For those still curious about the Crucial M4 and and TRIM, I've had good luck without it. Six months, quite a few TBs written/erased, and absolutely zero slow downs on both benchmark and real world testing.
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=15563846#post15563846
------------------
Read and write speeds are really independent of each other in the sense that a high read or high write speed doesn't guarantee the other. The Crucial doesn't look nearly as good on paper as many of the other SATA 6.0 SSDs but the real world difference is far less than these statistical benchmark tests leads you to think. Most SSDs each offer their own pros and cons, and most SSDs are far faster than whatever the system bottleneck is, whether it be the other hardware, software, or the user him/herself. The Crucial excels in incompressible sequential data, garbage collection, and reliability/customer satisfaction, where as the SandForce is a beast with compressible data, not such a beast with incompressible data, and is built with the assumption that most of your work will be compressible data (which is usually the case). The Crucial also uses synchronous memory, where as not all other drives are, which gives it a boost in real world work performance there. For most applications, no one can tell a real difference between these because they are all stupidly fast compared to the HDDs they replace. The only exception is boot time in which my Crucials are ever so slightly faster.
------------------
I would avoid this. As far as SSDs go, it is about as slow as can be and it is only a few bucks cheaper than the Crucial M4. I've read these are old controllers that Micron wanted to blow out and so the V4 is born. It uses the same memory as the M4, but the controller is just plain weak. IIRC it is actually slower than some of the 10k RPM HDDs.
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=15563846#post15563846
------------------
Read and write speeds are really independent of each other in the sense that a high read or high write speed doesn't guarantee the other. The Crucial doesn't look nearly as good on paper as many of the other SATA 6.0 SSDs but the real world difference is far less than these statistical benchmark tests leads you to think. Most SSDs each offer their own pros and cons, and most SSDs are far faster than whatever the system bottleneck is, whether it be the other hardware, software, or the user him/herself. The Crucial excels in incompressible sequential data, garbage collection, and reliability/customer satisfaction, where as the SandForce is a beast with compressible data, not such a beast with incompressible data, and is built with the assumption that most of your work will be compressible data (which is usually the case). The Crucial also uses synchronous memory, where as not all other drives are, which gives it a boost in real world work performance there. For most applications, no one can tell a real difference between these because they are all stupidly fast compared to the HDDs they replace. The only exception is boot time in which my Crucials are ever so slightly faster.
------------------
does any body have experience with this SSD from crucial?
http://www.crucial.com/store/mpartspecs.aspx?mtbpoid=082FC416A5CA7304
or can you recommend a similar priced one that ships to this side of the ocean
I would avoid this. As far as SSDs go, it is about as slow as can be and it is only a few bucks cheaper than the Crucial M4. I've read these are old controllers that Micron wanted to blow out and so the V4 is born. It uses the same memory as the M4, but the controller is just plain weak. IIRC it is actually slower than some of the 10k RPM HDDs.
