Resolved SSDs (SATA) and negotiated link speeds ?

[0002378]

How many of you have custom-installed (internal) SSDs in your (any model year/variant) Macbook Pro ? (i.e. the SSD didn't come with the MBP, you installed it yourself) I'm particularly interested in the mid-2009 13" MBP model (mine) and the Crucial MX300 275GB SATA SSD (soon to be mine), but no matter what your MBP/SSD model, please answer. The more your specs match mine, the better, but I'll take any info I can get. Please note - I'm only interested in the SATA SSD's not the PCIe ones.

I ask this because I've read reports of 2009 Macbook Pros not properly negotiating SATA link speeds when replacing a HDD with certain SSDs. People with SATA II interfaces (3 Gbps) are seeing the negotiated link speed as SATA I (1.5 Gbps) thus limiting the SSD even though twice that speed is possible. In a nutshell, the SSD is SATA III, the MBP supports SATA II, but is only allowing SATA I.

Please answer any/all of the following, to the best of your ability. Gratitude.

- Is the SATA interface (specified by your MBP model) you're using for your SSD a SATA I, II, or III ? i.e. is the max speed (aka "link speed") 1.5, 3, or 6 Gbps ?
- What is the negotiated link speed of your SATA interface for the SSD ? This can be found in the System Report > Hardware > SATA. System Report can be reached through the "About this Mac" dialog.
- If your interface is SATA I (1.5 Gbps) or SATA II (3 Gbps), what kinds of speeds are you seeing from your SSD (sustained I/O, random 4K, etc) ? The more info you can provide, the better.
- What are your system specs (model year/number/variant e.g. "mid 2009" or "5,5" , OS major/minor version, SSD model and capacity)
- Have you installed the SSD in the main HDD bay or the optical drive bay (in newer Macs, optical may not apply) ?
- Are you booting from the SSD or is it a secondary drive ?

Final Q - If your negotiated link speed is/was lower than your max link speed, how did you solve this problem ?

I've ordered a Crucial MX300 275 GB SSD and am trying to do my homework before the drive arrives, so I can sort out any potential issues expeditiously upon arrival and before the return period expires.

Thanks !

 

[treekram]

I have seen several people report that the MX300 will only run at SATA1 speeds on Mac's with the Nvidia MCP79 (which I believe your computer has). There was a thread a few months back where there was some fix that got an SSD (I can't remember which one) to work at SATA2, but would have to be re-done. Even if it has 25GB less, I think the Samsung 850 Evo is a better choice for computers with the MCP79 as it seems to work in almost all cases at SATA2. I'll try to see if I can find the thread or maybe the person that wrote about it will respond.

Previous Crucial models (M500, MX100/200, BX100/200) were able to work with the MCP79. It's unfortunate that Crucial continues to list the MX300 as compatible with the MCP79 computers without any kind of warning.

 

[v1597psh]

I used to have Mac mini Late 2009 with MCP79 in it. I bought SanDisk Plus SATA III SSD and negotiating speed stuck at 1.5Gb/s. So I exchanged it for Kingston V300. I got it working at full SATA II speeds and getting around 200-250MB/s on both read and write. I installed it in optibay and left my internal HDD untouched. Everything was working fine until I sold the machine.

 

[treekram]

The thread I mentioned earlier is:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mini-ssd-upgrade-2009-vs-2012.2030743/#post-24265956

The thread deals with the Crucial BX200 (so I shouldn't have included that on my post of discontinued Crucials that worked with the MCP79). If you read through this thread, make sure you read through at least post #22 where the poster who wrote about the fix mentions that it had to be re-applied every time the machine was turned on (and the fix required the computer to remain idle for 8 hours). Also note that this fix may not work for all SSD's than won't work at SATA2 initially.

 

[0002378]

treekram - Take a bow ! Sir/Madam, you have likely saved me from hours of hair pulling. I sincerely thank you.

I read the threads you shared and also Googled MCP79 SSD compatibility. It does seem that the Samsung 850 EVO (which was my other considered option anyway, when I ordered the Crucial) is better compatible with the MCP79 controller.

I've canceled my Crucial order and ordered the Samsung 850 EVO. Lose 25GB, gain sleep quality.
[doublepost=1496224225][/doublepost]

I used to have Mac mini Late 2009 with MCP79 in it. I bought SanDisk Plus SATA III SSD and negotiating speed stuck at 1.5Gb/s. So I exchanged it for Kingston V300. I got it working at full SATA II speeds and getting around 200-250MB/s on both read and write. I installed it in optibay and left my internal HDD untouched. Everything was working fine until I sold the machine.

Great, thanks for all the info ! I was actually considering the SanDisk Plus SSD (along with the Crucial and Samsung). Glad I didn't get it !

Good to know that Kingston V300 works. Keeping that in mind in case the Samsung doesn't work

 

[robvas]

The NVIDIA chipset stinks...

I have a Samsung 840 in my 2010 and it works at 3Gbs. But I have had plenty of Sandforce chipsets over the years that would not work past 1.5Gbs, there's a bug in the auto-negotiate. OWC and OCZ had firmware updates that would lock the drive at 3.0Gbs, but I haven't tried any Crucial drives in those systems.

 

[0002378]

The NVIDIA chipset stinks...

I have a Samsung 840 in my 2010 and it works at 3Gbs. But I have had plenty of Sandforce chipsets over the years that would not work past 1.5Gbs, there's a bug in the auto-negotiate. OWC and OCZ had firmware updates that would lock the drive at 3.0Gbs, but I haven't tried any Crucial drives in those systems.

Great, thanks for the info. I went ahead and ordered the Samsung 850 Evo (canceled the Crucial order). I have a good feeling about the Samsung, because of the overwhelmingly good reviews and compatibility reports. OWC products seem a bit overpriced, but maybe that's because they guarantee Mac compatibility ?

 

[treekram]

There was a poster a few months back who said they bought a SATA2 SSD from OWC for a MCP79-equipped Mac. The poster said they could only get SATA1 speed and that OWC refused to take the SSD back saying it worked and that's all that mattered.

The thing about the 850 Evo right now is that it's less than $10 more expensive on Amazon (250GB model). So I don't see anything, other than the 25GB extra that the MX300 has over the 850 Evo (and I have a couple of Crucial SSD's, as well as 3 of the 250GB 850 Evo's).

 

[0002378]

There was a poster a few months back who said they bought a SATA2 SSD from OWC for a MCP79-equipped Mac. The poster said they could only get SATA1 speed and that OWC refused to take the SSD back saying it worked and that's all that mattered.

The thing about the 850 Evo right now is that it's less than $10 more expensive on Amazon (250GB model). So I don't see anything, other than the 25GB extra that the MX300 has over the 850 Evo (and I have a couple of Crucial SSD's, as well as 3 of the 250GB 850 Evo's).

Hmm, interesting (about OWC).

I agree with you about the 850 Evo. Easy decision to make.

Are your 850s all running at SATA 3 ? Do you have any running on SATA 2 anywhere ? If so, I'd be interested in any benchmarks you've obtained. Thanks.

Heck, I'd even be interested in the SATA 3 benchmarks, if you have any ! I've seen a few online ones, so I'm interested in your particular results.

 

[treekram]

Hmm, interesting (about OWC).

I agree with you about the 850 Evo. Easy decision to make.

Are your 850s all running at SATA 3 ? Do you have any running on SATA 2 anywhere ? If so, I'd be interested in any benchmarks you've obtained. Thanks.

Heck, I'd even be interested in the SATA 3 benchmarks, if you have any ! I've seen a few online ones, so I'm interested in your particular results.

2 of my Evo's are in a mid-2012 MBP and one is in a USB enclosure, so I haven't tested them in an MCP79 computer, although I have one - a late-2009 Mini. But that machine's a pain to open so I haven't bothered to put try out the SSD there. The only benchmarking I do is the Blackmagic Disk Speed Test app, which really is very limited (but easy and fast!). I don't know if you can find comprehensive benchmarks of SATA3 SSD's in SATA2 computers.

For my Evo's in my mid-2012 MBP, I get 485 write, 500+ read. One thing I notice about all my Evo's with Blackmagic (not the case with the Crucial's I have) is that after the first read, the write numbers go down to about 320. In a USB enclosure I get 400 write, 410 read (subsequent writes about 320).

 

[Audit13]

I have a 13" mid 2010 Macbook Pro, 10 GB ram (1 x 2 GB 1066, 1 x 8 GB 1333), Sierra 10.12.5

nVidia mcp89 ahci
Link speed: 3 gigabit
Negotiated link speed: 3 gigabit
Ssd installed in hard drive bay: Geil a3 120 GB
Black magic disk results: 138 write, 265 read

Hope this is helpful.

Edit: I had a spare 8 GB ram stick which is why I only upgraded to 10 (1 x 8, 1 x 2) from 4 (2 x 2).

 

[0002378]

I have a 13" mid 2010 Macbook Pro, 10 GB ram, Sierra 10.12.5

nVidia mcp89 ahci
Link speed: 3 gigabit
Negotiated link speed: 3 gigabit
Ssd installed in hard drive bay: Geil a3 120 GB
Black magic disk results: 138 write, 265 read

Hope this is helpful.

Awesome, thank you ! This is exactly the kind of info I'm looking for.

BTW, does your MBP have 4 RAM slots or 2 ? I'm guessing you must have 2x4GB + 2x1GB ? Or maybe 1x8GB + 1x2GB if only two slots. I'm wondering why you didn't max out the RAM, in any case.

[doublepost=1496273696][/doublepost]

I don't know if you can find comprehensive benchmarks of SATA3 SSD's in SATA2 computers.

Yup, I discovered that yesterday, and that was a big part of the motivation to write this thread. I guess most people out there have newer machines, so benchmarking on SATA II is not a priority for anyone.

I did, however, come across an interesting article on Tom's Hardware that found that, for most practical daily use, there is literally no difference between SATA II and III. Things like 4k random read and latency/access time matter more than sustained sequential I/O for most users. The "real world" results showed very little difference between the two.

If you're interested, http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-upgrade-sata-3gbps,3469.html

 

[0002378]

This issue has been resolved, people ! Thanks to everyone who responded, especially treekram !

I popped in my new Samsung 850 EVO. I'm seeing a negotiated link speed of 3Gbps (SATA II), and sustained speeds look great ! (see images)

 

[Audit13]

Congratulations. Don't forget to enable trim.

 

[EugW]

The NVIDIA chipset stinks...

I have a Samsung 840 in my 2010 and it works at 3Gbs. But I have had plenty of Sandforce chipsets over the years that would not work past 1.5Gbs, there's a bug in the auto-negotiate. OWC and OCZ had firmware updates that would lock the drive at 3.0Gbs, but I haven't tried any Crucial drives in those systems.

My Samsung 840 EVO negotiates at SATA II with a MacBookPro5,5 but my Intel 330 negotiates at SATA I with a MacBook5,1.

Intel 330 is SandForce, so I guess that explains it. BTW, that Intel 330 caused problems with my Windows machine too so I blame SandForce. I had a net-top machine and Windows 10 simply refused to install on it with the Intel 330 installed. I put in a different drive and all was fine.