is this the perfect upgrade for my MBP 2011 15"

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by iBroken, Jul 17, 2011.

  1. iBroken macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    #1
    Hi :)

    i bought my MacBook Pro 15" 2011 about 10 days ago with this setup


    CPU : 2.0GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
    RAM : 4GB 1333MHz " 2Gb+2Gb "
    HDD : Hitachi 500GB 5400-rpm


    i wanna upgrade the RAM to :


    Crucial 8GB Kit (4GBx2), 204-pin SODIMM, DDR3 PC3-10600 Memory Module (CT2KIT51264BC1339)

    and the HDD to :


    Crucial CT256M4SSD2 256GB M4 SSD 2.5" SATA III


    this upgrade will cost me about 500$
    ,,,


    is that the best upgrades for me or there's something better ? any notes or suggestions or recommendation will be welcome :)
     
  2. Karr271 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    #2
    amazing!

    your macbook pro will be a beast once you upgrade. they're about the only upgrades you can make to it. 8gb ram and a SSD are highly recommended upgrades.
     
  3. Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #3
    It's either that SSD or a Seagate Momentus XT.

    If you take the Crucial make sure to update the firmware to nr.2 (assuming it comes with 1).

    I had the Crucial for a while and then sold it. I'm now using the XT which delivers nearly the same experience for my kind of usage at a much lower price. I made a video to show the performance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMldqf5oUZw

    But I understand if you have the cash and are a heavier user the SSD is a great upgrade.
     
  4. iBroken thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    #4
    yeah after i tried a friend's Mac with 8Gb and SSD i was like :eek::eek:


    so i wanna upgrade mine too

    thx for the vid buddy, but i think i'll go with Crucial
     
  5. fingerman macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Location:
    Stockport, UK
    #5
    That's the path I'm going down - already got the 8GB (not Crucial but works great) so the Crucial 256GB M4 will be next :)

    BTW I have the same setup and only a few months old - 15" MBP, 2.0GHz i7 and 500MB HDD 8GB ram
     
  6. Mac-key macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Location:
    Alabama
    #6
    I may be mistaken, but the Crucial RAM you have listed is 1066. Your MBP will take 1333 RAM - which is faster
     
  7. motoracer1486 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    #7
    Ya, you definitely don't want that slower ram. Get the 1333 as stated above.
     
  8. fingerman macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Location:
    Stockport, UK
    #8
    I got some of this :)

    Corsair 8192MB 2x4096MB Memory Module Kit 1333MHz PC310666 DDR3 SODIMM 204pin 99924
     
  9. nizmoz macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    #9
    Sorry a full blown SSD will always be much faster than any normal HD even the XT you have.
     
  10. Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #10
    Not for my usage. The XT boots and launches the applications that I need as fast as an SSD.

    If I was a heavy user, running VMware, video editing, Photoshop and the works it would be a different story.

    PS. I've used several SSDs in my MBP, among them Vertex 3 240GB and Crucial M4 256GB. I posted benchmarks on these forums.
     
  11. nizmoz macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    #11
    Again I don't care about your usage. Any usage the SSD will out perform a HD or the XT period. That is a fact. So please don't say it's just as fast when it isn't.
     
  12. bozz2006 macrumors 68030

    bozz2006

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #12
    Phil has been careful to say that the XT is "nearly as fast" as an SSD "for his uses". He doesn't say it's just as fast. There's nothing wrong with him raising awareness for this cheaper much-faster-than-a-regular-HDD option.
     
  13. Philflow, Jul 17, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2011

    Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #13
    My experience tells me different. The XT boots my MBP in 16.4 seconds as you can see in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilB79hv6bfg

    With an Intel 320 SSD it boots in 18 seconds. (Vertex 3 got ~ 14.5 seconds)

    [​IMG]
    http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=6071&p=2

    You'll see the same thing for applications that are cached. The XT performs like an SSD when it's reading from cache only.

    The problem is, the cache is only 4GB. For my usage that hardly matters, for other people it can be too little.

    And an SSD is obviously faster for things like installing programs, updates en copying files.

    You expressed my thoughts well.
     
  14. iBroken, Jul 17, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2011

    iBroken thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    #14
    when i went to Crucial website and ask for the compatible RAM, gave me this


    http://www.crucial.com/store/mpartspecs.aspx?mtbpoid=8C4DD5E1A5CA7304


    can you link me to the best RAM for me "amazon", i can't find this "Corsair 8192MB 2x4096MB Memory Module Kit 1333MHz PC310666 DDR3 SODIMM 204pin 99924" anywhere

    my current RAM : http://i55.tinypic.com/11bq3uq.jpg

    and thanks alot for noticing this :)
     
  15. nizmoz macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    #15
    The thing is, it is not even nearly. It's FAR FROM being near as fast as a SSD.
     
  16. nizmoz, Jul 17, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2011

    nizmoz macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    #16
  17. nizmoz macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    #17
    Get these.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231295

    Proven, and for a great price.
     
  18. hawk1410, Jul 17, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2011

    hawk1410 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    #18
    That thread just mentions that the XT is slower in opening games, but the performance in opeing applications and stuff should be about the same. It is a cost effiecient way of getting large capacity + SSD performance. Check out these numbers - http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=5818&review=ssd+vs+hard+drive
    http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=6071&p=2
    The XT is between HDDs and SSDs and gives SSD like performance if your usage is light. Is it 2x slower than SSDs, no. Infact as has been said if your usage pattern is light then the XT is somewhat better as it offers a better price to performance ratio without sacrificing storage space. Compare a 500gb XT to a 512gb SSD, is it worth spending 900$ more. No. IMO it is pointless to go for a SSD larger than 256gb(128 for me actually, but some need the extra space) as they are just too expensive right now. It would be a better option to go for something like the XT if you need more storage space
     
  19. nizmoz macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    #19
    Suggest read my real test I posted in that same post from anandtech. Yes it is a great HD, but it is 2 X slower than SSD and feels like a normal HD under many conditions. If you want real performance get a full blown SSD.

     
  20. hawk1410 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    #20
    Umm even in anandtech's tests it performs on par with SSDs in real world stuff -

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  21. fingerman macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Location:
    Stockport, UK
  22. nizmoz macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    #22
    Kinda funny how you only copied the tests that were good instead of the others that were not impressive at all and where it showed it being 2x slower and not SSD fast. Even the overall review says it. Glad you are happy with it, but fact is, it is NOT near as fast as a full SSD. It will never be.


    Random Read/Write Speed
    This test reads/writes 4KB in a completely random pattern over an 8GB space of the drive to simulate the sort of random access that you'd see on an OS drive (even this is more stressful than a normal desktop user would see). I perform three concurrent IOs and run the test for 3 minutes. The results reported are in average MB/s over the entire time.

    [​IMG]




    Random read/write performance is abysmal. You can't really make out the numbers here but that's 0.7MB/s for reads and 0.3MB/s for writes compared to 40MB/s+ for the SSDs. It's the poor random access performance that ultimately prevents the Momentus XT from feeling like an SSD most of the time.

    [​IMG]

    This is where it all counts if you want a HD to perform FAST period.
     
  23. hawk1410, Jul 17, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2011

    hawk1410 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    #23
    OfCourse the benchmarks are gonna be slow, what matters is that the XT is good in terms of real world performance, i only copied the real world performance stuff. The other benchmarks will see no benefit from the SSD cache so they dont really matter in case of the XT, The thing is the XT gets you close to SSD performance for the price of a 64gb SSD and that makes it a winner. es it wont be like an SSD most of the time but the point is that it will give you SSD like performance where it matters the most ie boot times, launching applications you use often etc...
    Benchmarks are moot when we are talking about the XT.
    And btw i dont actually have the XT and neither am i planning on getting one, I will get a OptiBay SSD + HDD setup when i recieve my Mac but the point i am trying to make is that the Xt is not like a standard Hdd. if you know how it works you should also know that benchmarks are the worst example to use for the XTs speed.
     
  24. iBroken thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    #24
  25. nizmoz macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    #25
    Neither is better than the other and the price is good.
     

Share This Page