Crucial M4 SSD and 2011 MBP 13" i5

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by The Critic, May 14, 2011.

  1. The Critic macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Location:
    CA
    #1
    I just purchased a 2011 MBP 13" i5 and I have been researching the various SSD options. It appears that the main concern with the SSD drives is with the unpredictable compatibility issues that seem to arise.

    Regardless, I am strongly considering the Crucial M4 64GB SSD due to its SATA-III interface, Marvell Controller and the current low price of $115 on NewEgg.

    Has anyone used the M4 successfully in a 2011 MBP 13" i5? Similarly, if anyone has successfully installed any aftermarket SSD in this particular unit, I am interested in hearing the brand/model you used.

    Thanks.
     
  2. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #2
    SATAIII is a waste of money if you are going for a SSD that small. You won't get a huge difference between SATAII and SATAIII with a 64GB SSD, as they almost all have poor write speeds compared to larger sizes. Even your max read speed will barely be over what SATAII supports. Furthermore, it seems SATAII SSDs are having fewer issues with the 2011 MBPs than SataIII. IIRC the Crucial and Intel SSDs are both well under 100 MB/s (write) for drives that size. The exception to the almost all are some of the SandForce driven ones, which will still max out SATAII with even smaller size drives (Vertex2, Mercury Extreme Pro, etc.). Personally, I would get an Intel drive, but that's just me.
     
  3. p1ngputts macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    #3
    i just picked up the vertex 3 for my 13". If I can figure out how to get some benchmarks, I'll gladly post them. (new mac user). This laptop runs amazing!
     
  4. zwodubber macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Location:
    PA
    #4
    Geekbench?
     
  5. The Critic thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Location:
    CA
    #5
    Thanks. I just want something that works, and I doubt I would notice any minute differences in speed between the various SSD models.

    If SATA II is a better choice, then what are your thoughts on the OCZ Vertex 2? I am looking for value, and I see a 64gb Vertex 2 onsale at Newegg for $90. Do you think that will be a better choice than the Crucial M4? Although I am looking for value and stability, I'd prefer to future-proof if possible (as much as possible).

    Thanks.
     
  6. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #6
    Personally? You couldn't pay me to run a Vertex. The reviews on the Vertex and Vertex 2 speak for themselves.
     
  7. daneoni macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    #7
    If i was getting a SATA II drive it would definitely be the Intel 320 or X25-M series.
     
  8. The Critic thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Location:
    CA
    #8
    Is there any proof that certain SATAII drives are completely immune to compatibility issues?

    Also, do we have any data on which 2011 MacBook model is most prone to SSD compatibility issues?
     
  9. daneoni macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    #9
    No because SATA III drives are very much new and so everything is still mosty experimental/time will tell. A study suggests Intel drives are the most reliable based on history so far. Another blog write up suggests that write performance degrades significantly with time in Crucial drives...when run in a setup without TRIM (OS X).

    Intel and any Sandforce controller based drive seems to cause less hassle overall with Macs. But the firmwares for OCZ and OWC drives can only be updated via windows or Linux whilst Intel and Crucial support OS X firmware updating. so bear that in mind.
     
  10. The Critic thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Location:
    CA
    #10
    If SATA III connections were the issue, could one force the drive to one at SATA II speeds? If so, would that resolve the compatibility problem?

    Are Sandforce controlled SSDs also exempt from needing the assistance of TRIM?

    Do all Sandforce drives, SATAII or SATAIII, experience fewer compatibility issues overall?
     
  11. daneoni macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    #11
    No you can't force a downgrade connection. Sandforce drives tend to do a good job of garbage control and therefore can go without TRIM. People have been largely content with Sandforce drives thus far as far as i know and it's often the most recommended alongside Intel.
     
  12. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #12
    I've ran a few OWC Mercury Pro Extreme SF1200 driven SSDs and I never used TRIM, but they had no issue in size decrease, speed decreases, or garbage. Even our original MBA with the 64GB SSD hasn't had those issues...although I do not know for sure if the First Gen Airs have TRIM or not although I believe they don't.
     
  13. The Critic thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Location:
    CA
    #13
    Thanks guys, for all of the help.

    Have the sleep/hibernate issues with the SandForce controlled drives been resolved?

    Aside from OCZ, which other brands use the SandForce controller?

    Since the general consensus is that SATAIII drives are unproven, it is also correct that a SandForce controlled SATAIII drive is more likely to work successfully than say, a Marvell controlled SATAIII drive?
     
  14. daneoni macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    #14
    My drive isn't actually with me yet so i can't comment on sleep/hib problems.

    OCZ and OWC are the only SATA III Sandforce drives i know. Crucial and Intel use Marvell. Although Intel's validation methods are supposedly much more stringent and so will perform differently to other drives with similar controllers apparently.

    No one can say for sure everything is still new and experimental. Intel's Marvell drives could turn out to be very robust (maybe even Crucial's too) if not more than Sandforce drives and the reverse scenario could also happen...or both.
     
  15. p1ngputts macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    #15
    here are my scores, don't understand them tho. Hope they are decent...

    Geekbench Summary

    System Information
    Platform: Mac OS X x86 (32-bit)
    Compiler: GCC 4.0.1 (Apple Inc. build 5494)
    Operating System: Mac OS X 10.6.7 (Build 10J4138)
    Model: MacBook Pro (13-inch Early 2011)
    Motherboard: Apple Inc. Mac-94245B3640C91C81 MacBookPro8,1
    Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2415M CPU @ 2.30GHz
    Processor ID: GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 42 Stepping 7
    Logical Processors: 4
    Physical Processors: 1
    Processor Frequency: 2.30 GHz
    L1 Instruction Cache: 32.0 KB
    L1 Data Cache: 32.0 KB
    L2 Cache: 256 KB
    L3 Cache: 3.00 MB
    Bus Frequency: 100.0 MHz
    Memory: 4.00 GB
    Memory Type: 1333 MHz DDR3
    SIMD: 1
    BIOS: Apple Inc. MBP81.88Z.0047.B04.1102071707
    Processor Model: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2415M CPU @ 2.30GHz
    Processor Cores: 2

    Geekbench 2 Score: 5960

    Integer Performance (Score: 4399)
    Blowfish
    single-threaded scalar -- 1860, 81.7 MB/sec
    multi-threaded scalar -- 6039, 247.5 MB/sec
    Text Compress
    single-threaded scalar -- 2426, 7.76 MB/sec
    multi-threaded scalar -- 5925, 19.4 MB/sec
    Text Decompress
    single-threaded scalar -- 2650, 10.9 MB/sec
    multi-threaded scalar -- 6694, 26.7 MB/sec
    Image Compress
    single-threaded scalar -- 2044, 16.9 Mpixels/sec
    multi-threaded scalar -- 5279, 44.4 Mpixels/sec
    Image Decompress
    single-threaded scalar -- 2083, 35.0 Mpixels/sec
    multi-threaded scalar -- 4604, 75.1 Mpixels/sec
    Lua
    single-threaded scalar -- 4057, 1.56 Mnodes/sec
    multi-threaded scalar -- 9130, 3.51 Mnodes/sec

    Floating Point Performance (Score: 8286)
    Mandelbrot
    single-threaded scalar -- 2426, 1.61 Gflops
    multi-threaded scalar -- 8319, 5.44 Gflops
    Dot Product
    single-threaded scalar -- 3964, 1.92 Gflops
    multi-threaded scalar -- 10757, 4.90 Gflops
    single-threaded vector -- 4754, 5.70 Gflops
    multi-threaded vector -- 12828, 13.3 Gflops
    LU Decomposition
    single-threaded scalar -- 1200, 1.07 Gflops
    multi-threaded scalar -- 2560, 2.25 Gflops
    Primality Test
    single-threaded scalar -- 5890, 879.7 Mflops
    multi-threaded scalar -- 11076, 2.06 Gflops
    Sharpen Image
    single-threaded scalar -- 5442, 12.7 Mpixels/sec
    multi-threaded scalar -- 16891, 38.9 Mpixels/sec
    Blur Image
    single-threaded scalar -- 6906, 5.47 Mpixels/sec
    multi-threaded scalar -- 22993, 18.1 Mpixels/sec

    Memory Performance (Score: 5241)
    Read Sequential
    single-threaded scalar -- 5833, 7.14 GB/sec
    Write Sequential
    single-threaded scalar -- 8563, 5.86 GB/sec
    Stdlib Allocate
    single-threaded scalar -- 3425, 12.8 Mallocs/sec
    Stdlib Write
    single-threaded scalar -- 3573, 7.40 GB/sec
    Stdlib Copy
    single-threaded scalar -- 4812, 4.96 GB/sec

    Stream Performance (Score: 4721)
    Stream Copy
    single-threaded scalar -- 5271, 7.21 GB/sec
    single-threaded vector -- 5855, 7.59 GB/sec
    Stream Scale
    single-threaded scalar -- 5468, 7.10 GB/sec
    single-threaded vector -- 5749, 7.76 GB/sec
    Stream Add
    single-threaded scalar -- 2101, 3.17 GB/sec
    single-threaded vector -- 6259, 8.71 GB/sec
    Stream Triad
    single-threaded scalar -- 2404, 3.32 GB/sec
    single-threaded vector -- 4665, 8.73 GB/sec
     
  16. awer25 macrumors 65816

    awer25

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    #16
    FWIW, I've been using a Vertex 3 for a month in my MBP and haven't had a single problem...well, except when I tried TRIMenabler - it didn't work too well but luckily Sandforce drives have their own garbage control and don't really need TRIM. Anyway, no sleep or hibernation problems for me and everything's running at super speeds.
     

Share This Page