SSD for MacBook Pro 2010

[talking-muffin]

Hey,
I just upgraded my MacBook from 4GB to 8GB of RAM and believe it or not the difference is amazing. I no longer have to wait Launchpad icons to appear, Notification Center services to appear but everything appears instantly.
I still have the original hard drive and I was wondering if this would fit inside MacBook Pro mid 2010 13"

https://www.clasohlson.com/fi/SSD-kovalevy-Kingston-Hyper-X-Savage/38-7680
Also, is it too expensive? Am I able to find better deals? Thank you!

 

[Adam.Kb2Jpd]

Hey,
I just upgraded my MacBook from 4GB to 8GB of RAM and believe it or not the difference is amazing. I no longer have to wait Launchpad icons to appear, Notification Center services to appear but everything appears instantly.
I still have the original hard drive and I was wondering if this would fit inside MacBook Pro mid 2010 13"

https://www.clasohlson.com/fi/SSD-kovalevy-Kingston-Hyper-X-Savage/38-7680
Also, is it too expensive? Am I able to find better deals? Thank you!

Shop around. The SSD will make a big difference for startup and shutdown and the system response will be faster.

 

[talking-muffin]

Shop around. The SSD will make a big difference for startup and shutdown and the system response will be faster.

Yes, I understand that. Even upgrading my Mac to 8GB of RAM made a huge difference. I don't understand how come they're still selling MacBook Airs with 4GB of RAM …
Anyways, would the SSD I provided in my link be compatible with my MacBook?

 

[Audit13]

The Macbook Pro 2010 should work with the Kingston SSD.

Installing a hyper-fast SSD is will be limited to sata2 speeds.

I have used Corsair, Samsung, and Crucial drives in various Macbooks with good results.

 

[Adam.Kb2Jpd]

Yes, I understand that. Even upgrading my Mac to 8GB of RAM made a huge difference. I don't understand how come they're still selling MacBook Airs with 4GB of RAM …
Anyways, would the SSD I provided in my link be compatible with my MacBook?

I have installed older Intel SSDs pulled from servers and it popped up the performance of the disk i/o.

Apple is a huge company that purchase RAM in large runs fixed prices beforehand. If they purchase only 8 GB, it would affect the spot market price accordingly.

 

[Maxx Power]

I'll quote what I said elsewhere on this matter:

This (SSD compatibility) is a CLASSIC issue with any Nvidia MCP-chipset based Macs, all circa 2008-2011ish.

The problem is that the Nvidia controller can not properly negotiate SSD speeds and leads to both
(1) Data corruption,
(2) Sluggish speeds.

It probably has absolutely nothing to do with your SSD.

The ONLY solutions at the time (a few years ago) that were confirmed working, without data corruption in a few months time (varies from 1 month or so to a few at the most) and without downlinking from SATA II to SATA I speeds were the Crucial M500s. I also personally used this series of SSD on Nvidia MCP-series chipsets with success. There has not been a comprehensive attempt to figure out which modern SSDs since 2009-2010 era that works with the Nvidia MCP-series (79 and 89) since then.

You can google the issue, but here is a link to get you started:

http://blogs.helsinki.fi/tuylaant/2014/01/upgrading-old-macs-to-ssds/

Essentially, you need to find a Nvidia MCP-compatible SSD. How many of these are out there nowadays is anyone's guess, but essentially, all of Samsung's, Intel's, Sandisk's, etc are out. The only working solutions came from Crucial in the form of M500s, which are WAY out of production.

Be careful with your SSD selection on any Nvidia-chipset Mac.

 

[Adam.Kb2Jpd]

I'll quote what I said elsewhere on this matter:

This (SSD compatibility) is a CLASSIC issue with any Nvidia MCP-chipset based Macs, all circa 2008-2011ish.

The problem is that the Nvidia controller can not properly negotiate SSD speeds and leads to both
(1) Data corruption,
(2) Sluggish speeds.

It probably has absolutely nothing to do with your SSD.

The ONLY solutions at the time (a few years ago) that were confirmed working, without data corruption in a few months time (varies from 1 month or so to a few at the most) and without downlinking from SATA II to SATA I speeds were the Crucial M500s. I also personally used this series of SSD on Nvidia MCP-series chipsets with success. There has not been a comprehensive attempt to figure out which modern SSDs since 2009-2010 era that works with the Nvidia MCP-series (79 and 89) since then.

You can google the issue, but here is a link to get you started:

http://blogs.helsinki.fi/tuylaant/2014/01/upgrading-old-macs-to-ssds/

Essentially, you need to find a Nvidia MCP-compatible SSD. How many of these are out there nowadays is anyone's guess, but essentially, all of Samsung's, Intel's, Sandisk's, etc are out. The only working solutions came from Crucial in the form of M500s, which are WAY out of production.

Be careful with your SSD selection on any Nvidia-chipset Mac.

Had a 2011 MCP 17" with old Intel SSD and it performs well with no data corruption.

 

[Adam.Kb2Jpd]

Had a 2011 MCP 17" with old Intel SSD and it performs well with no data corruption.

Intel PRO 1500 Series 180GB SSD 2.5" 6Gb/s https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https://www.ebay.com/ulk/itm/232669530341

Nice price for the SSD.

 

[Maxx Power]

Had a 2011 MCP 17" with old Intel SSD and it performs well with no data corruption.

Yours is an Intel chipset model then. The 2010 models were sold into 2011 year as fas as I remember.
[doublepost=1519054044][/doublepost]

Intel PRO 1500 Series 180GB SSD 2.5" 6Gb/s https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https://www.ebay.com/ulk/itm/232669530341

Nice price for the SSD.

That's almost a guaranteed incompatible SSD for OP's MBP. Your model is a proper 2011 Macbook Pro, but many places sold late 2010 Macbook Pros into the 2011 CALENDER year (hence the "circa" statement I said). Since the 2011 MODEL year, Apple has ditched Nvidia's buggy chipsets.

Which means if anyone bought a late 2010 Macbook Pro in the calender year 2011, it is still a Nvidia-chipset Macbook Pro, and hence all my precautions apply.

 

[Fishrrman]

Don't get Kingston.
I recommend Crucial or Sandisk.

If you think the RAM "made a difference", wait until you try an SSD.

If you installed RAM, you already know how to take off the back.
You'll need a TORX T-6 driver to remove the "busses" on the old drive and secure them to the new one.

I suggest that you "prep and test" the new drive BEFORE you install it.
Use one of these:
https://www.amazon.com/Sabrent-2-5-...478&sr=1-2-spell&keywords=sabremt+usb3+to+ssd

Do this:
a. connect the SSD to the adapter/dongle and plug it in
b. Open Disk Utility and erase it to Mac OS extended with journaling enabled, GUID partition format
c. Now, either do a clean install of the OS onto it, or perhaps use a cloning app (CarbonCopyCloner or SuperDuper) to clone the contents of your internal drive to the SSD.
d. Do a "test boot" from the SSD to be sure that the install is working
e. Now, shut everything down and "do the drive swap".

It's much easier to fix things if you still have a working drive IN the MacBook as you prep the new one.

 

[Maxx Power]

Don't get Kingston.
I recommend Crucial or Sandisk.

If you think the RAM "made a difference", wait until you try an SSD.

If you installed RAM, you already know how to take off the back.
You'll need a TORX T-6 driver to remove the "busses" on the old drive and secure them to the new one.

I suggest that you "prep and test" the new drive BEFORE you install it.
Use one of these:
https://www.amazon.com/Sabrent-2-5-...478&sr=1-2-spell&keywords=sabremt+usb3+to+ssd

Do this:
a. connect the SSD to the adapter/dongle and plug it in
b. Open Disk Utility and erase it to Mac OS extended with journaling enabled, GUID partition format
c. Now, either do a clean install of the OS onto it, or perhaps use a cloning app (CarbonCopyCloner or SuperDuper) to clone the contents of your internal drive to the SSD.
d. Do a "test boot" from the SSD to be sure that the install is working
e. Now, shut everything down and "do the drive swap".

It's much easier to fix things if you still have a working drive IN the MacBook as you prep the new one.

These are great ideas. I just want to point out that the USB to SSD adapters (as well as enclosures) uses their own SATA controllers. Hence problems of incompatibility with the host SATA controller (Nvidia chipsets) are not revealed by the USB to SATA dongle or enclosure. Nonetheless, I always migrate data this way, just the Nvidia-based Macs are peculiar.

 

[treekram]

The MCP89 (what should be in the 2010 MBP) works at SATA2 speeds with more SSD's than the MCP79.

In the article linked in post #9, when they mention Samsung incompatibility, they reference the Samsung 840 (did not specify whether it was the Pro or Evo). People in the comments section who actually tried out the Evo 850 found it could work at SATA2, except for one poster who couldn't get the SSD to work (so difficult to say if it was the poster, software, a defective SSD or something else). While I have seen a couple of posts on the web where people had problems with the MCP79/MCP89 and the Samsung 850 Evo, most (and the 850 Evo's are very popular) have been able to get SATA2 speeds.

Samsung now has a new line of SSD's - the 860's - I don't know if they are SATA2 compatible with the MCP79/MCP89. Same with Crucial and the MX500 line (not to be confused with the M500). Manufacturers may say their drive "works" in a computer but unless they specifically say it will work at SATA2 speeds with the MCP79/MCP89 chip, it may not. For example, Crucial said (it's being phased out) the MX300 "works" with my late-2009 Mini with the MCP79 chip, but the posts I've seen the web says it doesn't work at SATA2 with the MCP79.

In my opinion, trying to get a Crucial (or Micron, as it would likely have been sold in Europe) M500 is too expensive - it's $200 here in the US on Amazon for 240GB. You should buy something like the Samsung 850 from a place that will allow refunds if the drive doesn't work at SATA2 in your MBP.

In searching on the web, there's no post on the web referencing the Kingston HyperX Savage and the MCP89. But for the MCP79, people seem to have problems. You would have to hope that it's one of the SSD's where it works at SATA2 with the MCP89 even though it didn't with the MCP79.

 

[Adam.Kb2Jpd]

Hey,
I just upgraded my MacBook from 4GB to 8GB of RAM and believe it or not the difference is amazing. I no longer have to wait Launchpad icons to appear, Notification Center services to appear but everything appears instantly.
I still have the original hard drive and I was wondering if this would fit inside MacBook Pro mid 2010 13"

https://www.clasohlson.com/fi/SSD-kovalevy-Kingston-Hyper-X-Savage/38-7680
Also, is it too expensive? Am I able to find better deals? Thank you!

I guess it also shows when they did the software development they did it on 8GB memory size than 4GB.

I'd always do development on RAM deficit systems just to see how they would function. I notice that most all Apple products use system software with lots of memory.

Good thing you upgraded. Now to address faster disk i/o.

 

[Maxx Power]

The MCP89 (what should be in the 2010 MBP) works at SATA2 speeds with more SSD's than the MCP79.

In the article linked in post #9, when they mention Samsung incompatibility, they reference the Samsung 840 (did not specify whether it was the Pro or Evo). People in the comments section who actually tried out the Evo 850 found it could work at SATA2, except for one poster who couldn't get the SSD to work (so difficult to say if it was the poster, software, a defective SSD or something else). While I have seen a couple of posts on the web where people had problems with the MCP79/MCP89 and the Samsung 850 Evo, most (and the 850 Evo's are very popular) have been able to get SATA2 speeds.

Samsung now has a new line of SSD's - the 860's - I don't know if they are SATA2 compatible with the MCP79/MCP89. Same with Crucial and the MX500 line (not to be confused with the M500). Manufacturers may say their drive "works" in a computer but unless they specifically say it will work at SATA2 speeds with the MCP79/MCP89 chip, it may not. For example, Crucial said (it's being phased out) the MX300 "works" with my late-2009 Mini with the MCP79 chip, but the posts I've seen the web says it doesn't work at SATA2 with the MCP79.

In my opinion, trying to get a Crucial (or Micron, as it would likely have been sold in Europe) M500 is too expensive - it's $200 here in the US on Amazon for 240GB. You should buy something like the Samsung 850 from a place that will allow refunds if the drive doesn't work at SATA2 in your MBP.

In searching on the web, there's no post on the web referencing the Kingston HyperX Savage and the MCP89. But for the MCP79, people seem to have problems. You would have to hope that it's one of the SSD's where it works at SATA2 with the MCP89 even though it didn't with the MCP79.

My personal theory on the Samsung 850 series is that some of the testers had specific firmware versions that did negotiate SATA2 speeds correctly with the MCP-series of chipsets. Back in the day, I have tried Samsung 830, Intel 520, Intel 330, Intel 540, Crucial M500, Samsung 850 Evo, may be more. The only one that worked consistently was the Crucial M500, because as far as I can recall, Crucial was the only brand to code their firmware to negotiate in a way that specifically was for mitigating the ill effects of the MCP-chipsets.

The issue with buying a SSD, testing it and sending it back if it doesn't work is that with many setups, the issues don't show until almost a month into usage when data corruption becomes accumulated enough to be noticeable. I thought my Samsung 830 was working for a week or two or so, until I started to see a lot of spinning beach balls and eventual hangs.

 

[treekram]

My personal theory on the Samsung 850 series is that some of the testers had specific firmware versions that did negotiate SATA2 speeds correctly with the MCP-series of chipsets. Back in the day, I have tried Samsung 830, Intel 520, Intel 330, Intel 540, Crucial M500, Samsung 850 Evo, may be more. The only one that worked consistently was the Crucial M500, because as far as I can recall, Crucial was the only brand to code their firmware to negotiate in a way that specifically was for mitigating the ill effects of the MCP-chipsets.

The issue with buying a SSD, testing it and sending it back if it doesn't work is that with many setups, the issues don't show until almost a month into usage when data corruption becomes accumulated enough to be noticeable. I thought my Samsung 830 was working for a week or two or so, until I started to see a lot of spinning beach balls and eventual hangs.

I'm not sure what 850 Evo firmware you're referring to. The last firmware update (and I think the only one) appears to have been around mid-2015, which pre-dates the posts from people who said the 850 Evo worked with their MCP79 Mac.

I have a M500 but I got mine at a good price ($110 for 480GB) a couple of years ago. (I didn't buy the M500 for the MCP79 compatibility.) But they typically aren't cheap today and it just doesn't make sense to pay a premium (there's a couple of seller's on Amazon selling the 480GB model for $400) to ensure you can run at what is a substandard speed by today's standards (3gb/sec.) instead a glacial speed (1.5gb/sec.) in a computer that's 8 years old.

Whether a SSD can run at SATA2 in a MCP79/MCP89 system should be apparent immediately. So if it can't run at SATA2, return it. (But you obviously want to avoid SSD's unlikely to work at SATA2.) If it develops other problems a few months down the road, well, that's what warranties are for. And if you buy a current one, you should be able to get a manufacturer's warranty, 5 years for the Samsung 850 Evo - something not available for something like the M500 (I had the seller's warranty for mine).

 

[Maxx Power]

I'm not sure what 850 Evo firmware you're referring to. The last firmware update (and I think the only one) appears to have been around mid-2015, which pre-dates the posts from people who said the 850 Evo worked with their MCP79 Mac.

I have a M500 but I got mine at a good price ($110 for 480GB) a couple of years ago. (I didn't buy the M500 for the MCP79 compatibility.) But they typically aren't cheap today and it just doesn't make sense to pay a premium (there's a couple of seller's on Amazon selling the 480GB model for $400) to ensure you can run at what is a substandard speed by today's standards (3gb/sec.) instead a glacial speed (1.5gb/sec.) in a computer that's 8 years old.

Whether a SSD can run at SATA2 in a MCP79/MCP89 system should be apparent immediately. So if it can't run at SATA2, return it. (But you obviously want to avoid SSD's unlikely to work at SATA2.) If it develops other problems a few months down the road, well, that's what warranties are for. And if you buy a current one, you should be able to get a manufacturer's warranty, 5 years for the Samsung 850 Evo - something not available for something like the M500 (I had the seller's warranty for mine).

I am not sure what firmware works best, but I meant that I suspect the differences between people who had success with the Samsung 850 Evo and those who didn't came down to firmware revision. The early Crucial M500s had the same issue, from memory. Some worked some didn't and Crucial issued a firmware update that fixed all of them to be compatible with the MCP-Macbooks.

I agree that it is fruitless now to buy the Crucial M500. Apparently many models subsequent to the M500 still kept the compatibility.

The apparent SATA2 speeds issue isn't the only issue. You can sometimes negotiate the proper speeds but still face data corruption. Down-negotiations to SATA1 was only ONE symptom that wasn't always there. My Intel 520 negotiated proper SATA2 speeds, but faced corruption anyway, same with my Samsung 830 that I tried. Claiming warranty is pointless, because you'll be given back the same model of SSD and it isn't even technically the SSD's fault as the issue lies with the controller.

 

[treekram]

I am not sure what firmware works best, but I meant that I suspect the differences between people who had success with the Samsung 850 Evo and those who didn't came down to firmware revision. The early Crucial M500s had the same issue, from memory. Some worked some didn't and Crucial issued a firmware update that fixed all of them to be compatible with the MCP-Macbooks.

I agree that it is fruitless now to buy the Crucial M500. Apparently many models subsequent to the M500 still kept the compatibility.

The apparent SATA2 speeds issue isn't the only issue. You can sometimes negotiate the proper speeds but still face data corruption. Down-negotiations to SATA1 was only ONE symptom that wasn't always there. My Intel 520 negotiated proper SATA2 speeds, but faced corruption anyway, same with my Samsung 830 that I tried. Claiming warranty is pointless, because you'll be given back the same model of SSD and it isn't even technically the SSD's fault as the issue lies with the controller.

As I mentioned earlier, the posters who had the 850 Evo working at SATA2 speeds in the article you linked posted after the last firmware update so there's a very good chance that it will work for the OP. There's a possibility it might not, in which case it should be immediately apparent and can be returned for a refund or another model, presuming it was purchased from a decent retailer.

The Evo 850 product line has been around since July 2014 and there is no evidence of the type of design flaw you cite (in combination with the MCP79/MCP89 or not), even though the Evo 850 will probably go down as the most popular SSD product line ever. You might get a bad apple (no pun intended), in which case you can get a warranty exchange. My 3 Evo 850's don't have this problem. The basis for your claims of problems with Samsung SSD's seem to be based on your experience with the 830, which was introduced in August 2011. You also cite the Intel 520, which was introduced in 1Q 2012. These are really ancient SSD's. One also cannot presume that because the M500 worked, all Crucial/Micron models after that will work because the MX300, BX100 and BX200 all seem to be hit-and-miss - some people say they work at SATA2, others don't. Perhaps the new MX500 will. In the Amazon US Q&A (I looked through all 106 of them), people say that they work with the Mac's with the MCP79/MCP89 but none specifically state that the system is showing SATA2 speed. The initial reviews of the MX500 are good and they have a good price ($15 cheaper than the Evo 850 for the 240GB the last time I checked), so one can try it and see if it works.

 

[Maxx Power]

As I mentioned earlier, the posters who had the 850 Evo working at SATA2 speeds in the article you linked posted after the last firmware update so there's a very good chance that it will work for the OP. There's a possibility it might not, in which case it should be immediately apparent and can be returned for a refund or another model, presuming it was purchased from a decent retailer.

The Evo 850 product line has been around since July 2014 and there is no evidence of the type of design flaw you cite (in combination with the MCP79/MCP89 or not), even though the Evo 850 will probably go down as the most popular SSD product line ever. You might get a bad apple (no pun intended), in which case you can get a warranty exchange. My 3 Evo 850's don't have this problem. The basis for your claims of problems with Samsung SSD's seem to be based on your experience with the 830, which was introduced in August 2011. You also cite the Intel 520, which was introduced in 1Q 2012. These are really ancient SSD's. One also cannot presume that because the M500 worked, all Crucial/Micron models after that will work because the MX300, BX100 and BX200 all seem to be hit-and-miss - some people say they work at SATA2, others don't. Perhaps the new MX500 will. In the Amazon US Q&A (I looked through all 106 of them), people say that they work with the Mac's with the MCP79/MCP89 but none specifically state that the system is showing SATA2 speed. The initial reviews of the MX500 are good and they have a good price ($15 cheaper than the Evo 850 for the 240GB the last time I checked), so one can try it and see if it works.

My point is that the issue isn't always "immediately apparent", it can take weeks to months to finally pinpoint the issue. It is obvious that some people who have claimed certain SSDs to work may have posted before symptoms showed up, so caution when reading these reviews on the web and DON'T assume that the issue will definitively show up during the return period of the SSD.

My second point is that for the SSDs I have tried as well as posted by others all over the net - you SOMETIMES can get a negotiated 3.0 Gbps that then fluctuates between 3.0 and 1.5 Gbps which is not obvious to the user. From reading all over the web, it seems that you can negotiate 1.5 Gbps and still have it work, or negotiate 3.0 Gbps and eventually have it not work, I don't think it is a good idea to check the status every time you boot or put the machine to sleep, or update the OS, etc. My experience with Samsungs on MCP-Macs ends with the 830, but you can see all over the web that the entire 840 series, both regular and EVO never worked either, for ALL cases I can find on the web. From that same webpage I have pointed to, a comment from late 2016:

"I acquired a Samsung 850 EVO 250gb for a mid-2009 MBP 17″ without any shadows of doubts about compatibility issues, thinking that ‘all ssds are compatible’.. how wrong was I Everybody keeps praising the Samsung EVOs but all I’ve got so far was a hanging El Capitan (scratch) installation process and a kilometer long error log. Now I’m trying the last thing to do – updating the old hdd to el capitan first, maybe that leads to something. The ssd disk works fine in an external casing but the problems start as soon as I connect it at the internal SATA cable."

I also NEVER said that all subsequent models to the Crucial M500 worked. I said "many models subsequent to the M500 still kept the compatibility". I know this because we've had threads like this one here on MacRumors and elsewhere several times now and people have done their own testing to check a few models from Crucial and it has been successful most of the time, with a single exception of the BX-series, I believe. Also, you can also see from a Mac-specific retailer that they offer the exact same advice regarding caution with any Samsungs and try a Crucial instead, see http://www.macplus.sg/solid-state-drive-upgrades-macs/.

I think we can agree on trying the new Crucial MX500. Longer endurance than the 850 EVO series and about the same in performance.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Well, I just replaced the internal 320GB HDD with a Samsung EVO 850 SSD of an early 2011 13" MacBook Pro with the following specs:

OS High Sierra
2.3 GHz Intel Core i5
16GB 1333 MHz DDR3
Graphics: Intel HD Graphics 3000 512 MB
https://support.apple.com/kb/SP619?locale=en_US&viewlocale=en_US

• MagSafe power port
• Gigabit Ethernet port
• FireWire 800 port (up to 800 Mbps)
• Two USB 2.0 ports (up to 480 Mbps)
• Thunderbolt port (up to 10 Gbps)
• Audio in/out
• SDXC card slot
• Kensington lock slot

Before removing the internal drive I used Disk Utility's Disk Doctor to check and repair as needed, but everything was fine. Then connected the SSD via a Plugable USB dock that I have, erased the drive, but did not partition.

Then I cloned the internal drive to the SSD on the Plugable dock using Carbon Copy Cloner. The next step was to test the SSD by starting the MacBook from it as follows: powered down the Mac, and restarted it by pressing the power button while holding the Option key until a "boot up" window showed on the screen. I chose the SSD, and the computer booted from it, but it took a long time just like the internal drive usually does.

I ran a few apps to make sure everything was workin fine, then powered down the MacBook and replaced the HD with the SSD. Restarted the MacBook, and it booted within a few seconds. Everything seems to be fine.
---------
However, when cloning the HD to the SSD, the only way I could do it was by doing a manual cloning that would remove the Samsung files that were in the SSD. I don't know if this will cause any trouble with the SSD, but so far I am very happy with it. Trying to clone it automatically would bring a warning indicating that the SSD could have problems booting up because of some files that weren't compatible with the MacBook (something like that), and that's why I did a manual cloning. If I have a problem with it in the future, then I will figure something else, since I am keeping the internal hard drive in case that I need it again.

By the way, my early 2011 MacBook Pro has a SATA/SATA Express Intel series 6 chipset.

 

[treekram]

One thing which confuses the issue with the MBP's is that there may be a problem with the cable or how somebody reattached the cable. People may find out later that that was the case but won't bother to append their posts saying this or that SSD won't work. People who post who actually have working SSD's where they can see what speed it's working at are more reliable in regards to the MCP79 speed issue than those that can't get a SSD working for whatever reason, IMO.

 

[vemac575]

I'll quote what I said elsewhere on this matter:

This (SSD compatibility) is a CLASSIC issue with any Nvidia MCP-chipset based Macs, all circa 2008-2011ish.

The problem is that the Nvidia controller can not properly negotiate SSD speeds and leads to both
(1) Data corruption,
(2) Sluggish speeds.

It probably has absolutely nothing to do with your SSD.

The ONLY solutions at the time (a few years ago) that were confirmed working, without data corruption in a few months time (varies from 1 month or so to a few at the most) and without downlinking from SATA II to SATA I speeds were the Crucial M500s. I also personally used this series of SSD on Nvidia MCP-series chipsets with success. There has not been a comprehensive attempt to figure out which modern SSDs since 2009-2010 era that works with the Nvidia MCP-series (79 and 89) since then.

You can google the issue, but here is a link to get you started:

http://blogs.helsinki.fi/tuylaant/2014/01/upgrading-old-macs-to-ssds/

Essentially, you need to find a Nvidia MCP-compatible SSD. How many of these are out there nowadays is anyone's guess, but essentially, all of Samsung's, Intel's, Sandisk's, etc are out. The only working solutions came from Crucial in the form of M500s, which are WAY out of production.

Be careful with your SSD selection on any Nvidia-chipset Mac.

Not true. I install SSDs in 2010 pros all the time and have had not one issue.

OP, but a SATA ll drive from ebay. Get something used and cheap like a 256gb crucial for 75-90 bucks and just pop it in. You'll be amazed at the boost.

 

[Maxx Power]

Not true. I install SSDs in 2010 pros all the time and have had not one issue.

OP, but a SATA ll drive from ebay. Get something used and cheap like a 256gb crucial for 75-90 bucks and just pop it in. You'll be amazed at the boost.

I assure you that this isn't just me. There are a LOT of threads all over the web about these issues. If you have used Crucial SSDs, then you've been lucky.
[doublepost=1519276337][/doublepost]

One thing which confuses the issue with the MBP's is that there may be a problem with the cable or how somebody reattached the cable. People may find out later that that was the case but won't bother to append their posts saying this or that SSD won't work. People who post who actually have working SSD's where they can see what speed it's working at are more reliable in regards to the MCP79 speed issue than those that can't get a SSD working for whatever reason, IMO.

There are two other factors (afaik):

(1) There was supposedly a silent Mac firmware update that increased the revision of AHCI support to 1.3. For some reason, this update didn't happen on all 2008-2010 built Macs, and those that are still running on AHCI 1.2 obviously didn't get the update. Some threads indicate that the AHCI 1.3 negotiated speeds consistently better.

(2) Those who posted too quickly indicating a combination of SSD + Mac that works, then eventually never bothered to post that it actually didn't work after a week or more of usage resulting in data corruption. Effects of slowly accumulated data corruption isn't immediate. We know this has to happen because of threads where the original post indicated success but eventually an update saying that it didn't work in the long run.

 

[vemac575]

I assure you that this isn't just me. There are a LOT of threads all over the web about these issues. If you have used Crucial SSDs, then you've been lucky.
[doublepost=1519276337][/doublepost]

There are two other factors (afaik):

(1) There was supposedly a silent Mac firmware update that increased the revision of AHCI support to 1.3. For some reason, this update didn't happen on all 2008-2010 built Macs, and those that are still running on AHCI 1.2 obviously didn't get the update. Some threads indicate that the AHCI 1.3 negotiated speeds consistently better.

(2) Those who posted too quickly indicating a combination of SSD + Mac that works, then eventually never bothered to post that it actually didn't work after a week or more of usage resulting in data corruption. Effects of slowly accumulated data corruption isn't immediate. We know this has to happen because of threads where the original post indicated success but eventually an update saying that it didn't work in the long run.

I'd acknowledge that it could possibly be luck, if I hadn't had 100% success with over 30 macs in the past year. Sorry, but I just have to call that post false. It's not just crucials either. I've used pretty much every brand. In fact, crucials seem to be the best. Look at any thread, any youtube video, it's always crucial.

 

[Maxx Power]

I'd acknowledge that it could possibly be luck, if I hadn't had 100% success with over 30 macs in the past year. Sorry, but I just have to call that post false. It's not just crucials either. I've used pretty much every brand. In fact, crucials seem to be the best. Look at any thread, any youtube video, it's always crucial.

Are you claiming that I, along with many others are making stuff up ?

Here is Toshiba outright saying that their TR150 SSD is incompatible with these Nvidia MCP-based Macs:

https://support.ocz.com/customer/en...d-nvidia-chipset-based-macs-and-motherboards-

They are not the only ones, Google around and you'll see similar posts/threads about Intel, Samsung, Sandisk and Corsair. To my mind, there are obviously compatibility issues.

It has been a long time since I personally tested SSDs, so what I said really doesn't clash what your personal experience - given that you installed SSDs in the past year. A lot have changed in terms of SSD firmware, models, controllers and even Mac firmwares have updated since the Samsung 840 series and the Crucial M550s. Either way, I am advocating precaution and you seem to just brush it off, which I think is bad advice.

 

[treekram]

(1) There was supposedly a silent Mac firmware update that increased the revision of AHCI support to 1.3. For some reason, this update didn't happen on all 2008-2010 built Macs, and those that are still running on AHCI 1.2 obviously didn't get the update. Some threads indicate that the AHCI 1.3 negotiated speeds consistently better.

There was an firmware update (1.7) for the mid-2009 MBP which fixed a problem where it couldn't do 3Gbps (SATA2). But this wasn't "silent" as information on it has been available on the Apple website since 2009.
https://support.apple.com/kb/DL853?locale=en_US

This firmware update came on June 22, 2009. The mid-2009 MBP was introduced on June 8, 2009. It doesn't hurt to ask people who are only getting SATA1 speeds on the mid-2009 MBP to see if they have this update (this is the only update for the mid-2009 MBP, according to Apple: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201518 ). But I would guess that most people have this update.

Now, compared to what's happened recently with regards to documenting EFI updates, there's quite a bit of information on the earlier EFI updates.
https://support.apple.com/downloads/macbook_pro_efi_firmware_update

Other than the 1.7 update for the 2009 MBP, I don't see any which address the SATA speed issue (I checked up to 2.5). So if you have information about some other firmware update which either fixed the SATA speed issue or updated the AHCI, please post links.

In terms of the AHCI version, I couldn't find good technical documentation on the MCP79 from Nvidia in a quick web search. It might be lumped with the GPU since it was part of the chipset. If the AHCI version was changed, it was either in the Nvidia firmware or the MCP79 supported both 1.2 and 1.3 from the start. I don't think that's the case. It appears that the MCP79 was 1.2 and the MCP89 was 1.3. In my late-2009 Mini (MCP79), for which Apple did not issue any firmware updates, it's AHCI 1.2. Now I suppose Apple could have ignored the late-2009 Mini with regards to this. But the scenarios where the AHCI version was updated within the same SATA chip don't make sense to me. I could be persuaded otherwise if you have a post from somebody who has a MCP79 with AHCI 1.3 or a MCP89 with AHCI 1.2. There's a lot of data out there as when people post either a screenshot or copy-and-paste from the System Information screen with the negotiated link speed, they usually include the SATA chip and the AHCI version. Not that this makes much difference as there are people who have MCP79/AHCI 1.2 who can get SATA2 and people who have MCP89/AHCI 1.3 who can't (with specific SSD's). On my mid-2009 Mini with the MCP79, the HDD shows a negotiated link speed of 3gbs (of course it can't transfer data that quickly).