SSD Hard Drive Upgrade For 2011 13" Base MBP

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by gregpod9, Aug 6, 2011.

  1. gregpod9 macrumors regular

    Apr 27, 2007
    I have a 2011 13" base MBP and I recently got the Seagate Momentus XT hard drive. I will be returning the Seagate hard drive because it has the common issues that people are having with this drive.

    I want to purchase a SSD hard drive that has at least 128 gb to 160 gb. Which brand of ssd hard drive do you recommend? The purpose of the ssd hard drive will be for OS X, Windows 7, and Parallels. I will be using an external hard drive for my music, videos, downloads, and documents.
  2. Mak47 macrumors 6502a

    Mar 27, 2011
    Harrisburg, PA
    I just put a Crucial M4 128GB into my MBP 13. Very easy, supports TRIM with Trim enabler, and connects at 6Gbps.

    There's a firmware update for it that I haven't installed. The Crucial rep said not to worry about it unless I had trouble with the drive and I haven't--so far so good.
  3. Chiuy macrumors 6502

    May 24, 2011
    NorCal, Bay Area
    I also recommend Crucial, it's the most reliable and probably one of the fastest.
  4. blugrn6 macrumors newbie

    Aug 5, 2011
    I don't know much about the crucial drives but I'd recommend OWC's Mercury extreme pro just because you don't have to worry about getting the TRIM enabler. The pro has its own wear level management and garbage collection that acts just like TRIM built into the hardware. I talked to the OWC guys and they specifically told me that this would help reduce the drive's performance decrease just like TRIM. But, mind you that if you use the pro, DON'T enable the TRIM as it will decrease the performance. It's also one of the fastest SSD's out there.

    On another note, I'm on the market for an SSD and would love some info about the CRUCIAL.
  5. cinek macrumors 6502

    Mar 12, 2011
    I also recommend Crucial

    the keyword here is that you spoke to the guys from OWC - they'll tell you what you want to hear
  6. blugrn6 macrumors newbie

    Aug 5, 2011
    lol I know about that OWC rep thing too. Not too reliable but I've looked through macrumors and the OWC users on here do say that the SSD works fine. But, some users have been known to experience failures. So, just a word of caution. I'm in the same boat too.
  7. Fugue macrumors 6502

    Jan 14, 2011
    Hows the battery life?
  8. gregpod9 thread starter macrumors regular

    Apr 27, 2007
    I want to buy the Crucial M4 128 gb ssd hard drive and I'm still using Snow Leopard version 10.6.8 on my 2011 13" base mbp and it will not support trim for non-apple ssd hard drives. Is trim important for ssd hard drives? Now I'm hearing about this 3rd party driver called Trim Enabler, does it cause issues with ssd hard drives?
  9. jimbo1mcm macrumors 68000

    Mar 21, 2010
    Trim enabler

    Using Trim Enabler on my Samsung 470 SSD with Lion. Absolutely no problems.MBP 2011 13
  10. awer25 macrumors 65816


    Apr 30, 2011
    I have the Vertex 3 and haven't ever had a problem with it.
  11. 2hvy4grvty macrumors 6502

    Jun 17, 2011
    OWC drives are so blown out of proportion. Run of the mill Sandforce drives at a premium? No thanks.
  12. V4705 macrumors 6502

    Mar 23, 2009
    Maybe its a n00b question but what is the reason to get anything else than Vertex3 ? Anandtech's benchmarks still show Vertex3 as the fastest SSD.
  13. 2hvy4grvty macrumors 6502

    Jun 17, 2011
    Reliability. Just about every Sandforce drive is a bottom dweller when speaking # of faulty drives.

    Stick to Intel, Crucial, and Samsung. Tried and true drives. Samsung is only available in SATA II though, and Intel is damn expensive. Crucial is the fastest of the three anyway.
  14. V4705 macrumors 6502

    Mar 23, 2009
    Thanks for the informative answer!
    BTW, what is the difference between C300 and M4?
  15. 2hvy4grvty macrumors 6502

    Jun 17, 2011
    One's old, one's new? They're both technically SATA IIIs, but the M4 will generally provide better performance.
  16. egi macrumors newbie

    Aug 2, 2011
    M4 is a cheaper version of C300. while it has faster sequential speeds the access times on C300 are a tiny bit better. overall the differences are very little, but I would choose the C300 if it was about the same price as M4.
  17. 2hvy4grvty macrumors 6502

    Jun 17, 2011
    That's false. I don't think M4 was meant to be cheaper, it was meant as a successor. In any case:

    Random reads are down, but random writes are up. Random writes are responsible for overall system's "snappy" feel, what users look for in an OS drive. Reads are... gaming?

    If you don't understand what each means, here's a more real world comparison. This is done on SATA II controllers, which the C300 (while SATA III) was built for.

    Sequential speeds heavily favor the M4, but that's irrelevant for normal use. it's just odd the C300 hasn't dropped in price, but I guess it's still a really good drive. There's no reason for it to cost THAT much though, being a lesser drive. If the C300 is 10% cheaper, get it, otherwise, stick with the equally rock solid M4.
  18. kasakka macrumors 68000

    Oct 25, 2008
    Pretty much any SSD will be a big improvement over HDD. However when comparing SSDs you'll only see differences in specific cases and in tests. My Intel X25-M G2 and OCZ Agility 3 are one generation apart and in normal everyday use there is no perceivable difference, except the Intel has far superior compatibility (OCZ would not work on my desktop PC but the Intel did).

Share This Page