Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

SSD for MBP medio 2010

D

DennisMadsen

macrumors regular
Original poster
Sep 21, 2010
125
0
I have a 13" MacBook Pro (medio 2010). I would like to buy a SSD with minimum 100GB. As far as I know, my MBP does not have SATAIII.

Which SSD would you recommend? If a SATAIII disk will work fine in my MBP, I would prefer to buy a SATAIII so that I can use in my next MBP.
 
DennisMadsen said:
I see in Hellhammers "SSD Buying Guide" that he recommends the Intel 320 for my MBP. But I not sure why this would be better then, for instance, a Crucial M4. Mainly because of reliability?
Click to expand...

Well maybe at the time SATA II SSDs like the Intel 320 were cheaper, and at the moment you won't get all the benefit of a SATA III SSD with your model of MBP, also I think the firmware of the Crucial M4 wasn't so good at the time.

Fast-forward to now, and SATA III SSDs like the Crucial M4 are actually *cheaper* than the Intel 320 and Crucial have released better firmware for the M4

At least, that's my take on it! :)
 
DennisMadsen said:
I see in Hellhammers "SSD Buying Guide" that he recommends the Intel 320 for my MBP. But I not sure why this would be better then, for instance, a Crucial M4. Mainly because of reliability?
Click to expand...

At the time of his post there were compatibility problems with many of the SATA III drives in the 2011 MBP. The latest EFI update seems to have fixed that problem.
 
Weaselboy said:
At the time of his post there were compatibility problems with many of the SATA III drives in the 2011 MBP. The latest EFI update seems to have fixed that problem.
Click to expand...

Yes, there's that too, I didn't mention that because the original poster has a pre-2011 MBP, but this would partially explain Hellhammer's original recommendations.

Pity you *still* can't use SATA III SSD drives in the optibay of current Macbook Pros (except it seems the 13" one), as although they're now equipped for SATA III, they don't seem to work in SATA III mode (see: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1236401/ and http://blog.macsales.com/11895-2011-macbook-pro-sata-problems-resolved):

#2 – For those with a MacBook Pro 15″ or 17″ model that has SATA 3.0 6Gb/s link capability reported, it is very important to note that this EFI update does not appear to have resolved reliability of using a 6Gb/s drive in the optical bay. If you have a 6Gb/s optical drive bay connnection and are using a product like our Data Doubler, we still recommend only using a SATA 2.0 3Gb/s drive in that bay. MacBook Pro 13″ owners who find 6Gb/s links in their optical bay are not experiencing issues with 6Gb/s drives and this update doesn’t affect that usage.
 
oxfordguy said:
Yes, there's that too, I didn't mention that because the original poster has a pre-2011 MBP, but this would partially explain Hellhammer's original recommendations.

Pity you *still* can't use SATA III SSD drives in the optibay of current Macbook Pros (except it seems the 13" one), as although they're now equipped for SATA III, they don't seem to work in SATA III mode (see: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1236401/ and http://blog.macsales.com/11895-2011-macbook-pro-sata-problems-resolved):

#2 – For those with a MacBook Pro 15″ or 17″ model that has SATA 3.0 6Gb/s link capability reported, it is very important to note that this EFI update does not appear to have resolved reliability of using a 6Gb/s drive in the optical bay. If you have a 6Gb/s optical drive bay connnection and are using a product like our Data Doubler, we still recommend only using a SATA 2.0 3Gb/s drive in that bay. MacBook Pro 13″ owners who find 6Gb/s links in their optical bay are not experiencing issues with 6Gb/s drives and this update doesn’t affect that usage.
Click to expand...

I'm do not completely understand your explanation here, but you still recommend buying a Crucial M4?
 
oxfordguy said:
Yes, this doesn't affect your Macbook model anyway, was just a warning in case someone tries to put a SATA III SSD in the optibay of a 2011 MBP...
Click to expand...

What about a SSD like OCZ Vertex 3? It seems to be faster then the Crucial M4, which of cause doesn't have any effect for my current SATA2, but if I get a new MBP this could be more future prove?
 
DennisMadsen said:
What about a SSD like OCZ Vertex 3? It seems to be faster then the Crucial M4, which of cause doesn't have any effect for my current SATA2, but if I get a new MBP this could be more future prove?
Click to expand...

With the latest firmware updates I don't think there's much difference in speeds (unless someone wants to correct me on this, I'm no expert!) and the OCZ Vertex 3 is more expensive and has a smaller capacity (240Gb vs 256Gb or 120Gb vs 128Gb).
 
DennisMadsen said:
What about a SSD like OCZ Vertex 3? It seems to be faster then the Crucial M4, which of cause doesn't have any effect for my current SATA2, but if I get a new MBP this could be more future prove?
Click to expand...

Here's another one to consider:
Corsair CSSD-F240GB2/RF2 F240 Force Series Solid State Drive - 240GB, 2.5", SATA II, 3Gbps (Refurbished)

I have the Performance Series Corsair in my 2010 MBP and am very happy with it. The Force is a step up if I recall correctly - and is $249 at tiger Direct - pretty cheap for 240GB.
 
I have the same MBP as the OP, and also want to upgrade to an SSD. But I'm thinking of going with a 64 gig, and putting a big HD in the optibay. For those who've done this, is it fairly seamless to store files in the HD versus the SSD? Would there be a drive on the desktop like I have with my external HD?
Jeff
 
tills24 said:
I have the same MBP as the OP, and also want to upgrade to an SSD. But I'm thinking of going with a 64 gig, and putting a big HD in the optibay. For those who've done this, is it fairly seamless to store files in the HD versus the SSD? Would there be a drive on the desktop like I have with my external HD?
Jeff
Click to expand...

I've not done the optibay thing yet, but have been researching things and planning, though I can't say how seamless the while experience is.

As for going for only a 64 gig drive, that's not going to give you much 'headroom', though I guess it depends on how many apps you have (as you will want all of these in the SSD) and whether you'll be running Bootcamp for Windows and/or Virtual Machines via VMware Fusion/Parallels. For me even 128Gb will be tight, so I'm thinking of going for 256Gb, though obviously this will cost more...
 
DennisMadsen said:
Which SSD would you recommend? If a SATAIII disk will work fine in my MBP, I would prefer to buy a SATAIII so that I can use in my next MBP.
Click to expand...

One more thought:
Unless a SATA III is close in price to a SATA II so that the price difference isn't a big deal I'd go with a SATA II for several reasons:

1)You probably won't notice any differences in real world use - even though the throughput can be 2X as fast; unless you are maxing out data transfer for large files you won't really benefit from a faster throughput rate.
2) By the time you get a new Mac (assuming at least a year) - SATA III drives will have gotten cheaper - and you'll probably want more capacity by then anyway.
3) Assuming you ell or give away the old MBP - A SSD will add some value if you sell it; if you give it away you'll probably wind up leaving it in anyway if it's for a family member or good friend.

I faced the same choice and went with a 256gb refurb SATA II because the price was very compelling (bout $250). I found the speed increase to be significant enough that I am quite happy with its performance in everyday use (IT takes longer to enter my password than to boot, programs pop one with no bounces), so should I decide to keep it, it will still work in a new MBP at a fraction of the cost of a similar SATA III drive.
 
I'm running an OCZ Vertex 2 (SATA II) in an early 2011 MBP, and it works great. It's SATA II in a SATA III machine, but it's still insanely fast. For general use, I don't think SATA II or III makes much difference, as it's not the sequential read time that makes it fast, it's the elimination of seek time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back