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

256GB SSD vs 512GB SSD. Which one?

T

theluggage

macrumors 604
Jul 29, 2011
7,501
7,385
el-John-o said:
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
Click to expand...

Ploki said:
My needs? In real-life i didn't past 200mb/s so far... :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
needfx

needfx

Suspended
Aug 10, 2010
3,931
4,247
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.
 
P

Ploki

macrumors 601
Jan 21, 2008
4,308
1,558
betman said:
So regardless of size they are all Samsung SSDs?
Click to expand...

yeah i have 256 and its "Apple SSD SM256E"

----------
theluggage said:
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.
Click to expand...

true... :)
 
E

el-John-o

macrumors 68000
Nov 29, 2010
1,588
766
Missouri
theluggage said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
T

tivoboy

macrumors 68040
May 15, 2005
3,978
791
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.
 
derbothaus

derbothaus

macrumors 601
Jul 17, 2010
4,093
30
Erasmus said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't want OWC garbage. 2 dead already. The 6G's with the good NAND to boot.

----------
theluggage said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
betman

betman

macrumors 6502
Jan 15, 2013
272
5
theluggage said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
T

theluggage

macrumors 604
Jul 29, 2011
7,501
7,385
betman said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom