2011 Macbook Pro SSD Suggestions

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Elven, Oct 15, 2016.

  1. Elven macrumors 6502a

    Elven

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #1
    Just wondering if anyone has any suggestions for a basic 120GB SSD for a 2011 MacBook Pro?
     
  2. T5BRICK macrumors 604

    T5BRICK

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon
  3. Elven thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Elven

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    Would I have any issues with Trim? is it that big of a deal with the later OSX versions?
     
  4. satinsilverem2 macrumors 6502a

    satinsilverem2

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    #4
    850 evo and Sudo trim force enable. enabling trim isn't an issue anymore since Yosemite
     
  5. Elven thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Elven

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Location:
    UK
  6. T5BRICK macrumors 604

    T5BRICK

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon
    #7
    That's a good option but the OP specifically asked about a 120GB SSD and the smallest MX300 is 275GB.

    *edit* never mind. It looks like the 120GB 850 Evo is marked discontinued on Amazon.
     
  7. Brammy macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    #8
    Why just a 120? SSD prices have down a long way.
     
  8. tubeexperience macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #9
    Crucial MX300 275GB costs about as much as a Samsung 850 EVO 120GB.

    Does the OP have some objection to using a bigger SSD?
     
  9. T5BRICK macrumors 604

    T5BRICK

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon
    #10
    See my edit.
     
  10. MaxMike macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    #11
    Prices on the Intel 540 aren't too bad either.
     
  11. tubeexperience macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #12
    Junk.

    This drive uses the same SK Hynix NAND as the ADATA Premier SP550 and an almost identical Silicon Motion controller, yet the Intel 540 is somehow slower and costs more.
     
  12. \-V-/ Suspended

    \-V-/

    Joined:
    May 3, 2012
    #13
  13. Zenithal Suspended

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #14
    I'd go with MX200 over this. The MX300 is a bit faster in certain areas, but it's not the best overall in real world use. Plus, the MX300 is TLC, the MX200 is MLC. If pressed, it'd be a choice between the MX200 and 850 Evo.

    OP can get a 500 GB MX200 for $130 or thereabout.
     
  14. tubeexperience macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #15
    I am aware of that.

    You have to consider the price differences.

    Not everyone is looking to buy the fastest SSD and most expensive SSD, otherwise we would all be buying the Samsung 850 Pro.

    The Crucial MX300 is a good balance between price, performance, and reliability.
     
  15. Zenithal Suspended

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #16
    If he's not worried about speed and he wants to keep it cheap, he should get the Evo 750.
     
  16. JTToft macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Location:
    Aarhus, Denmark
    #17
    - You know what? I really like your views on SSDs. I agree completely.

    - Disagree. MX300 is superior and also cheaper. Yes, alright, 120 GB 750 EVO can be had cheaper than MX300 275 GB, but it's a $10 difference for more than twice the storage.
     
  17. Zenithal Suspended

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #18
    On what grounds is it superior? TLC is not superior to MLC. The MX300 is slower by a small margin across the board. It's Crucial and Micron's second attempt at TLC NAND for the consumer market. The first was the BX200, which was god awful compared to the MLC based BX100. The BX200, despite being cheaper and newer than the BX100, was slower and had less features than the BX100.

    http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Crucial-MX300-275GB-vs-Crucial-MX200-250GB/3642vs3196

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/10274/the-crucial-mx300-750gb-ssd-review-microns-3d-nand-arrives/10
    The MX300 regresses in speed but improves in power consumption. Here's the benchmarks for the BX200 vs the BX100.

    http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Crucial-BX200-240GB-vs-Crucial-BX100-250GB/3626vs3145

    There's a variety of articles on the net lambasting the BX200 for being awful compared to the "legendary" budget BX100 that proceeded it.
     
  18. JTToft macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Location:
    Aarhus, Denmark
    #19
    1) It's faster.
    2) It's more reliable/durable.
    3) It's cheaper.

    For (1) see Anandtech benchmark comparison: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1738?vs=1692

    Both are TLC. MX300 is 3D TLC. 750 EVO is planar TLC.

    Don't know why you're involving MX200, BX200, and BX100.
     
  19. Zenithal, Oct 16, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2016

    Zenithal Suspended

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #20
    MLC has a longer write endurance. Yeah, yeah, yeah you can write 1 PB onto an SSD before it dies. I've heard it, but MLC is still vastly superior. There's a reason it has a premium, in this case minimal. For 3D TLC, it's still slow compared to higher performance and within the same price range. The Sandisk Extreme Pro is faster than the MX300 by a small margin and carries a 10 year warranty, if that matters to the OP, and it's cheaper in price, and it's MLC memory.

    I involved those other drives because their succeeding product was terrible. The MX100 was great, the MX200 was better, the MX300 was a regression. The BX100 was fantastic for those who couldn't afford the MX line, which was the only one because the others were cancelled after several years, and the BX200 was even cheaper but it was terrible in terms of speed and quality. You had a slower, but newer drive that had less features than the BX100, and missing features other budget SSDs in its class had.
     
  20. tubeexperience macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #21
    The Samsung 750 EVO is more expensive Crucial MX300 and the Samsung 750 EVO isn't even a good performer.
     
  21. Zenithal, Oct 16, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2016

    Zenithal Suspended

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #22
    I was being facetious. The 750 Evo is an awful drive and people are aware of it. It is, however, the perfect low-cost SSD to put in a very old computer, even one using SATAII as the 750 flawlessly downgrades its performance. A great drive to use in a very old computer, say using the old C2D series of processors, which should breathe some life into an otherwise slow computer.

    The current SSD GB price is around $.27-29 at the moment. Much cheaper than my last SSD purchase which had it around $.38 roughly 2 years ago, which a year before was around $.49. I would say we'll see another 20% drop by May or June 2017. The more OEMs make use of SSDs or offer it as an upgrade compared to their 7200 rpm offerings, the lower the price will go as production ramps up. My first SSD was around $.70 a gig. A far cry from the earlier days when a 90 or so GB Intel drive would set you back a good amount.
     
  22. tubeexperience macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #23
    The SanDisk Extreme Pro is "cheaper" than the Crucial MX300 even thought the SanDisk costs twice as much Crucial.

    Why bother to even check prices before you talk?
     
  23. JTToft macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Location:
    Aarhus, Denmark
    #24
    Zenithal, it seems like you're talking just to talk, stating irrelevant and obvious facts and confusing matters by mentioning long discontinued and horrible drives that nobody would dream of recommending. Yes, MLC is superior to TLC. But I doubt the OP cares given his apparent budget constraints.
     
  24. pojo1806 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2013
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #25
    I use an 850 evo as my time machine backup for my rMacBook.
     

Share This Page