me better performance in doing tasks like encoding AACs in iTunes and such but I'm wondering what would computer would be faster doing real world everyday stuff like browsing the web while doing abunch of multitasking at the same time. Would it be the i5 with the slower hard drive or the Core 2 with the faster one?

 

The difference in hard drive speed will be much more obvious than the difference in CPU speed.

But I would advice you to make your decision on other grounds. The other important differences between 15" and 13" are size, weight, screen size and resolution.

If you buy the 15" you can always build in an SSD. A faster and cheaper one than the one Apple provides.

 

The best you can do for that system is get the Mac WITHOUT the SSD and then get the OWC SSD for Mac systems. Im working with a 100Gb now and its one of the best performers out there right now for either mac or Win7.

 

Yeah, I've definitely looked at more than hard drive as the sole basis for the reasoning to buy a computer. There's plenty to like with both computers, the 13inch just feels more portable with its size while the 15" does have the nice big screen with the really nice option of getting it matte. Reason I wouldn't get the SSD with the 15" is because it's already a really expensive notebook while with the 13" its far cheaper so there's money to put towards the 13" getting a better HDD and I really like the size, just not the processor.

As for the OWC memory, i'm guessing you're suggesting it because of the ultra fast SandForce processor in it. That's been really tempting as well instead of whatever Apple's generic SSD is. Just finding it for a good price is hard, I was looking at the OCZ Agility 2 and OCZ Vertex 2 which also have SandForce instead but they're so damn expensive

 

If you want to take the notebook with you a lot, I would opt for 13".

While the difference between a HDD and SSD is very easy to notice, it will be hard to notice the difference between a Vertex 2 and Intel 160 GB.

 

Given the amazing battery life the MacBooks get, i'd definitely be tempted to take it around all the time.

 

Hmmm....yes expensive. I am running the heck out of the OWC now and have to give it credit for a few things...

Many drives suffer degradation over time and as the drive fills. There are even claims that a SSD will lose performance after it has been filled the first time. Someone suggested I check that out.

Here is the drive. Yes its expensive but there is no indication of slowing even when it is 100% full. I filled it and left 50Mb for the test as this is necessary. The drive had also been filled and cleaned 5 times before I ran this Crystal score...

I bragged about the Intel until I ran this test. I haven't seen it pulled off with any other drive and published yet.

 

Sorry if this is a stupid question...
what is OWC?

I am interested (very) in getting an SSD for either a mbp 15 or envy 14...
I have heard that there is not a HUGE difference between a 500gig 7200rpm and an SSD?

 

Other World Computing is a manufacturer of SSDs.

OCZ Vertex 2 and Vertex LE also use a Sandforce controller and are even faster.
http://www.hardware.info/nl-NL/productdb/ZGdnlmZpyZpl/bGtka5iamJnKYsg/viewbenchmarks/bGtka5iamJnKYsg

For surfing the web there's not much of a difference. For more serious use there is.


http://www.laptopmag.com/review/storage/intel-x25-m-g2.aspx?page=6

 

Damn thats even a bigger difference than I thought, on the X-25M it makes loading the application twice as fast. BTW I was wondering if anybody had any issues with the lack of TRIM in OSX?

 

Yes it's a big difference. During the stress of multi tasking it becomes even bigger: seven times as fast.

 

It's a wonder normal HDD still exist

 

Try buying a 500GB SSD and you'll understand why

But keep in mind, if you use your laptop like me there's a very little to gain from an SSD. I rarely boot my system, Firefox is always on. The main bottleneck in my system is the internet connection and the human being surfing.

Ok I would gain 5 seconds with booting but how much time would I loose by having to connect external storage all the time?

 

Good thing I don't really need much storage, I've got an desktop already with Core i5 and 2TBs of storage which is why I don't need an ultra powerful notebook, just something nice to use when I'm away from the desktop.

 

Trust me, the concept of having an SSD is nice ... But SSDs are in their infancy, while HDD technology has matured to the point where efficiency is at its peak.

This is just me, but I was thinking of replacing my 5400 rpm HDD in the 13" with an SSD as I do a lot of photoshop and photomatix work ... I decided against it and will be going with a 500 GB 7200 rpm.

 

Thats simply an uneducated response and, considering what you would like to use it for, you are missing out on alot. Too often people are saying they want better systems and upgrades but are overlooking the biggest boost one can give to their system which is th SSD.

 

I agree with LEs, you're dead wrong. Go to the link below for some education. If you want to say you couldn't justify the cost then fine but don't kid yourself that the performance difference isn't night and day. The link also has loads of information that mac users will find useful other than dealing with SSDs.

Macintosh Performance Guide

 

I don't know where you came to the conclusion that I believe the performance difference is minimal ... Surely you know what is implied by the phrase "in its infancy".

There are still more improvements to come with SSDs, I don't want to have to routinely service my disk ala TRIM and whatever plagues SSDs at the moment. Yes I know there's a significant improvement, you don't need to own an SSD to know that ... USB flash drives have been around for a long time, and they're testament to read speeds of SS devices.

That being said, cost is still the biggest turn off for me. I shut down my computer maybe once a week, I guess I won't be enjoying that 10 second boot, I don't transfer Gigs of data everyday ... I guess I won't be enjoying that little tidbit either.

I'll give them a try when it doesn't cost an arm and leg for a measly 256 GB. Till then, I'll be fine with 7200 rpm.

 

Yes maybe you took the response in the wrong tone as we did initially eheheh.

There is alot more of a difference than a simple 10 second boot upgrade in the basic user experience, however, and yes size is a consideration but i have seen many creative users buy a sub-hundred dollar ssd and then but a 10 buck bracket to swap the DVD they no longer use.

With respect to SSDs, like hard drives, the potential for new releases to have to be updated with firmware to correct issues wil always be there. Its like that in every avenue of technology. heck look at Dell who has been making laptops since the beginning of time. They still have issues in new systems that isnt recognized before the system is released and that is because manufacturers want to get them out as quick as they can and, to a certain extent, rely on consumer reponse to better the product.

The truth is that now is the prime time to buy an SSD as we will always see the sales and price reductions that are happening now as someone comes out with bigger and better. Unlike the hard drive, the SSD pricing is mainly dependent on the pricing of external flash which means that SSD manufacturers for the most part have little control over pricing.

 

^ But are these sub $100 SSD's good? I'm a somewhat basic user with my 2010 13" -- browsing, Skype, AIM, mp3 encodes, light video encodes for iphone, and going to start dabbling in Photoshop and Ableton (I guess I'm an intermediate user now that I list off my uses).

and $10 mounting bay? Where? I've found a good one for $20 (that's good quality, comparable to MCE's Optibay but without paying the $99 price tag).

Thanks.

 

Yes you will think they are wonderful. ANY SSD is a huge step up from a hard drive. And $20 for the mounting bay is good.

 

Many cheap SSDs come with bad Jmicron JMF602 controllers causing your system to completely freeze for several seconds.

Something that wouldn't happen with a normal hard drive.

 

You would be hard pressed to find these specific drives sold as new products from any reputable dealer. I have seen the vertex drives go on sale many times for $70-90 which is what I am speaking about.

A VERY smart choice however would be that Vertex LE 50Gb they have on The ShellShocker Deal at NewEgg right now for $164.

Newegg.com - Shell Shocker Deal. Exclusive Jaw Dropping Savings on PC Components and Electronics.

That is absolutely the most powerful SSD you will find for the least amount of money...no questions about it.

 

I saw that Vertex deal. Should I go for that or the reputable 80gb Intel for $194 shipped? I'm thinking the latter if anything at all.

Also, SSD in the optibay or original spot?

Debating intel 40gb or 80gb.....

 

I must be one of the few people who is not blown away enough by the performance of SSD to justify the ridiculous prices for tiny capacities.

Sure they're fast, noticeably faster than hard drives, but paying $200 for less than 100GB just seems ludicrous.

The prices can do nothing but come down, I will wait until it's less insane and I can get a decent amount of storage in one without paying $1000. I can't recall my life ever depending on opening photoshop in 3 seconds as opposed to 8.

 

I got my first dell laptop for almost 5K in the nineties. Today that would get me 10 laptops that are more powerful. Do I wish i'd waited? Nope

 

That's not quite the argument I was making. No computer vs. paying out the nose for a computer is completely different than waiting on a high-end feature that isn't necessary and is at a premium price right now, when it won't be in the nearer future (nearer than 20 years like you're comparing).

You don't lose anything by using a hard drive. The price vs. the gains of an SSD, at this point in time, are not worth it in my opinion.

Of course, it's just my opinion, and there are many NBR-ers who are ecstatic SSD users. I am just offering a differing view - that of the idea that the price and storage capacities are ridiculous right now and not worth the gains. I feel like the price/benefit/capacities will come in line soon enough, and I can wait until then.

 

SSD in the original spot and the Vertex LE is a killer deal because of the controller that is in it and wasn't capped originally. There were only so many sold to OCZ and no other.

 

Can I ask...have you used an SSD at all to provide some experience in what you are writing?

 

I should have put this in my original post, since I knew someone would ask - yes. Although I am not currently using an SSD, my most recent computer was a 13" MBP with an OCZ Vertex. It was nearly $400 for 100GB.

Was it pleasingly fast? Yes. I am in no way arguing that it wasn't. All I'm saying is it's not a necessity and the price is at the early adopters premium and thusly not entirely worth it in my opinion. SSDs have already dropped, and will continue to at an even faster pace as they become more widespread. Since the gains are rad but not vital (most computer users, even on this forum, basically surf the net and open word documents), I'm of the opinion that you can wait on SSDs - even a few more months.

It's just another viewpoint, I didn't post that to stir up an argument.

 

If 50GB is enough for you, get Vertex LE. Better performance and better battery life.

Do not get the Intel 40GB. It's seriously capped in performance. If you want Intel get at least 80GB.

I'm in the same boat. I've gone SSD twice and came back to HDD. The price is not worth it at the moment imo unless you have very low storage needs.

People are often buying a small SSD and then need to connect USB storage very often. They'll gain a couple of seconds here and there with the SSD and then they'll loose minutes for (A) having to connect external storage, (B) which is bottle necked at 30 MB/second.

Actually it was quite easy:
http://www.google.com/products/cata...XmKtLK-Qah8sDYDQ&sa=title&ved=0CAcQ8wIwADgA#p

Amazon, Buy.com and Directron are all offering SSDs with Jmicron controllers.

 

Touche....good find. I haven't actually hunted around for that but its good to know.

With respect to the X25-v, I have recommended it to many who are extremely happy with it. yes it is capped in high sequential writes but most people have no use for that in their day to day activities in any case. It excels in the low random reads however which makes it a great ssd for the normal user because this is the visible improvement that is seen through an ssd.

I would still recommend the Vertex LE as you did simply because of its controller and it contains the sandForce 1500 which places it above any Intel quite frankly.

I think that the Intel G3s will simply be the same and uncapped.

At the end of the day, there is no way around the fact that the SSD is the largest performance visible improvement you can make in a computer and I think it comes down to creativity with respect to storage concerns. Many are losing the DVD and throwing the HDD and bracket in its place because, lets face it, there is no need to store data on a ssd and the same can also be said for some programs.

The only time anything would be bottlenecked because of the HDD and USB transfer speeds (in the case of an external) is when one works on something where there is constant back and forth between the storage medium and the program.

An example is simply this... I use Acrobat and have to create 6000 page reports that are chalk full of multimedia. They get very task extensive and a normal computer takes sometimes in excess of a minute just to load the report to be worked on. Redacting of the full report on a ssd might take 10 seconds vice the normal several minutes of a hard drive. With my setup, Acrobat is installed within the SSD and the report pulled up initially from the external drive. No prob and still almost instant.

While working on the report, which is in memory, back ups are saved automatically on the ssd until I choose to make my final save again on the external.

There is absolutely no comparison between this and a regular HDDs use....

Personally, to me its all creativity in storage and those waiting for high capacity SSD prices to come down are simply watching the world go by. They can grab a great SSD now at a decent price and simply set it up to their best advantage.

 

But that creativity you're referring to ... Does it involve losing the superdrive?

I mean, bracketing is possible on machines like the ENVY 15, but The MBP only has one hard drive bay.

I won't sacrifice my superdrive for any performance increase ... I'm one of the few who still holds on to physical media.

 

"Watching the world go by.." is pushing it, I think. The number of people who actually use SSDs in the real world is extremely low. Most of my friends don't even know what they are. The numbers on an internet forum for laptop nerds (and I'm including myself in that) would make it seem like everyone is opting for them, but in reality, it's a very small segment using an emerging technology early.

The second part is my whole point - it's not at a decent price. It's at a ridiculous premium that will continue to plummet every day. I'm all for new tech, but there is a sweet spot for price/newness that I don't think SSDs have reached yet.

 

Yeah I agree.

I wasn't one who needed a lot of storage until recently (Picked up Photography, it's good stuff) ... I just cannot picture myself being limited to 100 GB (What's worse is paying the price of a 500 GB 7200 rpm).

While there's no denying SSDs improve performance, it's just a matter of tradeoffs ... I'm not ready to part with my money for a 5 second boot (I shut down maybe once a week), opening programs 4 seconds faster (I'm an impatient man but that's pushing it), transferring large amounts of data much more quickly (This is perhaps the most desirable of the bunch, and even then ... How often does the average user move around 5 GB of data at once?)

I will eventually switch to SSD ... Just not with these prices.

 

If you've recently picked up photography, have you started shooting RAW? If yes, then thats another area where an SSD comes into its own. I'm not sure what kind of photography you're into and how much processing you do but i'm mostly into nature and am usually dealing with either stacks or panos (sometimes both!). Large files are much easier to handle with an SSD and its also more forgiving than a HDD when(if) you run out of RAM.

I need a lot of storage but at some point you realise that you will never have enough on your main drive. Theres also the risk of having all your photos on your main drive. My workflow is now to have my images stored on external drives (with backups) and only the most recent or those being worked on kept on my computer.

I'm not trying to get you to jump on the bandwagon for the sake of it but I truly believe you will enjoy the benefits of an SSD. As for prices plumeting daily, not happening. Prices will prolly drop when there is a new generation released.

 

You may appreciate this...

It takes 18 minutes of your life but it is tests on a Mac and the results are plain as day depending on your need.

Typical Mac User Podcast OWC Mercury Extreme Pro RE and making the switch to SSD Keynote Presentation