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

dr. shdw

macrumors 6502a
Aug 27, 2008
964
0
OK, OK, all you SSD lovers and defenders... :D I just meant it was too expensive for me. Not at all worth it. It's basically the difference between a 1min. boot time and 1.5 min. boot time. It will also save you about 5 min. a day under HARD use as an OS X drive. Remember that with 12, or 16 gigs or RAM every time you use an app just about all the program code goes into the system cache and stays there typically until you reboot. If I load PS with 100 plugins it takes 32 seconds the 1st time. Then if I quite it and use iMovie, Lightwave, and Illustrator for 3 or 4 hours and then load PS again it takes 7 seconds to load the second time. Going back to Lightwave, Illustrator, or iMovie is the same thing again - ultra fast the second time. Initially I thought Apple was daft for keeping such huge chunks of app vectored in RAM but with hard use it began to make more sense. :) It does the same thing with bits of the OS as well. And this is not even considering that with 12 or 16 gigs of RAM the user typically does not quit the apps after use. I don't if I know I will be using it again in the next hour or so. With 16 GB RAM you can do that easily with 5 or 6 large applications.

With SSD you're paying approximately 35 to 40 times the price of standard SATA media and all just for that 5 min. per day advantage. To me that's crazy - nutz-o, bonkers. I could see it if it were only 5 or maybe 10 times which is where it would fall if SSDs were $300 for 256GB but they're not. I guess I could also see it on a laptop where RAM is usually low and LT HDDs are hella-slow. But on a desktop at $300 for 80GB which is not even large enough to put OS X on - unless you keep your system very very vanilla and don't install almost anything, I think not. Considering that, we're also limiting ourselves severely for that same 5 min. a day advantage. Yup, sounds "crazy" to me - on a desktop anyway!

I'm not in the habit of lighting hundred dollar bills on fire just to watch them burn and SSD on a desktop is the buyers analogue to doing just that - in my opinion. Also if you're going to consider time in this equation then let's go back to when 100 MegaByte hard drives were $300 and we can justify anything! Pretty silly logic IMO. YMMV. BTW, 4 or 5 years ago it was 250 GB HDDs for $100. We would have to go back quite a bit further in time to see 74GB drives for $300 in common media like IDE, SCSI II / III, and etc.

It's snappier browsing and processing files as well.. $300 is cheap compared to buying 16gb of memory..
 

Tesselator

macrumors 601
Jan 9, 2008
4,601
6
Japan
My Mac Pro at the time of purchase (late 2006 / early 2007) was just about the best deal going on any new platform. I couldn't even beat it by building my own. I tried hard too. The only way I could beat it was by going with lower grade parts.

SSD will not improve game performance much if at all unless the game in question needs to constantly access the drive. I dunno of any games like that tho. I knew of some like that back on the Commodore 64 tho. :D
 

nanofrog

macrumors G4
May 6, 2008
11,719
3
If you like performance, it has already taken over.

$300 is a bargain for the performance increase you are seeing with the Intel X25-M installed. It is the single best purchase you can make to speed your computer up on a day to day basis.
I was thinking in terms of overall. :D

For those with the cash and the willingness to part with price to play, YES, they've likely picked one up, or are looking to sooner than later. ;)
I agree... It's definitely hard to justify on any kind of ROI analysis. The ironic thing is that we are talking about this in a Mac Pro forum where obviously value for money is not necessarily the highest priority (or let's face it, you probably wouldn't own a Mac Pro). I mean everyone who owns a Mac Pro is paying a premium for the privilege so it's odd to hear people in this forum having a hard time justifying 5-10% more money for one of the single biggest improvements you can make to your system.
ROI is part of it for me, but I tend to need RAID. SSD's aren't the best choice for this.
1. The cost/GB bit.
2. UBE ratings aren't where they need to be for high write usage IMO. Not with the current flash used anyway. (I'm hoping another type will change this, such as FeRAM, as it's already capable of a UBE of 1E16).

Comparing the smaller SSD's to SAS used in RAID, it's of a similar cost, perhaps with a slight edge to the SSD's. It does depend on where it's purchased of course. ;) I've actually seen Fujitsu MBA3300RC's go for $335, and over $400 from other etailers. :rolleyes:
My last couple of PC builds (including the purchase of this 2009 Mac Pro) have not had that "Wow!" factor... :( ... UNTIL I installed my SSD's over the weekend! :eek: :D Honestly, it's the first time in the last several years where I've said "Wow!" after booting my computer. :)
HDD's are one of the areas that need the greatest improvement. RAID certainly helps, but isn't necessarily inexpensive. Always a compromise... :D :p

In a few weeks, it will all be lost on me as I will become desensitized to it, but for now, it's worth every penny! ;)
Then you'll get something else, and start the whole process all over again. :eek: :D

Perhaps this would mean we suffer some form of computer masochism? :p
 

Tesselator

macrumors 601
Jan 9, 2008
4,601
6
Japan
It's snappier browsing and processing files as well.. $300 is cheap compared to buying 16gb of memory..

Browsing will be. Processing files assuming you mean images, should be about the same given that we're comparing with a 3-Drive RAID 0. 16GB is still needed or at least extremely useful, for other things too so it's not really an either/or case. Also 80GB isn't big enough to store files on if you also place your OS on it - unless it's just very casual hobby level - and then who needs that little bit of speed difference?

That would be the ultimate tho! I mean if there were 64GB DIMMs available for about $100 ea. and there was a Recoverable RAM Disk utility built into the OS X and/or Mac Pro system. That would rock! 8 of those babies and install your OS and apps on that! Weee!

The Amiga had something like that back when the OS could fit on a single floppy. RAMB0: ;) It was lost when you powered down but it could survive reboots and resets. :)
 

nanofrog

macrumors G4
May 6, 2008
11,719
3
Browsing will be. Processing files assuming you mean images, should be about the same given that we're comparing with a 3-Drive RAID 0. 16GB is still needed or at least extremely useful, for other things too so it's not really an either/or case. Also 80GB isn't big enough to store files on if you also place your OS on it - unless it's just very casual hobby level - and then who needs that little bit of speed difference?

That would be the ultimate tho! I mean if there were 64GB DIMMs available for about $100 ea. and there was a Recoverable RAM Disk utility built into the OS X and/or Mac Pro system. That would rock! 8 of those babies and install your OS and apps on that! Weee!

The Amiga had something like that back when the OS could fit on a single floppy. RAMB0: ;) It was lost when you powered down but it could survive reboots and resets. :)
Do you remember RAM drives showing up in 1980?
SSD's great grandfather perhaps? ;)
 

akbc

macrumors 6502
Jul 11, 2008
369
0
Do you remember RAM drives showing up in 1980?
SSD's great grandfather perhaps? ;)

Yeah, I think the RAM Drives (or RAM Disks) are essentially the first-gen SSD's... I remember seeing my friend with a 8GB set up running XP couple of years ago (he did it for fun) and holy mother was it fast. XP boot-up was like 7 seconds... Sucks that he could only use DDR rams not DDR2.

Aside from that, why don't they make 3.5" SSD's more often? I know it's not the "best" idea for a desktop, but I haven't seen good 3.5" SSD's. And I couldn't find a decent 2.5" - 3.5" brackets.. I really wanted to set up my gaming desktop with 2 SSD's.... Just can't find the perfect solution.
 

Pressure

macrumors 603
May 30, 2006
5,037
1,377
Denmark
My Mac Pro at the time of purchase (late 2006 / early 2007) was just about the best deal going on any new platform. I couldn't even beat it by building my own. I tried hard too. The only way I could beat it was by going with lower grade parts.

SSD will not improve game performance much if at all unless the game in question needs to constantly access the drive. I dunno of any games like that tho. I knew of some like that back on the Commodore 64 tho. :D



If you make money with the Mac Pro, then downtime is an important factor. If I get my work done faster I can earn more money in the same amount of time.

About games, they constantly hit the harddrive for textures and game information. So not a very good example :)
 

Thiol

macrumors 6502a
Jan 26, 2008
693
0

No4mk2

macrumors member
May 31, 2008
62
0
Hell (New Jersey)
OS/apps usage is primarily random reads, which is what these drives excel at. If someone has the cash and is willing, it's a nice way to go for single drive performance.
I think that's the key. As boot drives, they excel. Even 5 Velociraptors in a striped RAID used as a boot drive didn't match the responsiveness I felt after putting in the one SSD, and that was kind of shocking, in a not so bad way.
I didn't expect it, although I had read impressive reviews on them, this one being the kicker: http://macperformanceguide.com/Mac-LightingFast.html
My experience has been the same, I can't imagine going back to regular drives now.
My current situation has allowed me to splurge more than necessary and I don't imagine SSDs will be the first choice on many peoples lists of potential HDs. But for the adventurous, or the reckless, or the just plain insane as has been mentioned, using one is an experience not soon forgotten, the difference is really that dramatic. And this comes from a guy who just went from 16gb RAM to 32, and is still trying hard to perceive a change.

I guess those that have them will be test subjects for awhile. Will our SSDs performance and functionality degrade and when. I'm not sure anyone really knows for sure, it should depend on the amount of use. But I think it's safe to say that a few years of trouble free performance should be the norm. Granted that should give anyone a queasy feeling in their stomach buying one, but I think for the time being, for the raw excitement of it, that's not a bad deal. There is so little else one can do that makes such a dramatic difference on their machines.
If disk space is important then one should go elsewhere for a while, but a slimmed down boot drive is not difficult to achieve at all. Currently I have about 26 gb on mine and that's with the applications I most need like Photoshop and AE. One would be surprised at how many apps work fine off another drive.
So my personal observation, so far at least... If you have all the space you need, as I do having additional drives, one could buy a 15k Cheetah or a 10k Velociraptor with lots of room on them for a boot drive, or one could get, at least in the case of the VR, an SSD with very little space for about the same price. Having those options spelled out and knowing what one wants is the key. With the VR one gets reliability and better than average speed, with the SSD one gets lots of noticeable speed with a question mark for reliability.
Advice for the frugal though,... Don't put an SSD in your Mac and expect price and question marks to matter. Unless you have an iron will, you will keep it.
 

Tesselator

macrumors 601
Jan 9, 2008
4,601
6
Japan
Do you remember RAM drives showing up in 1980?
SSD's great grandfather perhaps? ;)

Yup sure do. :) And they are the children of the heavy-metal "I/O Accelerator" still used today in some new blade systems - tho now more advanced, faster, and bigger.

Those were around in the early 70's that I know of for sure. :) But yeah, I remember solid state RAM Drives for CBM Pet, PC XT, PC AT, C=64, C=128, Atari ST, Even the Sinclair's had them available. :)

Fun Stuff. :)
 

snouter

macrumors 6502a
May 26, 2009
767
0
I think these SSD drives have a feature which lets you back the whole thing up to another hard drive, reset the SSD and copy everything back to the SSD. I read that this is more or less new defrag and something you'd want to do every 6-12 months.

For those saying "it only saves you 1 minute a day" or whatever... that's not the way to look at it. I want the fastest workflow for my ideas, and if I'm waiting for a drive to spin-up or waiting for a file to load than I'm not working, I'm waiting and getting bored and thinking about baseball and sex and before long my whole project is ruined.

Computers (cpu/ram/video) are fast today, there are other bottlenecks these days...
 

nanofrog

macrumors G4
May 6, 2008
11,719
3
Yeah, I think the RAM Drives (or RAM Disks) are essentially the first-gen SSD's... I remember seeing my friend with a 8GB set up running XP couple of years ago (he did it for fun) and holy mother was it fast. XP boot-up was like 7 seconds... Sucks that he could only use DDR rams not DDR2.
This is my take on it as well. ;) And it's far older technology than DDR, as the early development was in 1978-79, with products showing up in 1980. :eek: :D

Aside from that, why don't they make 3.5" SSD's more often? I know it's not the "best" idea for a desktop, but I haven't seen good 3.5" SSD's. And I couldn't find a decent 2.5" - 3.5" brackets.. I really wanted to set up my gaming desktop with 2 SSD's.... Just can't find the perfect solution.
I know 2.5" is the future, but I'd also like to see 3.5" models. At least they could fit more flash in using less expensive variants (larger die sizes) to increase capacity. And as you mention, would be an easier fit in a lot of current systems.

The 2.5" to 3.5" mounts do exist though. Limited models may not offer the "best" or possibly a model that would work for a specific system though. They're just not quite as common as the 3.5" to 5.25" models. Yet. ;)
Yup sure do. :) And they are the children of the heavy-metal "I/O Accelerator" still used today in some new blade systems - tho now more advanced, faster, and bigger.
I hadn't even considered this one. :eek: I was thinking primarlily of the Commodore's when I posted it, as I had access to those (as well as IBM, Atari, Apple, and couple of others). ;)
Those were around in the early 70's that I know of for sure. :) But yeah, I remember solid state RAM Drives for CBM Pet, PC XT, PC AT, C=64, C=128, Atari ST, Even the Sinclair's had them available. :)

Fun Stuff. :)
I completely forgot about Sinclair. :eek: I don't ever remember seeing one in person either. :p
 

Tesselator

macrumors 601
Jan 9, 2008
4,601
6
Japan
I hadn't even considered this one. :eek: I was thinking primarlily of the Commodore's when I posted it, as I had access to those (as well as IBM, Atari, Apple, and couple of others). ;)

I'm starting to see them for personal computers recently too. Like: http://www.fusionio.com/Products.aspx though they're still in the heavy metal price range. http://www.google.com/products?q=Fusion+IODrive&oe=UTF-8&scoring=pd :eek:


I completely forgot about Sinclair. :eek: I don't ever remember seeing one in person either. :p

I had the hots of the Sinclair QL (Quantum Leap) a 68000 based system but never got one. :( I did get a Sharp x68K Pro tho! Very interesting system!
 

nanofrog

macrumors G4
May 6, 2008
11,719
3
I'm starting to see them for personal computers recently too. Like: http://www.fusionio.com/Products.aspx though they're still in the heavy metal price range. http://www.google.com/products?q=Fusion+IODrive&oe=UTF-8&scoring=pd :eek:
I've seen them, but still too expensive yet. :( I'll just have to wait awhile for maturity and lower costs. ;)

I had the hots of the Sinclair QL (Quantum Leap) a 68000 based system but never got one. :( I did get a Sharp x68K Pro tho! Very interesting system!
I don't remember that Sharp either. :eek: Interesting for it's time though, and an unusual case.
 

Tesselator

macrumors 601
Jan 9, 2008
4,601
6
Japan
I've seen them, but still too expensive yet. :( I'll just have to wait awhile for maturity and lower costs. ;)

Yeah I see used ones for blade servers at VERY reasonable prices occasionally tho.


I don't remember that Sharp either. :eek: Interesting for it's time though, and an unusual case.

I think it only sold in Japan IIRC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlgEY7ZX30I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9i2eYFNLbE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK_EccmqcdM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OymQS_a-T90
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg5Rs6IPHIA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRw2snCK9eA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbPI2Ldbx5M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdLEtzL1TpA

Mmmm Super-bitmap scrolling, color-cycling, 100's of animated sprites, PCM soundtrack, multi-layer parallax scrolling, massive blitter objects, WEEEEEeeeee!!!
 

thepawn

macrumors 6502
May 27, 2009
413
7
1750plus.jpg


I think I still have mine in my basement along with the rest of my Commodore "collection"...

There was actually a server-model type we used on some old Sun Sparc gear back in 1999 or so when we launched AutoTrader.com ... it was a "battery backed" RAM drive that we used for pieces of the database to keep performance up.
 

Tesselator

macrumors 601
Jan 9, 2008
4,601
6
Japan
Yep! And the 260 MB/s CF port aint too shabby either!

I recently got 4 of these for myself. Highspeed card drives I mean. ;)

I figured for $4.50 each what the heck. And I already have a buttload of 8 and 16 gig CF cards so I can spare a few for one of these things. I haven't tried it yet but here's some pics of one:

Dual_Card_Drive_01.jpg


Dual_Card_Drive_02.jpg


The guy at the shop says it's about the same speed as the faster SSDs out this year - or just a tad slower. Guess I'll find out soon enough. I may get some 32gig cards for this. <shrug>
 

thepawn

macrumors 6502
May 27, 2009
413
7
Yeah, the newer flash/SSD stuff is starting to bump up against SATA-II speed limits as the bottleneck.
 

thepawn

macrumors 6502
May 27, 2009
413
7
…and its performance degradation over time.
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=669&type=expert

Using the Intel M25 in the Mac Pro maybe a waste of money.
Does anyone using this SSD see this phenomenon in there MAC? :rolleyes:

A RAID system perhaps may limit this fragmentation.

Advancement in "TRIM" applications will help alleviate this. I know OCZ has a TRIM application (currently windows only, but they are developing a Mac OSX version).
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.