SSD for Mac mini 2010

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by natm, Apr 12, 2015.

  1. natm macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    #1
    Hell.

    I am interested in upgrading my Mac mini 2010 (4.1) with SSD drive. It uses nVidia sata2 mcp89 controller.

    I read that because TRIM command is disabled in Yosemite, Sandforce based SSD must be used (handles itself better then others without TRIM).

    On the other end, I read there are compatibility issues of nvidia sata2 controllers (mcp79, mcp89) and sandforce SSD controller, so data speed is of sata1 (1.5gbps) instead of sata2 (3gbps).

    I read that sandforce told SSD makers how to make SF compatible with nvidia, and some, like OCZ, fixed this with firmware update. Some have not. It was back in 2012. No new OCZ sandforce drives are sold today.

    Only company I found to sell SSD drives which will surely be compatible with my Mac is OWC. 240G cost around 130USD:
    http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/SSD/OWC

    I found new and very cheap sandforce SSD, Mushkin eco2. Cost less then 90USD:
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226679

    This SSD is 2015 model. The incompatibility of SF and nvidia was known in 2012 already. Can I assume problem was fixed, and this Mushkin drive will work? Mailed them. No answer.

    Found many posts about problems of nvidia mcp79 controller (Mac mini 2009), but only few about mcp89. Again, can I assume it is less problematic?

    Anyways, any recommended 240GB drive for Mac mini 2010, other ten OWC?

    Thank you.
     
  2. marclondon macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Location:
    London
    #2
    You're overthinking this - just get a Crucial. The 256GB MX100 will work fine.

    M.
     
  3. Joelburman macrumors regular

    Joelburman

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Location:
    Stockholm
    #3
    I agree! I can vouch for the MX100 I'm using it myself and its a good buy for price vs speed/storage capacity.
     
  4. natm thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    #4
    Hello.

    There is mx200 already on the market. Same price.
    Any reason to buy the older mx100 instead? Better compatibility with Mac? Or mx200 good as well?
     
  5. marclondon macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Location:
    London
    #5
    I would use the Crucial model selection tool and take their recommendation. The MX100 looks better but your Mac only has 3GB/s SATA so any current SSD will be well over-specced.

    M.
     
  6. Joelburman macrumors regular

    Joelburman

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Location:
    Stockholm
    #6
    If the MX200 goes for the same price of course buy that one. The funny thing though that in Swedens biggest SSD test on the web. The BX100 (Crucials new low budget drive) actually outperforms both MX drives in several of their categories.

    Back to your topic, speed is not super necessary in your machine due to the SATA II limitation.
     
  7. gpspad macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2014
    #7
    Just be careful of the installation, it is very easy for things to go wrong. I am very computer savvy and broke my IRDA controller. Was being very careful and didn't even notice I broke the connector on the board.
     
  8. spatlese44 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2007
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    #8
    I did broke something similar trying to modify the radio in my Mercedes. I too consider myself experienced as I've been working with electronics for a very long time, but there's fragile parts. That said, I've heard this job isn't that bad and I'm planning on putting an SSD in my mini soon. The radio cost $200 to replace used on eBay. I wouldn't call that spare change, but it was a cost I could absorb. My mini is a 2012 quad core that cost $800 when new. I was a little more cautious about tearing that apart even though I feel pretty confident. A 2010, though desirable to some for it's optical drive, isn't really worth more than $350.
     

Share This Page