Here's the situation. I have a 2010 MBP 15" with the 2.66 i7 in it, 500GB stock 5400 rpm HDD, and 4GB of RAM. It has been slowing down but after Yosemite, it has gotten real slow (and the OS looks like crap IMO. I feel the OS really is designed for Retina). I'm currently debating my options. I could look at upgrading now (or soon) to the 15" rMBP with the 2.5 i7 and dedicated GPU or I could upgrade the RAM and upgrade to a SSD in my current MBP from Crucial for about $300 for a 512GB SSD and 8GB of RAM and wait for Skylake as that sounds like a major upgrade. I'm not sure if it's worth the cash to keep it going given its current resell value is around $500 but then again, I don't know when we will see Skylake (or what Skylake will really bring).
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Rejuvenate 2010 MBP or upgrade now
- Thread starter capitanbuzo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not much. Some games from time to time. Otherwise, just hooking it up to my TV to stream things, browsing, nothing intense. I'll do light photo editing occasion but that's it. I honestly use my iPad for most browsing and my work laptop for all my other work.
Get a 250GB SSD and 8GB RAM and wait for the next Intel generation, which will be a major bump in relation to previous models. You already have a i7. How much it gets on Geekbench? 8000? You won't get a 100% improvement over your current hardware with a 2014 rMBP.
The retina screen is worth every penny. On the other hand, with your described usage it doesn't sound like you need a new laptop so it probably makes sense to hold off.
To be honest I doubt his usage case would really tax any current gen MacBook.
With that said I doubt Broadwell will be a huge performance increase over Haswell - it's a die shrink, not a new architecture. In addition, Haswell likely would be a big increase over his current CPU. Whilst it is an i7, it would likely be a Westmere chip, which honestly were quite far behind the Sandy Bridge chips which succeeded them.
I'm not near 8,000 since it's the dual core i7. My 2009 Mac Pro is in the 8k range but that has its own set of issues I'm working on (I think the Newertech wifi stick is causing lots of problems, right after I fixed the flashed GPU).
I guess my question really should be, would it be worth while to spend circa $300 on 8GB of RAM and a 512 SSD (I don't know if I want to try just 250GB) while I wait for Skylake (sounds like Broadwell won't be worth it) or just stick it out as is? Mainly, how much of a noticeable difference will I see doing the upgrade from 4GB of RAM and the archaic 5400 RPM HDD? Is it justifiable enough to warrant the $300 sunk cost until Skylake (which is October 15/ early 16? Please correct this info)?
Realistically, all my taxing work is done on my Winblows computer so this is more for my personal use. I just tend to get a pretty high end system every 4-5 years versus getting a low end system which I'll get frustrated with quicker.
I guess my question really should be, would it be worth while to spend circa $300 on 8GB of RAM and a 512 SSD (I don't know if I want to try just 250GB) while I wait for Skylake (sounds like Broadwell won't be worth it) or just stick it out as is? Mainly, how much of a noticeable difference will I see doing the upgrade from 4GB of RAM and the archaic 5400 RPM HDD? Is it justifiable enough to warrant the $300 sunk cost until Skylake (which is October 15/ early 16? Please correct this info)?
Realistically, all my taxing work is done on my Winblows computer so this is more for my personal use. I just tend to get a pretty high end system every 4-5 years versus getting a low end system which I'll get frustrated with quicker.
My late-2009 Macbook runs Yosemite pretty well with 8GB RAM/250GB SSD. I can even enable the Nvidia WebDriver by changing its configuration file (there's a topic here which explains the procedure). In my tests, I get a couple of fps, but the 9400m is pretty outdated. A 330M maybe will get a better improvement.
However, honestly I prefer Mavericks and its "classic" OSX interface. Maximize now means "full screen mode". This is a bit annoying for people used to previous OSX versions.
The real question is, do you think you'd benefit from the improvements on the new models:
Thunderbolt 2
USB 3
HDMI
updated SSD connections
ect...
If those are going to benefit your everyday usage and you can currently afford the update to a newer macbook, then maybe you should. If not, then just wait until the next processor update
Thunderbolt 2
USB 3
HDMI
updated SSD connections
ect...
If those are going to benefit your everyday usage and you can currently afford the update to a newer macbook, then maybe you should. If not, then just wait until the next processor update
How was the difference after you did the upgrade? Pretty night and day?
Who wouldn't benefit from those things? Wouldn't you always benefit from a nicer screen, better processor, more RAM, USB 3.0, etc? Of course.
I'm trying to realign the purpose of this thread now, which I thought I did earlier. I feel that the benefits coming from the tock of Skylake are significantly better than what we have now and buying a computer now might seem like a waste. It's usability will significantly decline once their is an update. It's somewhat my situation once they introduced quad core the following year and then introduced Retina the year after.
My question at this point is whether or not the upgrade in RAM and the upgrade to a SSD will bring a substantial and notable improvement from what I currently have? Will it be substantially quicker with these normal tasks and will my constant pinwheeling become less apparent? $300 wouldn't be a big investment for me if the computer was a year or two old and it brought big improvements. Given that the fair market value is in the $500 range or so (from what I've seen), it's just hard for me to justify the $300 addition if the benefit isn't there.
The difference is huge when moving from a HDD to a SSD. As an example, I only feel my rMBP faster than my white Macbook when doing stuff which requires processing power (like running my own algorithms for my research project). Otherwise, they perform pretty much the same in everyday tasks like browsing or watching movies. Of course, the rMBP has a bigger battery life, thunderbolt, usb 3, better screen resolution, but after buying the rMBP I think these improvements are a bit superfluous to me. A classic Macbook reaching 12000 on Geekbench would be enough to my needs.
The computer really feels faster. You'll only feel it's not so fast when doing stuff that needs CPU power, but I think your 4000 score on Geekbench is acceptable for a couple of years of usage. The high-end 2014 Mac Mini reaches just 8000. You're not so behind. I think you could decrease your costs by adopting a smaller SSD. Keep your media library in an external storage. Have in the SSD only your current work.
I have a colleague who uses a 2011 11" MBA with 128GB/4GB for programming with Eclipse. Its disk usage is pretty low, around 50%. If you can keep your pictures and audio files on external media, 250GB is a big space.
Thanks for the info. I'm going to do some research still on the SSD prices as if I decide to go for the 512, I can always pull that from my laptop when I upgrade and put that in my Mac Pro if it's still around or put it in an external enclosure. I need to run a geekbench score but I'm fairly surprised that you get that high on a normal Macbook, which has a C2D I presume.
I suppose right now would be a good time to look for SSD's since Black Friday will be upon us shortly. Any opinions on Crucial's MX100 vs the M500? They are pretty much the same price right now on Amazon.
Although this doesn't match the part number on Crucial's website, it looks like this RAM would work. Can someone confirm? Feel free to chime in with SSD recommendations as this looks like the route I will be going. Lastly, any cheaper external enclosure recommendations would be nice if I go the 250GB route, I'll just use my old drive as some storage.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B008LTBJFM/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1416789567&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX200_QL40
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B008LTBJFM/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1416789567&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX200_QL40
Sorry, I think there is a misunderstanding here. My White Macbook has a Geekbench score of ~2500 (multicore) while my Retina Macbook has a score of ~12000. Your Macbook, according to Everymac has a score of around 4000-4500.
I ordered a $39 FW800 enclosure from OWC for using it with my 2010 Mini, but it has been stuck on Brazilian customs for about 4 months. Someday in 2015 I can give you a feedback
This RAM modules seem to work. As long as they're 1066 MHz CL7, you should be fine. Even 1333 MHz modules can work using software capable of editing SPD. This was the case when I upgraded my Mini to 16GB. Since 2x8GB 1066MHz kits are rare in Brazil, I bought 1333MHz ones and "downgraded" them to 1066MHz.
Regarding SSDs, I have a Crucial M500 which does the job as well as my Samsung 840 EVO. Both seem to be a solid choice. The MX100 is a newer generation over the M500/M550. Some people say these newer ones use less durable flash memory, but I don't know if these rumors hold any truth.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I ordered a $39 FW800 enclosure from OWC for using it with my 2010 Mini, but it has been stuck on Brazilian customs for about 4 months. Someday in 2015 I can give you a feedback
This RAM modules seem to work. As long as they're 1066 MHz CL7, you should be fine. Even 1333 MHz modules can work using software capable of editing SPD. This was the case when I upgraded my Mini to 16GB. Since 2x8GB 1066MHz kits are rare in Brazil, I bought 1333MHz ones and "downgraded" them to 1066MHz.
That seems to clear things up. I'm gonna have to look at my storage habbits but I might go for that RAM and the MX100 256GB SSD, Newertech tools, and I saw a $16 USB 3.0 enclosure that should work just fine. I figured the RAM would work since I saw the specs matched but now I'll likely pull the trigger.
Is the Samsung significantly better than the Crucial?
I'm starting to have concerns that it may just be more than age affecting my computer. After a restart, I noticed this on my screen. It appears that something is burning into my screen. I've also noticed the rear Apple logo "ghosting" into the screen lately. Is this just a sign of age or is this possibly a logic board issue? See the attached photo.
Also, I assumed that the pinwheeling, lag, low boot times, keyboard input and just overall poor performance was due to the age and the current hardware but I am starting to wonder if there is some other issue at heart. It just seems extremely weird having just Chrome, App Store, and iTunes and/or Spotify open
Attachments
Just get a Crucial MX 100 512GB and put it in first. Don't do the ram. Feel the system after that. If it is still sluggish (I suspect only during games), then upgrade the ram. If not, this "new" system should hold up til Skylake releases.
The bigger size might be a better idea since I can always pull it out once the new ones come out and then use that as a speedy external.
Any other votes for skipping the RAM and doing the larger SSD?
Last edited:
That's part of the reason for my recommendation.
The other part is here: performance chart
The 512GB is faster than the 256GB, and sits near the Samsung EVO 840.
Although his MBP has support only to SATAII. It won't reach speeds faster than ~270MB/s. It's a good choice, however, when he choose to use it as external storage or in the Mac Pro.
I agree with keeping the 4GB of RAM initially. Later you can upgrade to 8GB if you check memory pressure orange or red in daily usage.
I put an SSD in my 2011 15" and it completely changed it, it went from a sluggish machine to a really snappy one. I since upgraded to a retina macbook pro but I kept the SSD. I have it in an enclosure and it's really useful to have a tiny disk that's super fast.
I'd go for the cheapest drive with good reliability, as brdeveloper mentioned the computer can't go past a certain speed. If you use it for external storage afterwards, I wouldn't be too fussy about performance either.
I would skip the RAM though. I'm not sure how big of an impact it would have based on your workload. It's also money you can't recoup. On a computer this old, the used market typically isn't too regarding on specs.
Good point! I totally forgot about sata limitations. Been taking the tech for granted!
Thanks for the help everyone. I ordered the 512 MX100 and a USB 3.0 enclosure for now (I'll look into TB later or put it into my MP). Only issue, isn't a '09 MP SATAII only as well?
I'll be holding off on the RAM for now but my usage monitor has it always going to full use under typical loads. I can free 1GB of it but it's usually gone within 10 minutes.
I'll be holding off on the RAM for now but my usage monitor has it always going to full use under typical loads. I can free 1GB of it but it's usually gone within 10 minutes.