Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fantastic guide OP.

I've read through 40 pages and while I think I get it, I just want a slight clarification from someone in the know because I'm a little confused on the pre-2011 distinction and the SATA 6GB/s thing.

I have an early 2008 MBP. Is the only reason that the OP recommends the Intel 320 series because of price and reliability? Because the crucial m4 is super cheap right now on amazon and people say good things about it.

I guess my MBP is a 3gb or 1.5 GB/s SATA but the crucial will work fine with it?

thanks

edit: oh one more thing. Does it make sense to partition the SSD to, say, 220GB and 40GB and use the 40GB partition as a scratch disk.
 
Last edited:
Just ordered the 256GB Crucial M4 upgrade kit! ($209 at B&H photo)

Question - does anyone know if the included data transfer cable can be used for rare occasions to connect the internal DVD drive? I've been looking at getting an enclosure for it, but was thinking that if this cable will work with the DVD drive, then I'll just keep it bare and use it on an anti-static bag if I ever need it. No need to spend $10-$15 on an enclosure if I can make it work without one when needed.

Anyone able to check, or maybe post a picture of the back of the super drive? Thanks!
 
Last edited:
I'm hoping some of you can help shed some light on my situation.

I have a current 13" 2.8 i7 MBP (upgraded to 16GB of RAM) that I recently installed a 256GB Crucial M4 SSD into. I cloned my previous 40GB SSD (that has Snow Leopard 10.6.8 on it) via Time Machine and the drive is SLOOOOWWW. Startup takes minutes and I'll get beach balls nearly every 5-15 minutes (mostly random, even while browsing the web (non flash or graphic intensive sites) and more frequently when using more CPU intensive programs such as Photoshop.

I've repaired permissions, zapped PRAM, and can't figure out the issue. I've been running this setup for the last week, hoping it would work itself out, but unfortunately that hasn't been the case.

I've ran the OWC 40GB SSD in the MBP (the physical drive instead of the Crucial) and it's fast and speedy, just like I'd expect this Crucial M4 SSD to run...I can't figure out the problem. :(

Hopefully you can help out and I look forward to any advice you can lend.

Thanks in advance! :eek:
 
So, reading through this I guess the Samsungs are the current flavor of the month and reliable?

But has anyone tried a Vertex 4? They are actually pretty good value and use OCZ's own firmware etc so are supposed to alleviate the Vertex 3 problems?
 
I'm hoping some of you can help shed some light on my situation.

I have a current 13" 2.8 i7 MBP (upgraded to 16GB of RAM) that I recently installed a 256GB Crucial M4 SSD into. I cloned my previous 40GB SSD (that has Snow Leopard 10.6.8 on it) via Time Machine and the drive is SLOOOOWWW. Startup takes minutes and I'll get beach balls nearly every 5-15 minutes (mostly random, even while browsing the web (non flash or graphic intensive sites) and more frequently when using more CPU intensive programs such as Photoshop.

I've repaired permissions, zapped PRAM, and can't figure out the issue. I've been running this setup for the last week, hoping it would work itself out, but unfortunately that hasn't been the case.

I've ran the OWC 40GB SSD in the MBP (the physical drive instead of the Crucial) and it's fast and speedy, just like I'd expect this Crucial M4 SSD to run...I can't figure out the problem. :(

Hopefully you can help out and I look forward to any advice you can lend.

Thanks in advance! :eek:

I think its not a good thing to clone them, I did fresh instal of Lion (13MBP i5 model), and it works great, Ive got 260 write and 500MBps read speeds according to blackmagic bench from Appstore. You could check your firmware aswell because older one performs not too good...
 
Installed the Sandisk Extreme last night and it works fine. Very speedy performance, negotiates @ link 6gb speed and trim working. Not a single issue so far and that was after cloning my drive.
 
Installed the Sandisk Extreme last night and it works fine. Very speedy performance, negotiates @ link 6gb speed and trim working. Not a single issue so far and that was after cloning my drive.

Very good news. I'm waiting for mine, in order to replace a Crucial m4 128 Gb.
 
Ebuyer.com had £30 off the M4 256gb over the weekend so I snapped one up!

Caddy should be here very shortly also.

Just wondering if I should do a clean install of Lion as it hasn't been fresh for 2yrs now or clone part of the existing 500gb drive that'll I'll be keeping in there (can that be done?)
 
I did a clean Lion install and now I'm restoring my Time Machine backup. So far so good. Except for lion restore, it was stuck at 106 h time downloading, so I just shut it down and installed from a Lion DVD I burned. So much for the lack of physical media install...

I had a bad experience cloning drives once, got all sorts of errors on a WD 750gb scorpio black. I blame it on it using advanced drive format (4k clusters), I was almost ready to return the hdd, but then a clean reinstall of OS and apps sorted it out.

So I wouldn't recommend cloning a hdd to a ssd.
 
I have a unibody MacBook 5,1 with the NVidia MCP79 AHCI chip set(early 2009) and I am really confused about what SSD I should or even can get. I currently have the 160GB 5400rpm drive that the computer was shipped with and the system lists as 3 Gigabite link speed and 1.5 Gigabite Negotiated Link Speed. I have heard people having issues with the new SATA III drives in the 5,1 NVidia set up. Does that eliminate the Intel 330, Samsung 830, and the Crucial M4? If so, what is the best SATA II drive on the market for the price?

I really would love to take advantage of the rebate Intel currently has on their 330 series drives but don't want to buy something that causes more headaches than it is work.

Thanks,
Brian
 
I have a unibody MacBook 5,1 with the NVidia MCP79 AHCI chip set(early 2009) and I am really confused about what SSD I should or even can get. I currently have the 160GB 5400rpm drive that the computer was shipped with and the system lists as 3 Gigabite link speed and 1.5 Gigabite Negotiated Link Speed. I have heard people having issues with the new SATA III drives in the 5,1 NVidia set up. Does that eliminate the Intel 330, Samsung 830, and the Crucial M4? If so, what is the best SATA II drive on the market for the price?

I really would love to take advantage of the rebate Intel currently has on their 330 series drives but don't want to buy something that causes more headaches than it is work.

Thanks,
Brian

Avoid Sandforce based drives with your MBP. I have a late 2008 (same chipset as yours) and just put in a 256gb OCZ Octane based on their Indilinx Everest and it freaking flies. No problems at all negotiating the correct link speed. :)

Got mine for $200, too. :cool:
 
I've installed the Sandisk 240 Gb extreme with no issues.
However, performance is far from expected - on par with my previous m4 128 Gb

52014517.jpg


Certainly nowhere near this mactrast review http://www.mactrast.com/2012/03/review-sandisk-extreme-ssd/

Sandisk-Extreme-Disk-Speed-Test.jpg


Any ideas why? Link speed is 6 Gbit, I reseted PRAM and SMC, speed is the same with or without TRIM activated.

Thanks.
 
I've installed the Sandisk 240 Gb extreme with no issues.
However, performance is far from expected - on par with my previous m4 128 Gb

Image

Certainly nowhere near this mactrast review http://www.mactrast.com/2012/03/review-sandisk-extreme-ssd/

Image

Any ideas why? Link speed is 6 Gbit, I reseted PRAM and SMC, speed is the same with or without TRIM activated.

Thanks.


The new BlackMagic uses incompressible data whereas previously it used compressible from what I have read. That would explain the discrepancy between your test and that of Mactrast. I'm not convinced of the BlackMagic test to be honest. There are plenty of reviews showing the Sandisk performing very well, many even higher than that review you have linked to. I would try some different benchmarks or even make some up yourself to satisfy. Also, what settings did you use for your Blackmagic test?
 
The new BlackMagic uses incompressible data whereas previously it used compressible from what I have read. That would explain the discrepancy between your test and that of Mactrast. I'm not convinced of the BlackMagic test to be honest. There are plenty of reviews showing the Sandisk performing very well, many even higher than that review you have linked to. I would try some different benchmarks or even make some up yourself to satisfy. Also, what settings did you use for your Blackmagic test?

I used v.2.1., default settings, 1Gb file.

Here are some Xbench results:

screenshot20120522at111.png
 
As I figured. Two different benchmarks and two entirely different sets of results. I'll test mine again in a bit and feed back.
 
Hello, i'm actually trying to buy a SSD and i can't choose the right one.

I need to choose between:
Samsung 830 128GB €124
Crucial M4 128GB €121

The prices are almost the same. Any advice?
Seems also that samsung is 7mm and crucial is 9.5mm plus samsung firmware can only be upgraded with windows. What about the crucial's one?

Anyone did try any of these?
 
As I figured. Two different benchmarks and two entirely different sets of results. I'll test mine again in a bit and feed back.

Please do, install Blackmagic diskspeedtest from app store, it's free.

I would like to know if your results are similar.
 
Rev.b

I would say your getting the advertised speeds. Below is my 256GB M4 in which I get 250write and 490read on the BlackMagic test.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2012-05-22 at 7.19.37 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2012-05-22 at 7.19.37 AM.png
    77.6 KB · Views: 94
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.