2010 MacbookPro 1.4GHz i5, 4GB 1067 MHz DDR3 Upgrades

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Stonebrook, Aug 13, 2016.

  1. Stonebrook macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    #1
    Hi all,

    I'm looking to upgrade my memory and my hard drive (to a SSD), but I had a few questions.

    I've found some (2x) 4GB sticks on Amazon for reasonable prices (Corsair seems to be a solid brand), but I had read that the Mhz needs to match up with the new sticks. Since my current Memory is 1067 GHz, would a difference of something like this , which is 1066MHz, make a difference?

    For the SSD: This will be my first, so I'm not sure what exactly to look for in terms of brands (Are PNY, Crucial, or Transcend any good?). I'm looking for 240gb between 50 and 100 US dollars. Any recommendations would be welcome!

    Thanks all!
     
  2. JTToft macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Location:
    Aarhus, Denmark
    #2
    1066 MHz is the same as 1067 MHz. One is rounded down, the other is rounded up.
    The modules you're linking to are fine.

    For the SSD, this Samsung is a better option.
     
  3. T5BRICK macrumors 604

    T5BRICK

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon
    #3
    2010 MBPs are notoriously picky about RAM. Corsair and Crucial are good choices, but make sure you read through the amazon reviews and confirm that there are people who have tested the RAM you buy in the 2010 MBP.

    Samsung as suggested by JTToft, or the Crucial option you linked. Honestly, though, in the 2010 models, you're limited to SATA II, so any of the drives you can buy now will be limited by the interface for burst rates. It'll be a very noticeable upgrade though.
     
  4. JTToft macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Location:
    Aarhus, Denmark
    #4
    - Definitely don't opt for the Crucial. It's too slow even on a 2010.
     
  5. T5BRICK macrumors 604

    T5BRICK

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon
    #5
    Going from the mechanical HDD to just about any SSD is going to make a huge difference in the "seat of your pants" feel of the laptop. SATA II is going to limit you to 200-250mb/s anyway, and the BX200 can easily do that.

    That being said, the Samsung can be found for the same price as the Crucial if you look around enough so I agree that it's probably the better choice.
     
  6. JTToft macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Location:
    Aarhus, Denmark
    #6
    - Actually, it can't. Not consistently. It's slower than a hard drive in som scenarios, offering up sustained write speeds of only around 70-80 MB/s.
    I had one installed in my machine at one point, and it's painful.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/9756/...60gb-ssd-review-crucials-first-tlc-nand-ssd/7
     
  7. T5BRICK macrumors 604

    T5BRICK

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon
    #7
    The HDDs that shipped in the 2009 and 2010 MacBook Pros were not fast by any means. They my have had burst speeds in the 60-100MB/s range, but could not compare to a SSD. I can't find the screenshots, but the 250GB HDD that shipped in my mid-2009 13" MBP averaged 20-40MB/s in some benchmarks. I agree that 70-80MB/s isn't fast, but it's 2-4 times faster than what you could get from a similar HDD from 6 years ago. This BX200 isn't a whole lot different performance wise than the Crucial M4 that I used in that mid 2009 13" MacBook Pro. It did make a huge difference.

    Regardless, I already said that the Samsung drive is better choice if it can be had for the same price as the Crucial.
     
  8. xb2003 macrumors 6502

    xb2003

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2016
    Location:
    MO
    #8
    Samsung is probably the best name in SSDs right now.

    But in reality, what does it matter? Most people would never know the difference between a "slow" and a "fast" SSD, as even the slowest SSDs are usually bottlenecked by something else. And you should be backing up your data whether you have the most or the least reliable of hard drives.

    For SSDs, I'm a firm believer in quantity over quality.
     
  9. JTToft macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Location:
    Aarhus, Denmark
    #9
    - I don't doubt that the hard drives shipped in these machines were slow, even slower than the BX200. But that isn't the point. The point is that the BX200 is so slow as to make it a poor choice for an SSD. I made the comparison to a hard drive to illustrate just how slow it is; not to claim it was slower than the particular hard drive that's in the OP's machine.

    We're agreed that even a BX200 provides much of the benefit that SSDs typically do, and that it's probably better in all areas than the hard drive the OP currently has. But it's worse than some other hard drives for certain tasks, and also worse than virtually any other SSD on the market when it comes to performance.
    The Samsung is of course better, as you said.
     
  10. Stonebrook thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    #10
    Thanks all! I ended up going with the Samsung SSD.
     

Share This Page