Claim:
256GB, although older-but more expensive and more sophisticated production process: 25nm MLC NAND (synchronous or toggle), max. 150th
In question came following models:
I myself have been 20 months older Samsung 830 256GB - runs without problems. However, now hardly available or too expensive. 840 and 840 EVO have "shorter lives and inexpensive to produce," TLC NAND + "only" 250GB = KO criterion for me, although the 840 EVO allegedly zoom comes after tests on Samsung MLC longevity. 840 Pro too expensive, but the reference. Perfect would be a Crucial M4 256 - but nothing more really cheap available. Then continue to the Crucial M500. However, "a" synchronous 20um-NAND and only 240GB. Compared to the M4 Crucial has increased the over provisioning, so space falls smaller (240GB vs. 256GB). Background is the 20nm production process that so far has not been as the 25nm process and just does not yield the same NAND quality. In order for the M500 to ensure the same quality and durability as the M4, Crucial is thus opted for a higher-provisioning (this reason could also be responsible for the 250GB 840 EVO).
At first I had a SanDisk Ultra Plus 256GB at home (125) - attractive price. But besides the 256GB voted the other requirements do not match. In addition, I have to newegg.com again much more often read about the death of the SSD than in German Reviews (seems relatively often to die than other SSD's) - so my girlfriend wanted to leave it there have :-)
Plextor M5S 256GB finally to. This uses the same Marvell controller and Micron 25nm MLC NAND as the Crucial M4. I have read that the firmware is tuned even slightly better than the M4. Well, a year ago you would have paid for the M4 256GB still 129, the M5S 256GB we now get for 149.75.
It comes with only the SSD and an instruction manual. The SSD enclosure is at least made of beautiful aluminum (9.5 mm thick - the Pro = M5P is 7mm thin). The Samsung 830 acts still somewhat high and the packaging is in comparison a luxury (but unnecessary). The SSD was unformatted. Have a Clean Install conducted over a USB flash drive of Mavericks and installed all of the data from the Time Machine backup. I wanted to here do not reflect a HDD to an SSD, I generally always a clean installation - whether Mac or Windows. Therefore, no need for software a la Samsung Magican (works anyway with Mac). About System Preferences / Energy Saver / "If possible enable hibernation for hard disks" off (tick out). The function saves on an SSD anyway hardly flow and an SSD, it is also not very good, when the power is suddenly just "turned off".
Firmware Update 1.04 to 1.05 worked fine under OS X Mavericks. Burn ISO CD and boot from CD - done.
Trim has been activated with the Trim Enabler.
Blackmagic Disk Speed Test:
183MB / s write and 263MB / s read (SATA2).
For Comparison:
Samsung 830 256GB unibody MacBook 7.1 (2.4GHz, 8GB Ram, SATA2, Mavericks) 203MB / s write and 253MB / s read.
Will report in the future, as the M5S proposes in terms of reliability.
Hopefully the Factsheet on paper come true.
A second M5S 256GB will be installed in a 13 "MacBook Pro (Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz) - the M5S is already here.
Conclusion: Solid SSD and an insider's tip. However, it could be a little cheaper. But that is perhaps even more, as the successor M6S and M6P (Pro) were announced with 20um NAND already a few months ago and should appear now actually.
Addendum 01/26/2014.
In both the MacBook SSD is stable and without problems.
