Best Sata II SSD for Macbook pro Mid 2010 13" [SATA II]?(Quick question, semi urgent)

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Gianmarco, Feb 5, 2013.

  1. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    #1
    The SSD buying guide original post is a bit outdated, but I know that my Mid 2010 MBP 13" only has SATA II on the Hard Drive bay.

    Considering that, which is the best SSD to get for it assuming I do NOT want to keep it to use its SATA III capabilities later (such as when i get a mac that has SATA III)?

    I have the option to get a cheap Samsung 840 (not pro) 250 GB SSD, as it is backwards compatible, but I need to know soon.

    What other options are safe for SATA II MBPs in that capacity tier?

    Thanks
     
  2. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #2
    Best as in what? Price? Performance?

    The best performing drive is probably going to be something like the 840 Pro. That has nothing to do with you having SATA II or III.

    The best based on price is going to be whatever is on Slickdeals today.

    You'll probably want to choose a drive somewhere in the middle.
     
  3. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    #3
    But SATA II bottlenecks SATA III SSDs (basically all are SATA III and backwards compaitble now though).

    What I am looking for is the best SSD to get for a SATA II drive in terms of reliability.

    The 840 pro was on the table, but I was wondering if it was worth it since its speeds are going to be slowed due to SATA II.

    so would the 840 PRO be worth it even though I do not have a SATA III?
     
  4. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #4
    A SATA III drive isn't going to be any slower on SATA II. Besides, they really don't make SATA II-only drives anymore, except for manufacturers trying to get rid of old controllers.

    A new drive like the 840 Pro is going to be faster than any SATA II drive even if you're only plugged into SATA II ports. The only time it'll be bottlenecked is large sequential transfers which aren't common in day-to-day use.
     
  5. Gianmarco, Feb 5, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2013

    thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    #5
    Good to notte, thank you.

    So you would which current SSDs (Like the 840 Pro, Vector, etc) are best for SATA II as far as speeds and reliability go? Would the 840 Pro be faster than the 840? Or would the differences be negligible on SATA II?
     
  6. macrumors 6502

    WillFisher

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    #6
    I have the same laptop. I went with a Samsung 830 256GB, its price was cheaper than that of a SATA II per GB and it does give the chance to put it into a new computer in the future.
     
  7. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    #7
    The 830 is looking to be considerably more expensive than the 840 (non pro) with basically the same capacity.

    Where id you get yours at?
     
  8. macrumors 68040

    Giuly

    #8
    Yes, the 840 Pro would be faster than the 840.

    If you are eyeing with the Samsung 840, you might as well consider the 256GB SanDisk Ultra Plus and the 256GB Crucial m4. They are all realiable (the Samsung 840 is the only one that uses TLC NANC and won't theoretically last as long as all the others, though), just pick the cheapest you can find on those three - or pay the premium and get the Samsung 840 Pro or the OCZ Vector for a surplus in performance.
     
  9. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #9
    He probably bought it in the past when it was cheaper than it is now since supplies are almost gone
     
  10. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    #10
    Thanks for the input Giuly, always appreciated :)

    I saw that the 840 does use TLC NANC, and that holds me back a tad from getting it. I see that the Sandisk has a 3-year warranty, but can't seem to find warranty info on the Crucial...

    Also, I dont see any Amazon reviews on their use with macbooks. I'll see what I can dig up here.

    Thanks again!
     
  11. macrumors 6502

    WillFisher

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    #11
    If thats the case then go for the 840! I got mine about 4/6 months back, can't see how the newer model would be worse anyway!
     
  12. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    #12
    The main thing bugging me is that the 840 uses TLC and the 840 Pro uses MLC which, from what I have read online, can be a factor in the long run.

    Edit: Not to mention the 840 has a 3 year warranty while the Pro has a 5 year warranty....
     
  13. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #13
    You get what you pay for. But you probably don't need to worry about the 840 'wearing out' on you.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/6337/samsung-ssd-840-250gb-review/4
     
  14. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    #14
    Insightful read, thanks.

    Is there a way of calculating an estimate of how many "writes per day" i do to get a beter understanding of my usage?
     
  15. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #15
    Activity Monitor has some info but that includes writes to all disks not just your main one (USB external, etc)
     
  16. macrumors 68040

    Giuly

    #16
    Nevermind.
     
  17. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    #17
    I backup via time machine frequently, so i dont think that;; be too reliable :/
     
  18. macrumors 6502a

    duervo

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    #18
    FWIW, the Crucial m4 SSD's can have their firmware updated in OS X. So, one point in favor of those if you don't BootCamp at all.

    I'm partial towards either the OCZ Vertex4 or Crucial m4's, but that's just me. Until I have problems with them, it will likely remain that way.

    On a related note, OCZ now has a line named "Vector" that puts out about 10k more IOPS than the Vertex4's. This is on par with the Samsung 840 Pro drives. However, the price difference is (imho) substantial for that extra 10k IOPS though (in some cases, up to $100 difference on the 256GB drives) unless you find one on sale.
     
  19. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    #19
    I think the next question for me is, which SSds can be updated via OSX? How would i update one that cant be updated via OSX?
     
  20. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    #20
    Giuly, are you sure you didnt mean to link this Crucial m4 256 GB instead?

    Also, how would I go about upgrading the firmware on other drives that can't be done on OS X like the m4 can? Im going between the m4 (for that reason) and the 840 pro. If it's not that hard (accessing a PC to upgrade the firmware for the 840 Pro would not be much of an issue), I may go for the 840 pro.

    Thanks!
     
  21. macrumors 68040

    Giuly

    #21
    Yeah, the Crucial m4 2.5", not the mSATA one. But, if it's not urgent, you might as well wait for the Crucial M500, which should retail for around $149-$159 for the 240GB one.
     
  22. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    #22
    How is that expected to compare to the 840 Pro (slight storage differences aside)?

    I notice that the 840 pro has double the write speed as the M500. I know my MBP basically caps off at around 250, but will the M500 be worth it in the long run compared to the 840 pro (note how the 840 Pro has a 5 year warranty compared to the M500s 3-year)?
     
  23. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2013
    #23
    Reviving an old thread, but for a good reason: the questions about the lifespan of Samsung 840 and their TLC NAND mem cells. Just take a look at this test:

    http://us.hardware.info/reviews/417...0-250gb-tlc-ssd-updated-with-final-conclusion

    Results are more than surprising.

    Saluditos,

    Ferrán.
     

Share This Page