Update:
Just been looking around and noticed this Sandisk one is one offer. Will this work?
http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/SANDI...9721-0a3328ca1f02&istItemId=qqpxmxaa&istBid=t
Bear in mind you won't notice much difference between SSDs since the 6,1 doesn't have a SATA 3 controller.
Bear in mind you won't notice much difference between SSDs since the 6,1 doesn't have a SATA 3 controller.
Last time I checked the Late 2009 MacBook has SATA II which can support faster read speeds than a SATA II drive can provide, but a SATA III can offering a speed boost
The SanDisk Ultra is probably the worst choice you can make. It's SandForce-based, which means it gets slower, the fuller it is. Secondly, it has 2100 write IOPS at 4k, so it will be terribly slow even when it's empty. Slower than the Crucial v4, even that one has 4000 write IOPS. And the v4 was dubbed "slower than a hard drive" already.
Get a SanDisk Ultra Plus instead. For the purpose of SATA-II, it's about as fast as a Samsung 840 Pro(!), and it's shortcomings will still be above SATA-II level.
(Images from AnandTech, SATA-II tops out at 250-275MB/s)
And, it's about £20 cheaper than the Samsung 840 Pro for the 128GB one.
You have something confused here. Bad performace when filling the drive up is a specialty of SanForce drives. Also, most of them don't work very well on Macs, hence you should avoid them.The Ultra Plus isn't the fastest drive ever tested, and most other drives in its price range tend to deliver better performance. Worst case performance consistency isn't great but it's better than Samsung's SSD 840 Pro, so you're going to want to leave at least 25% of the drive free in order to avoid annoying performance variation. I would rather say, new series of SF controllers with better OP might have been a better choice than Marvel controller used in Ultra Plus.