No speed increase in a Mid 2010 MBP SSD

[jbachandouris]

I have the EVO 250GB installed. Black Magic Speed Test shows mid 200 Mb speeds for both read and write. It seems like the battery life is worse than the stock Hitachi it came with. Debating on going to a 1 TB HD instead.

Thoughts?

I rarely reboot or use large files, so will I even see a difference?

 

[yjchua95]

I have the EVO 250GB installed. Black Magic Speed Test shows mid 200 Mb speeds for both read and write. It seems like the battery life is worse than the stock Hitachi it came with. Debating on going to a 1 TB HD instead.

Thoughts?

I rarely reboot or use large files, so will I even see a difference?

Your speeds are normal because the mid-2010 MBPs can only reach around 250-350MB/s because they have the older SATA2 interface.

cMBPs built in 2011 and later have SATA3 interfaces, so SSDs in them can hit 500MB/s.

 

[jbachandouris]

Your speeds are normal because the mid-2010 MBPs can only reach around 250-350MB/s because they have the older SATA2 interface.

cMBPs built in 2011 and later have SATA3 interfaces, so SSDs in them can hit 500MB/s.

So basically no noticeable difference between SSD and HD?

 

[\-V-/]

No speed increase in a Mid 2010 MBP SSD

So basically no noticeable difference between SSD and HD?

???

You're lucky to get 80-100 MB/sec with craptastic access times compared to an SSD.

He was referring to the possible throughout of SATA II, not the speed of laptop HDDs, which are far slower than SSDs.

 

[jbachandouris]

???

You're lucky to get 100 MB/sec with craptastic access times compared to an SSD.

Interesting. For my light usage I don't notice the difference. And the price difference for an extra 100MB/sec? Not sure it's worth it.

Thanks for the prompt reply!

 

[\-V-/]

No speed increase in a Mid 2010 MBP SSD

There is more to SSDs than the read/write speed. The SSD isn't going to be 2-3 times as fast, it's going to be more like 10-15 due to latency and a lack of moving parts leading to faster access times. And that 100 MB/sec was in optimal conditions. It's usually more like 40-60. And the write speed is worse.

This'll help you understand better than I can explain: http://ocz.com/consumer/ssd-guide/ssd-vs-hdd

Edit: Eh, that page doesn't say much. -_-

If you use an SSD for a day, going back to an HDD will feel like a dinosaur. The computer starts up way faster, apps launch and react way faster, large app suites install much quicker, etc. As an example it would usually take 30-45 minutes for me to install the Adobe Master suite. On an SSD it took me 6-7 minutes. Things that you'll notice more significantly is running a virtual machine. Almost no lag at all compared with an HDD. The difference is quite noticeable.

 

[stevemiller]

i'm experiencing a similar underwhelming experience trying out the newest ssds in the rmbp.

my old system has one of the early apple ssd options (2011), which as i recall was at the slower end of the spectrum even for its time. weirdly, this new one, which benchmarks crazy fast in tools like blackmagic, seems to consistently perform slower than my old system for cold boot, reboot, and application launch times.

one time it took almost a minute to restart. and this is a 1 day old machine with next to nothing on it. :\

 

[\-V-/]

i'm experiencing a similar underwhelming experience trying out the newest ssds in the rmbp.



my old system has one of the early apple ssd options (2011), which as i recall was at the slower end of the spectrum even for its time. weirdly, this new one, which benchmarks crazy fast in tools like blackmagic, seems to consistently perform slower than my old system for cold boot, reboot, and application launch times.



one time it took almost a minute to restart. and this is a 1 day old machine with next to nothing on it. :\

TRIM is disabled by default on third-party SSDs and enabled on Apple SSDs. You'll need something like this to enable it: http://www.cindori.org/software/trimenabler/

It increases the speed and performance of the drive. Could also be a bad drive as well.

 

[jbachandouris]

There is more to SSDs than the read/write speed. The SSD isn't going to be 2-3 times as fast, it's going to be more like 10-15 due to latency and a lack of moving parts leading to faster access times. And that 100 MB/sec was in optimal conditions. It's usually more like 40-60. And the write speed is worse.

This'll help you understand better than I can explain: http://ocz.com/consumer/ssd-guide/ssd-vs-hdd

Edit: Eh, that page doesn't say much. -_-

If you use an SSD for a day, going back to an HDD will feel like a dinosaur. The computer starts up way faster, apps launch and react way faster, large app suites install much quicker, etc. As an example it would usually take 30-45 minutes for me to install the Adobe Master suite. On an SSD it took me 6-7 minutes. Things that you'll notice more significantly is running a virtual machine. Almost no lag at all compared with an HDD. The difference is quite noticeable.

Thanks for the edit. I think I will either consider an external drive or ditch my optical and put my stock drive (250GB) in there. After deleting Seasons 2-5 of Doctor Who in HD, I gained 80GB. (I offloaded them to Time Capsule, so I can watch them that way if I need to)

----------

TRIM is disabled by default on third-party SSDs and enabled on Apple SSDs. You'll need something like this to enable it: http://www.cindori.org/software/trimenabler/

It increases the speed and performance of the drive. Could also be a bad drive as well.

Ran Trim Enabler on mine. Disabled hibernation file. Disabled Time Machine backups. Disabled shock sensor for hard drive. Disabled iStat Pro as recommended by another member since it didn't give a heat rating for my SSD.

Off topic of SSD: still running 4GB with Mavericks. When iStat Pro was installed it showed about 900MB free and at least 1GB inactive. Does this mean I don't need more memory?

 

[stevemiller]

TRIM is disabled by default on third-party SSDs and enabled on Apple SSDs. You'll need something like this to enable it: http://www.cindori.org/software/trimenabler/

It increases the speed and performance of the drive. Could also be a bad drive as well.

thanks for that, although in my case, both ssd's were from apple, and system report shows both have trim enabled.

the newer ssd seems to be performing just fine in a blackmagic disk test, it just doesn't seem to translate to much advantage in practical use like booting or app launching.

 

[\-V-/]

thanks for that, although in my case, both ssd's were from apple, and system report shows both have trim enabled.



the newer ssd seems to be performing just fine in a blackmagic disk test, it just doesn't seem to translate to much advantage in practical use like booting or app launching.

That's really weird. That would frustrate me as well. Just put a new SSD in my mother's MacBook Pro cuz the HDD was getting slower and it boots from being completely off to the desktop in about 7-8 seconds. Used to take a good couple minutes before. It must be the drives or something.

 

[drenline]

Been debating for awhile if I wanted to upgrade my 2009 macbook pro to an SSD. But I was hesitant due to the macbook only being a SATA II. My Blackmagic disk speed test currently shows 95-101mb/s for both read/write. I already assumed the upgrade would give me those numbers you're getting and I probably won't notice much difference...do you notice a big difference or not so much?

 

[chorion]

Been debating for awhile if I wanted to upgrade my 2009 macbook pro to an SSD. But I was hesitant due to the macbook only being a SATA II. My Blackmagic disk speed test currently shows 95-101mb/s for both read/write. I already assumed the upgrade would give me those numbers you're getting and I probably won't notice much difference...do you notice a big difference or not so much?

The difference is AMAZING. I swapped my HD in my 2010 MBP for a SanDisk 128 GB SSD, and honestly, it's been the best computer-related purchase I have ever made. Apps start amazingly fast. As was stated above, the read-write speeds are not the most crucial parameters here; access times are. Here the difference btw SSD and HD is really day and night.

 

[\-V-/]

No speed increase in a Mid 2010 MBP SSD

Been debating for awhile if I wanted to upgrade my 2009 macbook pro to an SSD. But I was hesitant due to the macbook only being a SATA II. My Blackmagic disk speed test currently shows 95-101mb/s for both read/write. I already assumed the upgrade would give me those numbers you're getting and I probably won't notice much difference...do you notice a big difference or not so much?

You'll notice, believe me. Almost zero latency and near instant access times due to no moving parts.... and the SSD will be faster than your SATA II controller, so you'll be maximizing your read/write throughput even if the controller itself is limiting the SSD. The difference will be a lot more than you realize. You're maximizing the speed potential of your computer by upgrading the slowest component IN the computer.

 

[drenline]

The difference is AMAZING. I swapped my HD in my 2010 MBP for a SanDisk 128 GB SSD, and honestly, it's been the best computer-related purchase I have ever made. Apps start amazingly fast. As was stated above, the read-write speeds are not the most crucial parameters here; access times are. Here the difference btw SSD and HD is really day and night.

You'll notice, believe me. Almost zero latency and near instant access times due to no moving parts.... and the SSD will be faster than your SATA II controller, so you'll be maximizing your read/write throughput even if the controller itself is limiting the SSD. The difference will be a lot more than you realize. You're maximizing the speed potential of your computer by upgrading the slowest component IN the computer.

Yes, I know all about SSD's. I forgot to mention that I already have an SSD in my desktop and after replacing it last year, I honestly don't notice much difference at all. Maybe in boot up times by like 10-15 seconds, but nothing major. That desktop is also a SATA II, I think maybe that's the problem. I probably had such high expectations before the purchase that I was expecting way much more. Oh, and my pc games boot up a tad bit faster, but other than that, I think I'll hold off until the SSD prices drop to below $100 for 240gbs+.

I was hoping if the OP would tell me if he/she notices a big difference, since my 2009 MBP is also a SATA II.

EDIT: I also recently upgraded my MBP from 4gb to 8gb's of RAM. My MBP barely gets those beach balls anymore. I was debating between upgrading the RAM or HDD, I chose the RAM...due to the MBP being only a SATA II.

 

[Gav Mack]

I've not had a MBP user of mine ever say there's no speed difference with an 840 SSD. In fact only the Kingston v200 SSD and the glitchy sandforce drives which is an incompatibility with the intel SATA controller and the SSD controller.

You could try updating the firmware via the ISO off Samsung's website.

 

[jbachandouris]

I've not had a MBP user of mine ever say there's no speed difference with an 840 SSD. In fact only the Kingston v200 SSD and the glitchy sandforce drives which is an incompatibility with the intel SATA controller and the SSD controller.

You could try updating the firmware via the ISO off Samsung's website.

Tried updating firmware first. The program said SSD firmware was up to date.