Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Notebooks > MacBook Pro

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 24, 2013, 04:18 AM   #51
theluggage
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by el-John-o View Post
Yeah. I'm really not sure that there is any real-world difference between a 500MB/s SSD and a 900MB/s RAID0 setup, but, it sure is cool for bragging rights! :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ploki View Post
My needs? In real-life i didn't past 200mb/s so far...
Methinks people are getting a bit too obsessed with transfer rates.

AFAIK, unless you're all into 4K video production and continually accessing huge single files, the speed increase from SSDs in general use has little to do with ~2x faster read/write speeds and more to do with the 100x reduction in seek times, that vastly speeds up the reading of multiple small files or multiple processes trying to access the disc.
theluggage is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 06:30 AM   #52
betman
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ploki View Post
true. They're samsung though, all of them i believe
So regardless of size they are all Samsung SSDs?
betman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 06:43 AM   #53
needfx
macrumors 68000
 
needfx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: macrumors apparently
not the 256, but that really depends on your wallet, usage, other data holders lurking around your home/office, though it is strongly advised to never keep important files on primary disks.
needfx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 07:21 AM   #54
Ploki
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by betman View Post
So regardless of size they are all Samsung SSDs?
yeah i have 256 and its "Apple SSD SM256E"

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by theluggage View Post
Methinks people are getting a bit too obsessed with transfer rates.

AFAIK, unless you're all into 4K video production and continually accessing huge single files, the speed increase from SSDs in general use has little to do with ~2x faster read/write speeds and more to do with the 100x reduction in seek times, that vastly speeds up the reading of multiple small files or multiple processes trying to access the disc.
true... :-)
Ploki is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 10:37 AM   #55
betman
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by needfx View Post
not the 256
Your 256 GB SSD is made by another manufacturer?
betman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 11:22 AM   #56
Ploki
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by betman View Post
Your 256 GB SSD is made by another manufacturer?
mine isn't.
Ploki is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 12:40 PM   #57
el-John-o
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Missouri
Quote:
Originally Posted by theluggage View Post
Methinks people are getting a bit too obsessed with transfer rates.

AFAIK, unless you're all into 4K video production and continually accessing huge single files, the speed increase from SSDs in general use has little to do with ~2x faster read/write speeds and more to do with the 100x reduction in seek times, that vastly speeds up the reading of multiple small files or multiple processes trying to access the disc.
I think so too, it's more for bragging rights.

The real reason I did the RAID 0 was because NewEgg had a sale plus a rebate on 256GB Crucial M4 SSD's, so I got 512GB of storage for under $300, down around $250 when the rebates come in. Score!

But I mean, if you're gonna do it, post the benchmarks right? hehe. It IS helpful working with high resolution DSLR files though, being able to read them at near 1 GigaBYTE per second!
__________________
Windows7 PC - Phenom II 965@4GHz x4 Cores, 16GB DDR3-2133, Radeon HD7970 | iPhone 5 32GB | iPad WiFi+3G 64GB | Mid 2012 MacBook Pro 13", Dual 256GB SSD's in RAID 0, 16GB DDR3-1600
el-John-o is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 04:07 PM   #58
tivoboy
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: May 2005
256gb

I went with the 256GB on a 2.6 15" rMBP. I din'dt really want to fork over the 500$ extra for the 512GB and in a year, I think i'll be able to put a 512GB in there for 200$-250$ or so.

With the 500$ extra $$ I picked up a nice thunderbolt 1TB external, small, thin and self powered for my photo library, itunes library and other stuff.

I can live with it as 256GB for a while, currently after 60 days I'm only using 110GB of the 256GB and that is with all my programs and TWO VM's.
tivoboy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 05:57 PM   #59
derbothaus
macrumors 601
 
derbothaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erasmus View Post
256GB, plus 480GB OWC SSD, plus OWC external blade SSD housing.

Faster SSD, plus a "bonus" USB3 256GB SSD for the grand total of 30 bucks more than just getting the 512GB SSD from Apple.
I don't want OWC garbage. 2 dead already. The 6G's with the good NAND to boot.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by theluggage View Post
Methinks people are getting a bit too obsessed with transfer rates.

AFAIK, unless you're all into 4K video production and continually accessing huge single files, the speed increase from SSDs in general use has little to do with ~2x faster read/write speeds and more to do with the 100x reduction in seek times, that vastly speeds up the reading of multiple small files or multiple processes trying to access the disc.
Yes. The 4k randoms and iops make the difference. Bandwidth hype is marketing. There is too much interaction for the sequential to matter all that much after a certain point.
__________________
Mac Pro W3680, GTX 680, 12GB DDR3, SSD; MBP, 2.6GHz Core i7, 16GB DDR3, SSD; Eizo fs2333
derbothaus is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2013, 09:54 AM   #60
betman
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by theluggage View Post
the speed increase from SSDs in general use has little to do with ~2x faster read/write speeds and more to do with the 100x reduction in seek times, that vastly speeds up the reading of multiple small files or multiple processes trying to access the disc.
Hmm, so if I had a server whose primary function was to run a discussion forum with a big 4GB MySQL database then would na SSD help or is a database treated as one file?
betman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2013, 10:07 AM   #61
MacMan988
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
512GB. It has twice the capacity of the 256GB SSD.
MacMan988 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2013, 12:41 PM   #62
theluggage
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by betman View Post
Hmm, so if I had a server whose primary function was to run a discussion forum with a big 4GB MySQL database then would na SSD help or is a database treated as one file?
Possibly what I should have said was not "accessing large single files" but "accessing large files sequentially" (as you would with video).

In theory: whether or not the data is in one file is irrelevant as the database will rarely be reading it from start to finish, but will instead be randomly reading and writing chunks of data scattered over the whole database, sending the head of a rotating HD scurrying back and forth. Plus, even if the 'primary function' is a database, there are 101 other processes also accessing data.

However, both OS X and MySQL will cache frequently-accessed data in RAM, so unless you are running on a hand-me-down G4 with 500MB RAM I'd be vaguely surprised if disc access was proving a major bottleneck. You might want to look for some MySQL/Apache/PHP tuning tips before shelling out for an SSD (although you'll probably get sand kicked in your face because of your puny 4GB database :-) ).

The most obvious speed-ups from an SSD are boot times and application loads where data is being read into RAM for the first time.
theluggage is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2013, 05:58 PM   #63
chelch
Thread Starter
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacMan988 View Post
512GB. It has twice the capacity of the 256GB SSD.
^^^ Best answer.

But I'm going with the 256GB and 1TB Thunderbolt. I'll upgrade when the prices come down if needed. Thanks all!!
chelch is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2013, 04:36 PM   #64
cosmicjoke
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Portland, OR
if you're going to dual boot windows i'd def. get the 512gb
cosmicjoke is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Notebooks > MacBook Pro

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:13 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC