I am going to upgrade intel 510 to my early 2008 MBP

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by solarisc, Mar 6, 2011.

  1. solarisc macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    #1
    i am going to upgrade my intel x25 to intel 510 250GB into my early 2008 MBP, is this a waste? for that SATA 3 with 6GB/s to be correctly used in this early model?
     
  2. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #2
    Well, you would be fine with a cheaper, SATA 3Gb/s SSD since you cannot take advantage of the SATA 6Gb/s speeds. It would be more future-proof though.
     
  3. jenzjen macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    #3
    Search the forum, as IIRC the 510 has lower random speeds than the X25 so unless you are doing massive amount of file movement, people are saying the 510 will feel slower than the X25 for everyday things.
     
  4. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #4
    About the same although a tad slower than X25-M.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/4202/the-intel-ssd-510-review/4
     
  5. Weaselboy Moderator

    Weaselboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Location:
    California
    #5
    [​IMG]

    This test from the Anand article linked is probably the best simulation of normal work and shows only a slight benefit with the 510. This test was done on a SATAII connection. I don't think it is worth it for you if you are just upgraded for the speed.
     
  6. adnoh macrumors 6502a

    adnoh

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2010
    #6
    You wont notice much of an improvement for speed. Perhaps use the money to buy more ram?
     
  7. solarisc thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    #7
    oh boy, i just put the order through. I thought i like the reliability of intel SSD but the performance is so poorly compared to Vertex 3, should i change? and btw where to buy Vertex 3?
     
  8. Weaselboy Moderator

    Weaselboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Location:
    California
    #8
    I assume from your comments this will be a larger capacity drive than the SSD you have now? If you are buying to increase capacity, I see no downside to going with the Intel 510. Look at the chart I linked in post #5. That is close to a real world usage test over SATAII. Based on that test I don't think even a discriminating user could tell the difference between a Intel 510 and the Vertex 3 in real world usage.

    Like you mentioned, you get Intel stability as opposed to OCZ shadiness and crappy customer service. If I were you, I would just go keep the Intel you ordered. Also, Vertex 3 is not for sale yet.
     
  9. solarisc thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    #9
    670$ is a quite a lot just for 90GB increase in capacity ( i currently have 160GB X25)
    I wasn't aware of the benchmark test until it was put up here by you guys. Damn, ...it performed so poorly compared to OCZ and or Corsair or Crucial. Pershap this version would be more reliable for the Vertex 3?

    Btw, i am using x25 and it is currently runs at 1.5Gb/s not 3.0GB/s as it should
     

    Attached Files:

  10. Eddyisgreat macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    #10
    Yup. Non-Unibody MBPs limited to SATA I speeds (since HDDs were the norm and fine at that time). I still upgraded to the x25-m anyway as I could benefit from the random reads.

    First Gen Unibodies and everything before 2010 use SATA II.

    Obviously latest gen is SATA III (except the cd drive?).
     
  11. solarisc thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    #11
    But with the 4k random speed and many other intel 510 was left to bite dust compared to Vertex 3....

    Also with SATA3 would the performance be much better for the benchmark test? why used SATA2 here?
     
  12. Weaselboy Moderator

    Weaselboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Location:
    California
    #12
    Based on the other tests, I think the same drives in a SATAIII connection would stack up about the same as this SATAII test. In the review Anand mentioned the machine he uses for this test only has a SATAII connection.
     
  13. Weaselboy Moderator

    Weaselboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Location:
    California
    #13
    I agree. If you are just going to bump from 160 to 250GB it is not worth it.


    If history is any indication, the Intel drive will be more reliable.
     

Share This Page