What is the fastest SSD (1TB) I can use in a macbook 6,2 (2010)

[FunkTechNician]

I'm looking to upgrade my hybrid drive in my MacBook Pro (15-inch, Mid 2010) 2.5 GHz 6,2 to an ssd. I need it for Final Cut Pro. When i first upgraded from the factory drive to the hybrid drive years ago final cut was running smoothly. I'm upgraded the OS through the years. Now it takes forever a a day just to load and dragging the timeline slider has serious lag. I need something that isn't going to take forever to load. I was looking at the
Mercury Extreme® Pro 6G SSD from OWC. But i was wondering if there is something better around 400$ or less? I know I'm limited with an older macbook.

 

[JTToft]

I was looking at the
Mercury Extreme® Pro 6G SSD from OWC. But i was wondering if there is something better around 400$ or less?

- There is. Get Samsung 850 EVO in your desired capacity. It's $330 on Amazon in 1 TB.
If cost is important, SanDisk Ultra II in 960 GB can be had for $225 on Amazon.

 

[jerryk]

You can get a Samsung Evo 850 1TB for about $320. I have several 500GB Evo 850s and they work great.

Also, I don't know if it is true about the 15" MBPs, but on my 2010 13" the SATA was limited to 3GB/sec and thus the SATA interface, not the SSD, was the limiting factor. You can see if your system has the lower limit from About this Mac | System Report | SATA | Negotiated speed. If it is 3 GB you have the slower interface.

 

[FunkTechNician]

Negotiated Link Speed: 3 Gigabit

That's what it says in the About. So i guess its the slow interface. Does that mean it doesn't matter what ssd i get its all going to be the same speed? Mercury Extreme, Samsung Evo 850, and San Disk will all be the same on this computer? my only concern is getting the computer the fastest possible under 500$ for 960gb-1gb of space. I only need this computer for video editing on final cut pro/Image editing on Photoshop. the longer i can go without getting a brand new mac the better.

whats difference from a 850 evo and pro? if makes no difference with my mac i wouldn't want to waste money

You can get a Samsung Evo 850 1TB for about $320. I have several 500GB Evo 850s and they work great.

Also, I don't know if it is true about the 15" MBPs, but on my 2010 13" the SATA was limited to 3GB/sec and thus the SATA interface, not the SSD, was the limiting factor. You can see if your system has the lower limit from About this Mac | System Report | SATA | Negotiated speed. If it is 3 GB you have the slower interface.

 

[jerryk]

Negotiated Link Speed: 3 Gigabit

That's what it says in the About. So i guess its the slow interface. Does that mean it doesn't matter what ssd i get its all going to be the same speed? Mercury Extreme, Samsung Evo 850, and San Disk will all be the same on this computer? my only concern is getting the computer the fastest possible under 500$ for 960gb-1gb of space. I only need this computer for video editing on final cut pro/Image editing on Photoshop. the longer i can go without getting a brand new mac the better.

whats difference from a 850 evo and pro? if makes no difference with my mac i wouldn't want to waste money

The 850 pro has better longevity. But the 850 is warranted for 5 years already. In most cases there really is not much of a reason to go with the 850 pro over the 850

 

[FunkTechNician]

The 850 pro has better longevity. But the 850 is warranted for 5 years already. In most cases there really is not much of a reason to go with the 850 pro over the 850

Thank you I will go with the Evo then. Do i need something called Trim if i do a fresh install? I was thinking of El Capitan or Yosemite?

 

[treekram]

The 850 Pro has a 10-year warranty, vs. 5 for the Evo. The Pro is also faster under heavy loads, but I don't know that you would be able to take advantage of that with the SATA2 that the 2010 MBP has. One thing you will have to be careful about is that many MBP's of that time period have the NVidia MCP79 SATA chipset and some SSD's work at SATA1 speeds or don't work reliably at all. It may be that the 15" has the MCP89. You can check on the same report where the Link/Negotiated speed is. It will be in the upper right window. There were fewer problems with the MCP89. The 850 Pro/Evo are OK. Avoid SanDisks. Crucial's are OK. In looking at Amazon, I also would avoid the OCZ's and Corsair's. The BX-200 is about $90 cheaper than the 850 Evo but by all accounts, the BX-200 is not one of Crucial's best efforts in the area of performance. But again, it may not matter in the 2010 MBP. I don't know that anybody has benchmarks for SATA3 drives in SATA2 computers. If you think you will re-purpose the SSD in the future, the 850 Evo/Pro is probably a better choice.

EDIT: Looks like you made your decision as I was typing. Can't go wrong with the Evo. OSX has native Trim support in Yosemite 10.10.4 and later and El Capitan.

 

[JTToft]

Does that mean it doesn't matter what ssd i get its all going to be the same speed? Mercury Extreme, Samsung Evo 850, and San Disk will all be the same on this computer?

- Not entirely. There are differences which could be felt on your machine a well. But the difference will be less on yours than on newer machines.

whats difference from a 850 evo and pro? if makes no difference with my mac i wouldn't want to waste money

- 5 year vs. 10 year warranty. Pro can sustain higher performance under extremely intensive workloads. On your machine, I wouldn't bother with the Pro.

Thank you I will go with the Evo then. Do i need something called Trim if i do a fresh install? I was thinking of El Capitan or Yosemite?

- Yes. Simply run the below command in terminal on your first boot.

sudo trimforce enable

by all accounts, the BX-200 is not one of Crucial's best efforts in the area of performance.

- That's the understatement of the year. It's horrendous. On writes beyond a few GBs, it drops to below HDD speeds.
Even on an old SATA II machine, this drive would be slow.

 

[FunkTechNician]

The 850 Pro has a 10-year warranty, vs. 5 for the Evo. The Pro is also faster under heavy loads, but I don't know that you would be able to take advantage of that with the SATA2 that the 2010 MBP has. One thing you will have to be careful about is that many MBP's of that time period have the NVidia MCP79 SATA chipset and some SSD's work at SATA1 speeds or don't work reliably at all. It may be that the 15" has the MCP89. You can check on the same report where the Link/Negotiated speed is. It will be in the upper right window. There were fewer problems with the MCP89. The 850 Pro/Evo are OK. Avoid SanDisks. Crucial's are OK. In looking at Amazon, I also would avoid the OCZ's and Corsair's. The BX-200 is about $90 cheaper than the 850 Evo but by all accounts, the BX-200 is not one of Crucial's best efforts in the area of performance. But again, it may not matter in the 2010 MBP. I don't know that anybody has benchmarks for SATA3 drives in SATA2 computers. If you think you will re-purpose the SSD in the future, the 850 Evo/Pro is probably a better choice.

EDIT: Looks like you made your decision as I was typing. Can't go wrong with the Evo. OSX has native Trim support in Yosemite 10.10.4 and later and El Capitan.

I cant find any info about MCP89 or MCP79

Intel 5 Series Chipset:

Vendor: Intel
Product: 5 Series Chipset
Link Speed: 3 Gigabit
Negotiated Link Speed: 3 Gigabit
Physical Interconnect: SATA
Description: AHCI Version 1.30 Supported

http://www.everymac.com/systems/app...-2.53-aluminum-15-mid-2010-unibody-specs.html

 

[treekram]

I cant find any info about MCP89 or MCP79

Intel 5 Series Chipset:

Vendor: Intel
Product: 5 Series Chipset
Link Speed: 3 Gigabit
Negotiated Link Speed: 3 Gigabit
Physical Interconnect: SATA
Description: AHCI Version 1.30 Supported

http://www.everymac.com/systems/app...-2.53-aluminum-15-mid-2010-unibody-specs.html

That's interesting. Even though the NVidia MCP79/89 is a problem for a lot of people who do SSD upgrades for Macs of that era, nobody that I've seen has compiled a list of which MBP's use which SATA chips. The higher-end 2010 MBP's use Intel i5/i7 vs. Core 2 Duo for the 13". It looks like those with the i5/i7 got the Intel 5 Series SATA. So thanks for following up on what SATA chipset you have. That does open your options up if you wish to get something like a SanDisk, etc.

 

[FunkTechNician]

That's interesting. Even though the NVidia MCP79/89 is a problem for a lot of people who do SSD upgrades for Macs of that era, nobody that I've seen has compiled a list of which MBP's use which SATA chips. The higher-end 2010 MBP's use Intel i5/i7 vs. Core 2 Duo for the 13". It looks like those with the i5/i7 got the Intel 5 Series SATA. So thanks for following up on what SATA chipset you have. That does open your options up if you wish to get something like a SanDisk, etc.

so is the samsung 850 still going to be my best option? im getting ready to order within the next few days. thank god for amazon prime so i can get it installed already.

 

[treekram]

so is the samsung 850 still going to be my best option? im getting ready to order within the next few days. thank god for amazon prime so i can get it installed already.

The 850 Evo is a good choice. If you want to save some money (about $100), the SanDisk Ultra II is an older drive which doesn't perform as well but you may not notice the difference in the 2010 MBP. There's a review in
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8520/sandisk-ultra-ii-240gb-ssd-review
Some notes: larger drives of the same model tend to perform better; there are comparisons with the 850 Pro and the 840 Evo, so a direct comparison is not made in this review.