why is my 2010 MBP slow?

[ghanwani]

I find my machine very slow even when browsing the web using Chrome. It's probably not the processor.

What is the likely cause?

Is it the memory (4GB)?

Is it the SSD (about 18 GB free)?

Is it Chrome?

I was almost certain I'd upgrade to a newer machine, but I don't like rMBP as I had some issues with encryption on the disk and I'm hearing a number of screen problems not to mention lag. I was almost set on an MBA when I found the edges too sharp while playing with it in the store. Then I started thinking about the MB despite the lack of ports, but just saw an article saying it clocks in at 2011 MBA speeds which means it's probably close to my 2010 MBP!

So would I even benefit from an upgrade, or should I just try and fix my existing machine...the only obvious thing being the SSD, but would that really make a difference to browsing speeds?

Is the Geekbench score a CPU centric score or does it also account for memory speed and SSD speed?

 

[yjchua95]

I find my machine very slow even when browsing the web using Chrome. It's probably not the processor.

What is the likely cause?

Is it the memory (4GB)?

Is it the SSD (about 18 GB free)?

Is it Chrome?

I was almost certain I'd upgrade, but I don't like rMBP as I had some issues with encryption on the disk and I'm hearing a number of screen problems not to mention lag. I was almost set on an MBA when I found the edges too sharp while playing with it in the store. Then I started thinking about the MB despite the lack of ports, but just saw an article saying it clocks in at 2011 MBA speeds which means it's probably close to my 2010 MBP!

So would I even benefit from an upgrade, or should I just try and fix my existing machine...the only obvious thing being the SSD, but would that really make a difference to browsing speeds?

Is the Geekbench score a CPU centric score or does it also account for memory speed and SSD speed?

It's probably the lack of RAM and definitely Chrome. Chrome is a resource hog.

Geekbench also accounts for RAM performance.

The problems with the rMBP are overhyped. I've got a late-2013 13" rMBP (i7/16/512) and I've yet to see any issues with my screen or any lag (aside from the buggy Mission Control lag with multiple windows open, but that's a Yosemite problem, because it even happens to my 5K iMac with 4GB M295X).

 

[California]

I find my machine very slow even when browsing the web using Chrome. It's probably not the processor.

What is the likely cause?

Is it the memory (4GB)?

Is it the SSD (about 18 GB free)?

Is it Chrome?

I was almost certain I'd upgrade, but I don't like rMBP as I had some issues with encryption on the disk and I'm hearing a number of screen problems not to mention lag. I was almost set on an MBA when I found the edges too sharp while playing with it in the store. Then I started thinking about the MB despite the lack of ports, but just saw an article saying it clocks in at 2011 MBA speeds which means it's probably close to my 2010 MBP!

So would I even benefit from an upgrade, or should I just try and fix my existing machine...the only obvious thing being the SSD, but would that really make a difference to browsing speeds?

Is the Geekbench score a CPU centric score or does it also account for memory speed and SSD speed?

I have the same MBP 2.66 13" with full 16gbs of ram.

Fast little machine. The ram makes all the difference. Research on MR the ram specs you need.

 

[simonsi]

In order:

1. Clear some space on the SSD, get 20% of the drive free, reboot and see.
2. Stop using Chrome, although this should be eased with more free space so the OS can swap to disk freely.
3. More RAM, 4GB will be swapping to SSD I'd expect.

 

[chanerz]

I have a mid 2010 Macbook Pro. Upgraded the ram to 8GB, Sandisk 480 GB SSD. Runs like new! I think you need more space and more RAM.

 

[AlexMaximus]

This!

I have a mid 2010 Macbook Pro. Upgraded the ram to 8GB, Sandisk 480 GB SSD. Runs like new! I think you need more space and more RAM.

This!

 

[duervo]

"If" it is related to your SSD, then yes it would cause your whole system to slow down. One of the biggest affects on system performance is when the OS is sitting in an iowait state for the majority of the time. Huge performance hit. This could happen due to a combination of low available space, lack of time for the disk's garbage collection routines to complete before more workload is placed onto the controller, and a lack of free RAM.

You haven't given anyone a whole lot to go on though. Would be nice to see some memory tab screenshots from Activity Monitor, for example. At any rate ...

Follow the suggestions already listed. I would start with freeing up some space on the disk and then going to bed. Leave the system powered on. Let it sit overnight to allow the garbage collection to do its work (use Caffeine or something similar to stop your system from going to sleep.)

Oh yeah ... and stop using Chrome. (that should seriously be "stickied" at the top of this forum, along with a few other things.)

 

[Samuelsan2001]

You don't tell us what you use it for....

I find my machine very slow even when browsing the web using Chrome. It's probably not the processor.

What is the likely cause?

Is it the memory (4GB)?

Is it the SSD (about 18 GB free)?

Is it Chrome?

I was almost certain I'd upgrade, but I don't like rMBP as I had some issues with encryption on the disk and I'm hearing a number of screen problems not to mention lag. I was almost set on an MBA when I found the edges too sharp while playing with it in the store. Then I started thinking about the MB despite the lack of ports, but just saw an article saying it clocks in at 2011 MBA speeds which means it's probably close to my 2010 MBP!

So would I even benefit from an upgrade, or should I just try and fix my existing machine...the only obvious thing being the SSD, but would that really make a difference to browsing speeds?

Is the Geekbench score a CPU centric score or does it also account for memory speed and SSD speed?

Without that information suggestions on upgrades are difficult.

Geekbench does the whole machine although there are standardised benchmarks for CPU's available .

As someone who has had a 2010 MBP (ssd and 8GB) and upgraded to the 2013 Haswell rMBP. The upgrade really is worth it, mainly for the screen but they really are great all round.

 

[ghanwani]

Thanks for the replies. Here are screen shots of the activity monitor during typical usage, and of the SSD usage.

Is upgrade the RAM and SSD pretty stable or do folks encounter problems with that? I'm concerned I will go through the expense and trouble of upgrading them and end up with a flaky machine.

What is the max RAM that I can put in this machine?

Approx how much would RAM and 256 GB SSD cost and is it a fairly easy DIY?

For those accessing from a mobile device, I'm reproducing my current machine's specs from my signature:
13" MBP, 2.4G Core 2 Duo, 4GB, 128GB SSD, Oct-2010.

 

[RichardC300]

Thanks for the replies. Here are screen shots of the activity monitor during typical usage, and of the SSD usage.

Is upgrade the RAM and SSD pretty stable or do folks encounter problems with that? I'm concerned I will go through the expense and trouble of upgrading them and end up with a flaky machine.

What is the max RAM that I can put in this machine?

Approx how much would RAM and 256 GB SSD cost and is it a fairly easy DIY?

For those accessing from a mobile device, I'm reproducing my current machine's specs from my signature:
13" MBP, 2.4G Core 2 Duo, 4GB, 128GB SSD, Oct-2010.

RAM and SSD upgrades are very stable unless you get lemons.

The max RAM you can have is 16 GB. I'd recommend 8 GB of RAM, unless you run many memory-intensive apps.

8 GB of RAM is like $50-$60 and a 250 GB SSD is $100-$120. Both are really easy DIY jobs.
http://www.amazon.com/Crucial-DDR3L-1066-PC3-8500-CT2K4G3S1067M-CT2C4G3S1067M/dp/B008LTBJFM
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-2-5-Inch-Internal-MZ-75E250B-AM/dp/B00OAJ412U

EDIT: Yours is a 2010, so get 1066 MHz, not 1600 MHz.

 

[ghanwani]

RAM and SSD upgrades are very stable unless you get lemons.

The max RAM you can have is 16 GB @ 1600 MHz. I'd recommend 8 GB of RAM, unless you run many memory-intensive apps.

8 GB of RAM is like $50-$60 and a 250 GB SSD is $100-$120. Both are really easy DIY jobs.
http://www.amazon.com/Crucial-4GBx2-DDR3-1600-CT2KIT51264BF160B/dp/B005LDLVAO
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-2-5-Inch-Internal-MZ-75E250B-AM/dp/B00OAJ412U

Thanks. I remembered ordering memory from Crucial a long time ago for my Thinkpad (5+ years ago!) so I went to their website. It looks like the max for my machine is 8 GB and the part is different (memory speed is 1067 MHz).
http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/compatible-upgrade-for/Apple/macbook-pro-(13-inch,-mid-2010)

Is Crucial a good brand for the SSD, or is Samsung considered better?

 

[simonsi]

Can ou post the CPU tab, you have nearly 20% of the SSD free and you arent swapping much to disk so I dont think RAM or SSD will be your problem. That leaves Chrome and something else running.

Did you try using Safari and is it still slow while browsing?

 

[RichardC300]

Thanks. I remembered ordering memory from Crucial a long time ago for my Thinkpad (5+ years ago!) so I went to their website. It looks like the max for my machine is 8 GB and the part is different (memory speed is 1067 MHz).
http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/compatible-upgrade-for/Apple/macbook-pro-(13-inch,-mid-2010)

Is Crucial a good brand for the SSD, or is Samsung considered better?

Apple says the computers are limited to 8 GB, but there have been many members that have installed 16 GB @ 1600 MHz, and their sets have worked great.

Crucial is a great brand for SSDs. Crucial's MX100 had great reviews, and they recently released two successors to the MX100: the BX100 and the MX200. The BX100 is a budget-minded SSD and is a great value at $90 for 250 GB on Amazon. Crucial is a more reliable brand than Samsung for SSDs, but Samsung's new 850 EVO is also a great value and is one of the top performing SSDs on the market right now.

 

[ghanwani]

Here are screen shots of the CPU tab.

 

[ghanwani]

Apple says the computers are limited to 8 GB, but there have been many members that have installed 16 GB @ 1600 MHz, and their sets have worked great.

Crucial is a great brand for SSDs. Crucial's MX100 had great reviews, and they recently released two successors to the MX100: the BX100 and the MX200. The BX100 is a budget-minded SSD and is a great value at $90 for 250 GB on Amazon. Crucial is a more reliable brand than Samsung for SSDs, but Samsung's new 850 EVO is also a great value and is one of the top performing SSDs on the market right now.

Thanks again. Looks like MX200 is a little cheaper than the MX100!

What is the recommended way to install the OS once the new hard drive is put in?

I think I should give the upgrade route a try since I don't really like what is available right now, especially after my experience with the encryption problem on the 13 rMBP that I previously ordered and returned.

 

[RichardC300]

Thanks again. Looks like MX200 is a little cheaper than the MX100!

What is the recommended way to install the OS once the new hard drive is put in?

I think I should give the upgrade route a try since I don't really like what is available right now, especially after my experience with the encryption problem on the 13 rMBP that I previously ordered and returned.

There's so many ways to go about it.

You can buy an external enclosure and put the SSD in it and then clone your current SSD over with SuperDuper! or Carbon Copy Cloner or you could just install a fresh copy of Yosemite. Then install the SSD into your MBP. I used the following external enclosure and now keep my old HDD in there as just extra storage.
http://www.amazon.com/Anker-Drive-External-Enclosure-9-5mm/dp/B00H98AXOE

You can install the SSD and install OS X via internet recovery.

I think there's a way of installing using a Time Machine backup, but I'm not familiar with that method.

EDIT: Also, the 2010 is limited to 1066 MHz. I missed that when I wrote the previous post.

 

[ghanwani]

There's so many ways to go about it.

You can buy an external enclosure and put the SSD in it and then clone your current SSD over with SuperDuper! or Carbon Copy Cloner or you could just install a fresh copy of Yosemite. Then install the SSD into your MBP. I used the following external enclosure and now keep my old HDD in there as just extra storage.
http://www.amazon.com/Anker-Drive-External-Enclosure-9-5mm/dp/B00H98AXOE

You can install the SSD and install OS X via internet recovery.

I think there's a way of installing using a Time Machine backup, but I'm not familiar with that method.

EDIT: Also, the 2010 is limited to 1066 MHz. I missed that when I wrote the previous post.

Thanks. I will probably try Internet Recovery. Based on what I found on Apple's site, it looks like it will first install 10.6 and I can then go in and update it to 10.10 via the App Store.

 

[JTToft]

Crucial is a more reliable brand than Samsung for SSDs

- Do you have some literature on that? I haven't been able to find any actual statistics on SSD reliability or failure rates across brands (at least none that are recent). But as far as I'm concerned, Samsung has a pretty stellar record in that regard - not to say that Crucial doesn't!

Thanks. I will probably try Internet Recovery. Based on what I found on Apple's site, it looks like it will first install 10.6 and I can then go in and update it to 10.10 via the App Store.

- One other thing to be aware of: Not only does your machine not support higher than 1066 MHz RAM, but there have actually been reports on serious stability problems when installing 1333 and 1600 MHz RAM (1, 2). Normally, installing faster RAM than the machine supports just means it'll get downclocked (but will work fine), but it appears that isn't the case on these 2010 machines.
So definitely stick to 1066 MHz. It will take up to 16 GB of it, though.

 

[RichardC300]

- Do you have some literature on that? I haven't been able to find any actual statistics on SSD reliability or failure rates across brands (at least none that are recent). But as far as I'm concerned, Samsung has a pretty stellar record in that regard - not to say that Crucial doesn't!

Not really. That's a purely subjective conclusion that I came to while researching SSDs before purchasing my own. Not taking anything away from Samsung, because in the end, I purchased an 850 EVO, but I didn't come across anything bad for Crucial, but Samsung still has a widespread, unresolved firmware issue for for the 840 EVO. With all that said, I believe they both make great SSDs.

 

[JTToft]

Not really. That's a purely subjective conclusion that I came to while researching SSDs before purchasing my own. Not taking anything away from Samsung, because in the end, I purchased an 850 EVO, but I didn't come across anything bad for Crucial, but Samsung still has a widespread, unresolved firmware issue for for the 840 EVO. With all that said, I believe they both make great SSDs.

- And here I was looking forward to a good article on SSD reliability...
Yes, it's a shame about the 840 EVO. It appears to be more about performance than data reliability from what I've seen, though. But I suppose inconsistent performance could be considered a reliability problem, too.

 

[simonsi]

Not really. That's a purely subjective conclusion that I came to while researching SSDs before purchasing my own.

Probably should have indicated this was your opinion. I'm a happy Crucial user but I haven't seen any comparable data on real-world reliability, and the technology hasn't been around long enough really (other than early-life failures).