Very disingenuous of you to declare we won't notice the difference, and your assumption that we won't be moving lots of data regularly :-( don't be a donkey.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel ssd postville refresh on march 28th 3rd gen
- Thread starter philipma1957
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Very disingenuous of you to declare we won't notice the difference, and your assumption that we won't be moving lots of data regularly :-( don't be a donkey.
Sad to see Intel falling behind in SSD development. They really had solid products with the G2 series.
Or is it deliberate ?
Follow this reasoning.
They used the G2 controller which for reliability is the best. .994 Intel g2 ssd's were still good after 1 year. that is 6 failures out of 1000. I will try to find that link. here it is pulled from this
http://www.anandtech.com/Show/Index/4244?cPage=9&all=False&sort=0&page=1&slug=intel-ssd-320-review
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/storage/Intel/320/reliability.jpg
see thumbnail below for failure rate
If you own a macPro and use it for business speed is nice ,
but size and reliability are more important.
The 300gb and the 600gb series 320 ssd's are large and super reliable (in theory at least ).
If you buy a micron/crucial m4 c400 or a vertex 3 and put it in any macPro they should not be any faster then the intel. Based on vertex 2 and micron/crucial c300 the failure rate was higher in both cases then Intel G2's rate.
Now if anyone knows when a macpro will get a fast sata III or even a t-bolt for internal hdds intel would know. My conclusion would be a macpro /macmini/imac with a 6GB/s or 10GB/s for the internal hook up is far off.
2012 or later. When the mac come out with fast internal's intel will have a fast ssd. If you own a mac pro or any mac other then a MBP who cares about vertex 3 or micron/crucial m4/c400 . go out and get a big series 320 put it in your mac and forget about it.
Do you really want an ssd that can't use it's top speed's while in any macpro?
Attachments
Last edited:
SATA was designed for mechanical discs, it really isn't suited to SSD's. Unless Intel has something in the lab they may continue to drag their feet with this current revenue grabbing strategy.
Consider SSD's on PCIe cards, there are a few out there, Fusion IO is one such example, among others. These have shown to routinely go way beyond the constraints of even SATA 6GBs some approaching 1500MB/sec. With this point in focus let's also put the spotlight on ThunderBolt, which, conveniently, is also PCIe based. Thunderbolt provides the required thru-put in excess of SATA, is based on PCIe and has the advantage to gain significant thru-put by adding more PCIe lanes, thus easily ramping to 100Gb in time. Perhaps Intel plan on initiating a storage solution directly on the PCIe bus, both internally and using Thunderbolt externally. In such case they'd simply use a ThunderBolt controller on the SSD's PCB in place of a SATA controller chip and a new smaller micro PCIe connector on the logic board for internal SSDs. It would likely simplify circuitry and provide the next gen storage pathways.
I suspect Intel are up to something, they seem to be holding back as we are observing currently with USB 3. If these new SSDs are any indication (product filler to keep the foot in the market place) we may see either a new SSD controller from them or even more radical, another storage protocol involving ThunderBolt.
Time will tell no doubt.
Consider SSD's on PCIe cards, there are a few out there, Fusion IO is one such example, among others. These have shown to routinely go way beyond the constraints of even SATA 6GBs some approaching 1500MB/sec. With this point in focus let's also put the spotlight on ThunderBolt, which, conveniently, is also PCIe based. Thunderbolt provides the required thru-put in excess of SATA, is based on PCIe and has the advantage to gain significant thru-put by adding more PCIe lanes, thus easily ramping to 100Gb in time. Perhaps Intel plan on initiating a storage solution directly on the PCIe bus, both internally and using Thunderbolt externally. In such case they'd simply use a ThunderBolt controller on the SSD's PCB in place of a SATA controller chip and a new smaller micro PCIe connector on the logic board for internal SSDs. It would likely simplify circuitry and provide the next gen storage pathways.
I suspect Intel are up to something, they seem to be holding back as we are observing currently with USB 3. If these new SSDs are any indication (product filler to keep the foot in the market place) we may see either a new SSD controller from them or even more radical, another storage protocol involving ThunderBolt.
Time will tell no doubt.
I disagree, the resulting figures of the OCZ Vertex 3 are too significant in practically every test, you'd have to be asleep not to notice real world differences. Look at the 4k random write for goodness sake: OCZ Vertex 3-212MB/sec, Intel 320-58.6 MB/sec. If you clone/backup your system on a daily basis and you couldn't notice this then I'm afraid you'd have to be drunk and a shill for Intel LOL.
Another example: 128kb random read, OCZ Vertex 3-413MB/sec, Intel 320-238.7MB/sec.
WOW that thing is smoking, an that Intel is one lame POS IMNSFHO!
Yet those are still just synthetic figures. You can have an SSD that provides 1TB/s but it doesn't mean that it is noticeably faster in real world usage when compared with 250MB/s SSD.These are the benchmarks you should be looking at. They give you an idea of real world performance where the Intel is only ~13% slower or so. The difference is only 4% when you compare Intel to V3 with SATA 3Gb/s.
I just purchased an Intel series 320 300gb size from amazon.
price is 538 usd I got a few discount paid about 502 usd.
I can't afford the 600gb for now.
I had a few bad ocz vertex ssds. I am going to use this in my macPro and hook it up with cindori's trim app for all or most ssds.
I am not saying vertex 3 is a bad ssd or that micron/crucial m4/c400 are bad.
Think horses for courses.
Also I will say this if I had a macbook pro 2011 model I would look at the vertex 3 or the micron/crucial m4/c400 instead of the intel series 320.
(((I am saying that I get a bigger ssd for the same price and I get the famed intel reliability.
link for vertex 3.)))
^^^^^^
a correction I get 300gb for 538 intel or 1.79 a gb
or 240 gb for 500 vertex 3 or 2.08 a gb
http://www.amazon.com/OCZ-Technolog...M1HG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301505626&sr=8-1
see thumbnail
price is 538 usd I got a few discount paid about 502 usd.
I can't afford the 600gb for now.
I had a few bad ocz vertex ssds. I am going to use this in my macPro and hook it up with cindori's trim app for all or most ssds.
I am not saying vertex 3 is a bad ssd or that micron/crucial m4/c400 are bad.
Think horses for courses.
Also I will say this if I had a macbook pro 2011 model I would look at the vertex 3 or the micron/crucial m4/c400 instead of the intel series 320.
(((I am saying that I get a bigger ssd for the same price and I get the famed intel reliability.
link for vertex 3.)))
^^^^^^
a correction I get 300gb for 538 intel or 1.79 a gb
or 240 gb for 500 vertex 3 or 2.08 a gb
http://www.amazon.com/OCZ-Technolog...M1HG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301505626&sr=8-1
see thumbnail
Attachments
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Intel is working on a PCIe SSD interface solution...
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9193480/Vendors_join_in_effort_to_create_SSD_PCIe_standard
As Hellhammer points out, the differences are notable in synthetic tests, but real-world performance differences are minimal, particularly in a Mac Pro which is limited by SATA II.
All current gen SSD's are fast (enough for me). Now the focus needs to shift to reliability and cost. Personally, I'd rather have all my data on a cheap SSD than a barn burner SSD that's so small only my OS can fit on there.
Can't wait to hear your first impressions.
As much as I'm disappointed the price is not better, it's still pretty good. Performance is more than adequate, and reliability should be second to none.
I'll probably buy a pair of 300GB drives later in the year after the prices have come down a little or rebates can be had.
Personally, I won't buy any OCZ SSD product after so many reports of failed drives, and their bizarre move to switch the V2 to 25nm and cut performance without rebranding the product or advising prospective customers.