Questioning my purchase of 512 GB Crucial M4

[Don Vito Corleone]

So last week I purchased a 512 GB Crucial M4 from Newegg during their $509 promotion. I promptly plugged it into my mid-2009 13" MacBook Pro (2.53 GHz C2D; 8 GB RAM), replacing a 500 GB Seagate Momentus XT.

Call me crazy but I am underwhelmed. I was hoping my computer would react like the 13" MBA I bought my stepmother last fall - that thing is cartoonishly fast. Instead the machine seems essentially the same as with the Momentus XT - quick but not blistering. I don't detect any real difference from what it was like before the upgrade, even in terms of multitasking and startup/shutdown.

I am thinking of returning the drive to save the money for a new computer when (as appears imminent) the new MBP hits the market in a few weeks.

Am I crazy? Does anyone have anything to say to talk me out of returning this drive?

EDIT: Just noticed (and yes, I am an idiot for noticing this now for the first time) that the drive is subject to a non-refundable return policy. D'oh! Ah well - will just pop this into my new MBP when it's time to get one - my current one is still in great shape even after nearly 3 years, and has a new battery.

 

[bryanW1995]

The Momentus XT is at its best when you have a consistent usage pattern. Most likely, you use the same programs/games regularly, so you won't see as much benefit as expected from the ssd. Plus, a 512gb m4 isn't as fast as a 256gb, anyway. I almost jumped on that deal as well, but I ended up deciding on 2x256gb m4's (for $430 also, so I got to save $79). The RAID 0 configuration is blisteringly fast, so fast in fact that I was almost as impressed as I was when I got my first ssd (x25m g2 80gb).

 

[BFG10K]

It’s not just you – I’m completely underwhelmed by SSDs as well, and that’s coming from a 1TB Caviar Black that I used for everything, including the OS.

Either everyone else has completely different I/O patterns to me, or there’s a vast element of unrealistic hype on the internet being produced to justify these expensive devices.

I’ve sold my SSD and I’ll probably order a 1TB VelociRaptor to replace it. I don’t plan to return to SSDs any time soon.

 

[Burner27]

Don-

Check your PM please.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

It’s not just you – I’m completely underwhelmed by SSDs as well, and that’s coming from a 1TB Caviar Black that I used for everything, including the OS.

Either everyone else has completely different I/O patterns to me, or there’s a vast element of unrealistic hype on the internet being produced to justify these expensive devices.

I’ve sold my SSD and I’ll probably order a 1TB VelociRaptor to replace it. I don’t plan to return to SSDs any time soon.

This.

Bought two SSDs so far, and tried quite a bit but they don't seem noticeably better from my Baracuda XT/WD Blacks or even 7200.12s (by an enough margin) for that matter.

Some things are a bit better. But it is basically if you want to buy the best of everything, just go spend that extra hundreds of bucks, but not something which really makes much difference. Going from a 7970 to 7970 OC is probably a better difference with respect to gaming, even if I am comparing just Windows usage for the SSD and not gaming per say.

But then again I don't load games using my small 180 GB SSD. With 512 GB you can load a few games which would at least make loading times a bit better.
But, that is it.

 

[KingFatty]

I dunno, when I switch back and forth between SSD and hard disk drive, I feel like something is wrong with my computer because the disk drive takes so long sometimes on random things like when I run a scan using that microsoft security tools thing. Or when I did properties or something, I forget exactly. I just got used to the SSD and it is bothersome to wait on the computer when I switch to disk drive bootup.

 

[steve wilson]

I have noticed a difference in load times definitely. Things are just quicker. It's not essential and it's not earth shattering, but it is nice. I don't feel underwhelmed.

 

[zCypher]

What I've found is that how significant of a difference in performance the SSD will make depends heavily on the computer it's in. In my desktop computer, which was an E5200/4GB system when I got my first SSD (60GB Vertex2) saw a dramatic improvement in boot and load times compared to 1TB WD Black. Later on when I upgraded to a 120GB Vertex3, there was again a nice increase in performance though not as dramatic as HDD to SSD.

On the other hand, my Lenovo x120e netbook is still disappointingly slow even after upgrading to a 120GB ADATA S510.

I think your MBP has sufficient hardware specs to realize the benefits of an SSD, so it's a little odd to see you this underwhelmed. There could be something else wrong, too. Is there a way for you to check if you're using AHCI mode, or is that totally irrelevant on a Mac?

 

[ericloewe]

I recently replaced my Sony Vaio SE's extra-crap hard drive (some OEM Toshiba) with a Samsung 830.

You don't notice the SSD while you're doing something, you only notice it when you start doing something or stop doing something. Boot and shutdown times are down to seconds, from minutes. No wait for stuff to load after the desktop pops up, programs open quickly.

Just don't expect your browsing to be any faster

 

[Zxian]

On the other hand, my Lenovo x120e netbook is still disappointingly slow even after upgrading to a 120GB ADATA S510.

The x120e is still a netbook. I've put a 120GB OCZ Solid3 in mine, and have noticed a significant performance increase when it comes to IO related tasks. Boot times, time to open software, battery life, shutdown times have all improved.

The difference between a hybrid drive and an SSD will be less pronounced than from simple, spinning platters. The OP is also comparing a C2D to an i5 or i7. No increase in IO performance will make up that difference.

 

[thelastjuju]

or there’s a vast element of unrealistic hype on the internet being produced to justify these expensive devices.
.

Its this :thumbsup:

Had I not discovered a little feature called HIBERNATE, I too would have thought that BOOT TIMES were an attractive feature of SSD drives..

SSD drives do have benefits, but if you want to drastically reduce boot times, simply make use of the hibernate or sleep feature and boot in 10-15 secs with the PC ready to go with no delays. Windows 7 hibernates in faster than ever.

I got a low capacity, entry level SSD drive just to try one out a while back, and the transfer speeds ARE incredibly fast.. but 0 of the advantages the shills who were pushing SSD's claimed, like web browsing and gaming performance, are present.

You don't notice the SSD while you're doing something, you only notice it when you start doing something or stop doing something. Boot and shutdown times are down to seconds, from minutes. No wait for stuff to load after the desktop pops up, programs open quickly.

Sounds like even more the reason to hibernate.. I just keep applications like Photoshop opened at all times. The second I hibernate in, Photoshop is ready to load with 0 delays. Why would I WAIT for applications to load at all, when I can get around it?

 

[Topweasel]

Noticed you had a C2D. One thing is I got into a big SSD debate when someone asked about replacing his 7200RPM raid array for an SSD. Anyways the short of it was "OMG everything is so much better then spindle, it should always be SSD or nothing" was all most people said. Part of what brought this up was the user was still on SATA II.

Well I have experience with both. I have a SATA II C2D setup on my laptop. I got a 128GB M4 for that. I then got a 256GB M4 for the Desktop I was building. I regularly reload the OS in my Laptop. I also don't use it very often, it more of an emergency portable Desktop then a Laptop. I was slightly underwhelmed on the M4 on my laptop, sure the benchmarks had it as twice as fast as my desktop. But the OS still loaded (as opposed to seemingly instant on), applications still took time to load. It just was faster at doing so. I also only have 4GB of memory in that system. So you figure its going to the drive pretty regularly. But still I could tell the difference, but I don't know if I would have kept it if I didn't have an extra HD bay in my laptop for the spindle drive.

Now 3 months later I finished my desktop. Now that drive in that computer is screaming fast. Windows loads near instantly. Applications open measurably quick. But I also have 32GB of memory in that system, so a lot of it can be precaching. Often joining matches I am the first one loaded up. On my laptop, middle of the pack in the same games.

What it basically comes down to. Is specially having that 4GB cache on the XT. Connected to a SATA II port, its just not going to be that much faster. Figure it this way, you are probably seeing burst transfers of upwards of 160 and 170MB/s any ways. At full speed the M4 would be about 3.25x faster then that, and maintain that through most file accesses. But right now its only about 1.5x faster. The trouble that Microsoft and most other software developers have gone through a lot of to minimize the impact of the slowest part of the computer, it also means that you won't see a dramatic increase when speed that part up.

But I tell you in the proper setup regardless of use case you will notice it. Maybe it isn't worth $500, but you will notice. But I am not sure you will ever really enjoy it that much on that laptop.

Also keep in mind that you are also running without trim in OSX. So performance in between uses can vary greatly.

 

[CptObvious]

I installed a 128GB M4 in my desktop, moving a 1TB Caviar Blue as a secondary drive. I was impressed at first by how fast programs installed and initial boot times, but after setting everything up it's been a little disappointing. Startup time is about the same with multiple user accounts and the software I use the most (Lightroom) doesn't seem to start up that much faster. Oh well, at least I don't have to defrag anymore.

 

[bryanW1995]

It's all about your usage pattern. If all you do is heavy gaming then you're unlikely to see much benefit from an ssd unless your games hit the hard drive a lot (like nwn2 level loading for example). Generally speaking, newer games benefit more. For me, CIV 5 loads tons faster with an ssd, though it really only saves me 15 seconds or so at the start and that is it. Civ4 was already pretty fast, but it might save a second or two. And at least for me, everyday usage benefits a bit as well. I actually use my work computer about as much as my home computer, and waiting on every single freakin' thing to load is a real PITA for me, enough so that I'm taking my old x25m g2 up to the office tomorrow.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

It’s not just you – I’m completely underwhelmed by SSDs as well, and that’s coming from a 1TB Caviar Black that I used for everything, including the OS.

Really? I just replaced my 120GB Vertex 2 with a 240GB SanDisk Extreme and am very satisfied, even though I'm crippling it with a SATA-II only mobo (EX58-UD3R Rev 1.6).
My setup = 80GB OS, ~136GB Games (mapped to an empty folder on a 1TB Spinpoint F3)

I've never seen TF2, Allods, GW and Tribes Ascend load up so quickly

 

[LokutusofBorg]

It's all about the theory of constraints, and understanding that yes, usage patterns can be *very* different for different people.

If you are a gamer, then your hard drive is not likely your most prominent bottleneck. Will it improve load times? Sure. But SSDs aren't going to increase FPS, and nobody (articles, reviews) has ever claimed they would.

It's about general computing, and specifically about heavy random IO. I am a software developer, and an SSD improves my day-to-day workflow a full order of magnitude or more in tasks that I engage in a significant portion of my work day.

 

[BFG10K]

Had I not discovered a little feature called HIBERNATE, I too would have thought that BOOT TIMES were an attractive feature of SSD drives..

I'm not even impressed by boot times to be honest:

Since I only boot once or twice a day, it’s hardly an earthshattering difference. It’s not like I’m tearing my hair out for those 9.13 seconds anyway. These are real boot times mind you; the time from pressing the power button until I get control of my machine.

You see a lot of fake boot times on the web to artificially increase the differences. Like people timing only from when Windows starts loading. Then you see 10 seconds vs 5 seconds and people think “wow, twice as fast”. But it isn’t, not unless somebody thinks they can be productive on a machine that’s still POSTing or in the BIOS.

Another good one is to purposefully start as many programs possible at once to thrash mechanical HDDs. Here’s a hint: start your programs sequentially (i.e. wait for one to finish before starting the next one). The total time to load everything will probably reduce, especially on mechanical HDDs which can leverage more sequential performance in those cases, especially if they’re defragged.

As for gaming, I never expected the FPS to increase. There are certainly some load time improvements above, but only the first time you load that level. Afterwards there’s no change because it’s cached and comes from the RAM.

Also those results don’t show the other problem of SSDs, namely cost/GB, and total capacity. I can’t fit 378GB games on a 120GB, 256GB or even 300GB device. And if I start managing the SSD like some kind of manual disk cache, it wastes more time than the few seconds I save on load times.

If I add the rest of my data and OS I’d need at least a 750GB SSD to be comfortable now and for reasonable future expansion. And if I want to have increased backup speeds, I’d need two of them so I’m not bottlenecked at either end. How much is that going to cost compared to a pair of 1TB Caviar Blacks which still have 33% more capacity?

Also something like a 1TB VelociRaptor will further reduce those SSD performance advantages while not losing any capacity relative to what I have now.

So yes, SSDs are faster in the real world, but nowhere near what those pretty synthetics like 4KQD32 show. There are also serious sacrifices to be made with regard to cost and total space compared to HDDs, and the small real world advantages I’ve experienced are nowhere near worth making those sacrifices IMO.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

I agree with the above guy 100% though I wouldn't mind buying another ssd, a 512gb one for half the current price.

 

[Geofram]

So yes, SSDs are faster in the real world, but nowhere near what those pretty synthetics like 4KQD32 show. There are also serious sacrifices to be made with regard to cost and total space compared to HDDs, and the small real world advantages I’ve experienced are nowhere near worth making those sacrifices IMO.

The odd thing is that in my case, I couldn't disagree more. I hate, HATE using any computers that do not have a SSD now. My work computer (Sandy Bridge i7-2600, 7200 RPM 1TB drive) constantly slows down doing things that my home computer (Sandy Bridge i5 2500, with Intel G2 SSD) has no problem doing.

Unzip a file? Whole computer practically stops while doing it. Boot up a virtual machine? Be prepared to wait for a minute or two. Don't even get me started on when I had just installed two new virtual machines and both of them were trying to install updates. My computer became basically unusable. I am reminded multiple times a day, by my computer, that my work computer does NOT have an SSD.

I have a SSD in every computer at my home and have zero regrets. I only wish I had one at work too.

 

[tweakboy]

My old man has a A-DATA 120GB SSD SATA 3. Its 375mbps read,, Its soo fast,, everything happens in 0 seconds,, as you as you click , the browser or app is in front of you,, instantly,,,,,, Imagine the Sammy 512GB which is 500mbps ,,, I dont know what your complaining about.......... That 500 dollars is well worth it.

Matter of fact when its time,, I will join the SSD world, get a Sammy 830 512GB like this guy did,, and enjoy life,, no more delays ,, everything you click and its there, amazing... gl

 

[kmmatney]

I tried to use a Seagate Momentus XT in my work laptop, after using a first gen Intel 80GB SSD, and the XT was a noticeable downgrade. I now am using the XT in my son's desktop system, and it works great for that purpose. In my work laptop, where I'm constantly multitasking, working in outlook with massive email storage files, and running virtual machines, the XT just didn't give me the same experience as an SSD. I'm now running a Samsung 256GB SSD, and really like it. I'm still running a Core 2 Duo laptop (but with a high-end cpu).

 

[bryanW1995]

I'm not even impressed by boot times to be honest:

Since I only boot once or twice a day, it’s hardly an earthshattering difference. It’s not like I’m tearing my hair out for those 9.13 seconds anyway. These are real boot times mind you; the time from pressing the power button until I get control of my machine.

You see a lot of fake boot times on the web to artificially increase the differences. Like people timing only from when Windows starts loading. Then you see 10 seconds vs 5 seconds and people think “wow, twice as fast”. But it isn’t, not unless somebody thinks they can be productive on a machine that’s still POSTing or in the BIOS.

Another good one is to purposefully start as many programs possible at once to thrash mechanical HDDs. Here’s a hint: start your programs sequentially (i.e. wait for one to finish before starting the next one). The total time to load everything will probably reduce, especially on mechanical HDDs which can leverage more sequential performance in those cases, especially if they’re defragged.

As for gaming, I never expected the FPS to increase. There are certainly some load time improvements above, but only the first time you load that level. Afterwards there’s no change because it’s cached and comes from the RAM.

Also those results don’t show the other problem of SSDs, namely cost/GB, and total capacity. I can’t fit 378GB games on a 120GB, 256GB or even 300GB device. And if I start managing the SSD like some kind of manual disk cache, it wastes more time than the few seconds I save on load times.

If I add the rest of my data and OS I’d need at least a 750GB SSD to be comfortable now and for reasonable future expansion. And if I want to have increased backup speeds, I’d need two of them so I’m not bottlenecked at either end. How much is that going to cost compared to a pair of 1TB Caviar Blacks which still have 33% more capacity?

Also something like a 1TB VelociRaptor will further reduce those SSD performance advantages while not losing any capacity relative to what I have now.

So yes, SSDs are faster in the real world, but nowhere near what those pretty synthetics like 4KQD32 show. There are also serious sacrifices to be made with regard to cost and total space compared to HDDs, and the small real world advantages I’ve experienced are nowhere near worth making those sacrifices IMO.

Again, it depends upon the games. NWN2 has frequent and annoying level loads. And those are all extremely old games. What "intel" ssd is being used?

 

[KentState]

The odd thing is that in my case, I couldn't disagree more. I hate, HATE using any computers that do not have a SSD now. My work computer (Sandy Bridge i7-2600, 7200 RPM 1TB drive) constantly slows down doing things that my home computer (Sandy Bridge i5 2500, with Intel G2 SSD) has no problem doing.

Unzip a file? Whole computer practically stops while doing it. Boot up a virtual machine? Be prepared to wait for a minute or two. Don't even get me started on when I had just installed two new virtual machines and both of them were trying to install updates. My computer became basically unusable. I am reminded multiple times a day, by my computer, that my work computer does NOT have an SSD.

I have a SSD in every computer at my home and have zero regrets. I only wish I had one at work too.

That's exactly how I feel. Have a i7-2670QM, 8GB ram and a HDD in my work laptop and I can murder the thing running various IO intense apps. I almost thought about forking out my own money for an SSD just so my life would be easier.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Does a 2009 MBP 13 even have SATA 3? I can't remember if it was that model or not but a few years ago there was some controversy over Apple restricting some MBP's to SATA 150 speeds.

I've been blown away by ever single one of my SSD purchases. With the recent price drops I'm actually toying with the idea of picking up a another 120gb SSD and pulling both mechanical drives from my desktop and relegating them to media and backup storage on my server.

 

[beginner99]

It’s not just you – I’m completely underwhelmed by SSDs as well, and that’s coming from a 1TB Caviar Black that I used for everything, including the OS.

Either everyone else has completely different I/O patterns to me, or there’s a vast element of unrealistic hype on the internet being produced to justify these expensive devices.

I’ve sold my SSD and I’ll probably order a 1TB VelociRaptor to replace it. I don’t plan to return to SSDs any time soon.

Maybe it's the usage pattern or maybe you just have a higher tolerance. Fast boot-up is nice but it sure isn't the main reason. it is a those little pauses, stuttering or whatever you want to call it that are 100% caused by hdd. I experience it daily (or shall i say minutely) at work and it is just extremely annoying.
Application startup is another thing. office 2010 takes forever to load compared to my home setup.

I guess people have different tolerance. At work when I have to help someone i often experience something weird in their setup like an obviously broken mouse or unusable mouse pad, wrong monitor resolution making it just look terrible, general slowness of pc, etc...and they don't get it when I say their mouse is broken...

I would male a screen capture if this stuttering very predictable but it isn't what makes it even more annoying. Sometimes even if you are not or haven't been doing anything remotely taxing to the system it suddenly just block for 1-2 sec.