Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old May 11, 2011, 10:10 AM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Intel's Z68 Chipset and SSD Caching Reviewed







Last week, we noted that Apple's new iMac models utilize Intel's latest Z68 chipset, a component that Intel had yet to even publicly introduce at the time of the iMac's debut. The chipset has been highly anticipated for its ability to support SSD caching, a software technology that pairs a small solid state drive (SSD) with a conventional hard drive to significantly improve performance in a manner virtually invisible to the user.

While Apple's new Z68-based iMac does not currently support SSD caching, now officially known as Smart Response Technology (SRT), it actually goes further in offering the option of a secondary 240 GB SSD to directly host the user's operating system and applications, leaving the conventional hard drive for media and other data. But with reports just prior to the most recent MacBook Pro refresh in late February incorrectly claiming that the updated models would offer the option of a small secondary SSD to essentially perform SRT functionality, there has been significant interest in the possibility of Apple adopting Intel's solution.

With Intel's embargo on Z68 information having lifted earlier today, AnandTech has posted a thorough review of the chipset and the SSD caching feature. On a basic level, the report notes that Z68 is the chipset Intel should have launched for its Sandy Bridge platform earlier this year, overcoming a number of limitations related to overclocking and graphics options.
Quote:
Intel's Z68 should have been the one and only high end launch chipset offered with Sandy Bridge. It enables all of the configurations we could possibly want with Sandy Bridge and does so without making any sacrifices. Users should be able to overclock their CPU and use integrated graphics if they'd like. While Z68 gives us pretty much exactly what we asked for, it is troubling that we even had to ask for it in the first place.
But the most anticipated feature of Z68 is its support for Intel's SRT SSD caching, and AnandTech takes a close look at the technology. With support currently available for Windows 7, it allows users to dedicate up to 64 GB of SSD space for caching purposes.
Quote:
With Intel's RST 10.5 drivers and a spare SSD installed (from any manufacturer) you can choose to use up to 64GB of the SSD as a cache for all accesses to the hard drive. Any space above 64GB is left untouched for you to use as a separate drive letter.

Intel limited the maximum cache size to 64GB as it saw little benefit in internal tests to making the cache larger than that. Admittedly after a certain size you're better off just keeping your frequently used applications on the SSD itself and manually storing everything else on a hard drive.
That latter scenario is of course what Apple has chosen to do in the iMac with the secondary 256 GB SSD, although the company could certainly seek to utilize SRT on future systems as an alternative to the $600 price premium the larger SSD requires.

For its part, Intel has released a new "SSD 311" drive checking in at 20 GB and codenamed "Larson Creek". The SSD 311 is specifically designed as a caching SSD for Z68, utilizing high-performance and long-lasting single-level cell (SLC) flash memory and expected to be priced at around $110.

AnandTech goes on to explain the difference between the more secure "enhanced" and faster "maximized" modes for Intel's SSD caching and offers a number of benchmarks for booting and application launching. Overall, SSD caching offers much of the performance improvement of a full SSD solution, but at a fraction of the cost. Consistency is an issue, however, as the technology obviously requires that information be cached in the first place before speed enhancements can be seen. This limits speed improvements for application installation and first-time runs of applications, but frequently-used tasks quickly see significant speed increases.
Quote:
Intel's Smart Response Technology (SRT) is an interesting addition to the mix. For starters, it's not going to make your high end SSD obsolete. You'll still get better overall performance by grabbing a large (80 - 160GB+) SSD, putting your OS + applications on it, and manually moving all of your large media files to a separate hard drive. What SRT does offer however is a stepping stone to a full blown SSD + HDD setup and a solution that doesn't require end user management. You don't get the same performance as a large dedicated SSD, but you can turn any hard drive into a much higher performing storage device. Paired with a 20GB SLC SSD cache, I could turn a 4-year-old 1TB hard drive into something that was 41% faster than a VelociRaptor.
It of course remains to be seen if Apple will even adopt SSD caching technology as an alternative to pricier standard SSD options, but the company's embracing of the Z68 chipset at least opens the door to the possibility at some point down the road.

Article Link: Intel's Z68 Chipset and SSD Caching Reviewed
MacRumors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 10:14 AM   #2
iDisk
macrumors 6502a
 
iDisk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Menlo Park, CA
Will this result in cheaper ssd prices now?
__________________
"Where there is no vision the people perish:"- Proverbs 29:18
iDisk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 10:15 AM   #3
praetorian909
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
So what is Apple going to do when they switch to ARM?

praetorian909 is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 10:15 AM   #4
daneoni
macrumors G4
 
daneoni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
I don't see Apple implementing this
__________________
15" rMBP Core i7 | 27" ACD | AEBS | 5G iPod | iPhone 5S | 3G Apple TV | rMini
daneoni is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 10:17 AM   #5
Hellhammer
Moderator
 
Hellhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Send a message via MSN to Hellhammer
Quote:
Originally Posted by iDisk View Post
Will this result in cheaper ssd prices now?
Not really but it will allow you to use small SSDs that might not be sufficient as a standalone drives. Basically, you can get SSD performance for less $ now.
__________________
SSD Editor for AnandTech
You can also follow me in Twitter!
Hellhammer is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 10:18 AM   #6
longofest
Editor emeritus
 
longofest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Falls Church, VA
Send a message via AIM to longofest
I like seagate's implementation better, where they actually put the ssd cache on the hard drive itself. Makes for a more compact arrangement. Don't know how the performance holds up, as seagate isn't currently offering as big of an ssd.
longofest is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 10:19 AM   #7
iDisk
macrumors 6502a
 
iDisk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Menlo Park, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellhammer View Post
Not really but it will allow you to use small SSDs that might not be sufficient as a standalone drives. Basically, you can get SSD performance for less $ now.
Thanks Mr.Hammer
__________________
"Where there is no vision the people perish:"- Proverbs 29:18
iDisk is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 10:34 AM   #8
Scottsdale
macrumors 601
 
Scottsdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: U.S.A.
Could this be made to work in the new iMacs?

I assume software is also needed but I am sure someone will mess with it.
Scottsdale is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 10:35 AM   #9
duffer6
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Do the 2011 MBP's have this potential capability like the Imac 2011??
duffer6 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 10:36 AM   #10
Tike1994
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: St. Charles, IL
Just so I understand this article . . .

I just bought a new iMac (supposed to arrive today) with the standard 1TB hard drive.

If I wanted to buy the 20GB SSD for the implementation described in the article, it wouldn't work because Apple doesn't support it in the OS, correct?

Thanks!
Tike1994 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 10:36 AM   #11
42streetsdown
macrumors 6502a
 
42streetsdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Gallifrey, 5124
$110 for only 20 GB? Holy crap!
I've thought this would be a great idea for a while now. but the price is still prohibitive for even the smallest SSDs. you can buy a 8 GB Flash Drive for like ten bucks, and a 16 GB one for like $25. Why not just put something like that directly on the motherboard for caching?

Edit: You can also get a 32Gb flash drive for just $50 so why $110 for the 20GB SSD? For that much you can get a 64 Gig flash drive It's the same tech

Last edited by 42streetsdown; May 11, 2011 at 10:42 AM.
42streetsdown is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 10:38 AM   #12
42streetsdown
macrumors 6502a
 
42streetsdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Gallifrey, 5124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tike1994 View Post
Just so I understand this article . . .

I just bought a new iMac (supposed to arrive today) with the standard 1TB hard drive.

If I wanted to buy the 20GB SSD for the implementation described in the article, it wouldn't work because Apple doesn't support it in the OS, correct?

Thanks!
Yes, the caching isn't currently supported by OS X. You can still put the OS and Apps on the SSD for better performance.
42streetsdown is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 10:38 AM   #13
42streetsdown
macrumors 6502a
 
42streetsdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Gallifrey, 5124
Quote:
Originally Posted by duffer6 View Post
Do the 2011 MBP's have this potential capability like the Imac 2011??
no, they don't have the same chipset
42streetsdown is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 10:40 AM   #14
LimeiBook86
macrumors 604
 
LimeiBook86's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hanging around in NJ with his cutie. :)
Send a message via AIM to LimeiBook86 Send a message via MSN to LimeiBook86 Send a message via Yahoo to LimeiBook86
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42streetsdown View Post
$110 for only 20 GB? Holy crap!
I've thought this would be a great idea for a while now. but the price is still prohibitive for even the smallest SSDs. you can buy a 8 GB Flash Drive for like ten bucks, and a 16 GB one for like $25. Why not just put something like that directly on the motherboard for caching?
From what I understand the cheaper USB flash drives aren't as fast as the SSDs you would buy as a hard drive.

I would love for Apple to add the caching option in Lion. That would be a nice new feature to have. Currently I'm debating getting an SSD on my new iMac... it's tempting however, and this may tip the scales for me.
__________________
My 'How to Draw Fun Animals' iBook is now on iTunes
"Just you try and stop me..."
My Site Thrift Fails Tech Blog
LimeiBook86 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 10:41 AM   #15
daneoni
macrumors G4
 
daneoni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by duffer6 View Post
Do the 2011 MBP's have this potential capability like the Imac 2011??
Nope. The MBPs use the HM65 chipset. You need a HM67 to get the feature as far as I know.
__________________
15" rMBP Core i7 | 27" ACD | AEBS | 5G iPod | iPhone 5S | 3G Apple TV | rMini
daneoni is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 10:42 AM   #16
Hellhammer
Moderator
 
Hellhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Send a message via MSN to Hellhammer
Quote:
Originally Posted by longofest View Post
I like seagate's implementation better, where they actually put the ssd cache on the hard drive itself. Makes for a more compact arrangement. Don't know how the performance holds up, as seagate isn't currently offering as big of an ssd.
Seagate's option is easier for the end user but it lacks options. It is only available in 2.5" form factor and the maximum SSD size is 4GB. While it speeds up things a lot, 4GB isn't that much space so it can only hold a very limited amount of files.

I'm surprised that Seagate has not updated it and none of the other manufacturers have released something similar. I can see SRT being implemented in future laptops using mSATA SSDs. OEMs can set everything up in the factory so the end-user does not have to worry about hassling with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottsdale View Post
Could this be made to work in the new iMacs?

I assume software is also needed but I am sure someone will mess with it.
Theoretically yes. There is no word on official OS X support though so we may not see SRT in Macs in the near future.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 42streetsdown View Post
$110 for only 20 GB? Holy crap!
I've thought this would be a great idea for a while now. but the price is still prohibitive for even the smallest SSDs. you can buy a 8 GB Flash Drive for like ten bucks, and a 16 GB one for like $25. Why not just put something like that directly on the motherboard for caching?

Edit: You can also get a 32Gb flash drive for just $50 so why $110 for the 20GB SSD? For that much you can get a 64 Gig flash drive It's the same tech
That 20GB uses SLC NANDs which are more expensive that the mainstream MLC NANDs. SSDs also need to use many NANDs to deliver good performance while flash drives can be a single NAND.

Quote:
Originally Posted by daneoni View Post
Nope. The MBPs use the HM65 chipset. You need a HM67 to get the feature as far as I know.
There is no mobile chipset that is comparable to Z68. ZM68 may come at some point but currently Z68 is the only one with SRT.
__________________
SSD Editor for AnandTech
You can also follow me in Twitter!
Hellhammer is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 10:43 AM   #17
duffer6
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42streetsdown View Post
no, they don't have the same chipset
Thanks 42streetsdown....bummer but in the MBP you would need to use the optical bay for one of the drives and that is ony SATA 2 so really if you have a MBP you are better off with the Seagate Momentus XT or a single all SDD drive in the HDD bay. I am just guessing here.
duffer6 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 10:44 AM   #18
profets
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by LimeiBook86 View Post
From what I understand the cheaper USB flash drives aren't as fast as the SSDs you would buy as a hard drive.

I would love for Apple to add the caching option in Lion. That would be a nice new feature to have. Currently I'm debating getting an SSD on my new iMac... it's tempting however, and this may tip the scales for me.
That is true, but $110 for a 20GB SSD is still expensive.

In several systems I use I've placed $80ish 64GB SSDs for the whole system drive. I dunno, I'd rather just have full out SSD performance for my system/apps/etc and not spend more money to start mixing SSD+HDD for less performance.
profets is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 10:45 AM   #19
daneoni
macrumors G4
 
daneoni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by duffer6 View Post
Thanks 42streetsdown....bummer but in the MBP you would need to use the optical bay for one of the drives and that is ony SATA 2 so really if you have a MBP you are better off with the Seagate Momentus XT or a single all SDD drive in the HDD bay. I am just guessing here.
Some and arguably newer MBPs have a SATA III optical port
__________________
15" rMBP Core i7 | 27" ACD | AEBS | 5G iPod | iPhone 5S | 3G Apple TV | rMini
daneoni is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 10:49 AM   #20
duffer6
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by daneoni View Post
Some and arguably newer MBPs have a SATA III optical port
This is the big debate within the 2011 MBP community. Apple system profilier is showing SATA III for some and not for others. Do all the MBP have SATA III in the drive bay that would easily be activated through a firmware update, I hope so. With it being that fragmented I doubt Apple will enable SSD caching through OSX for the 2011 MBP's for this very reason. Might need to be hacked which could lead to other issues.
duffer6 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 10:49 AM   #21
Sodner
macrumors 68000
 
Sodner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tike1994 View Post
Just so I understand this article . . .

I just bought a new iMac (supposed to arrive today) with the standard 1TB hard drive.

If I wanted to buy the 20GB SSD for the implementation described in the article, it wouldn't work because Apple doesn't support it in the OS, correct?

Thanks!
I can't speak to the OS compatibility but I do know getting the SSD mounted in the iMac on your own is not easy.

Seems to me Apple should have held off a month or so on the release and included the Intel 20GB SSD as an option. Since they didn't wait they probably won't make that option available any time soon.
__________________
27" iMac, Late 2013 iPhone 6 64GB AT&T iPad Air 32GB
"I believe in the six colors."
Sodner is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 10:53 AM   #22
Elijahg
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bath, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by profets View Post
That is true, but $110 for a 20GB SSD is still expensive.

In several systems I use I've placed $80ish 64GB SSDs for the whole system drive. I dunno, I'd rather just have full out SSD performance for my system/apps/etc and not spend more money to start mixing SSD+HDD for less performance.
That's because the drives you've been using aren't Single Level Cell (SLC). They're the cheaper but less reliable Multi Level Cell or MLC. MLC drives have a limit of about 5000 erase/write cycles per block, whereas SLC is about 100,000. For a caching drive or one that will be written to frequently, SLC is important to prevent the drive dying prematurely. The problem with SLC, is it's extremely expensive for the same size drive.
Elijahg is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 10:53 AM   #23
tjb1013
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
I'm trying to follow this without having to invest too much brain power. I have been programmed by Steve's reality distortion field and I have convinced myself that I don't want to be a systems integrator -- I just want a good experience.

However, it's hard to shake bad habits.

Here's what I think is going on:

1. Intel's new chipset takes the systems integration off your hands: It automatically caches system and application files on the faster SSD as you use them. There is a first- or infrequent-use penalty, but overall you get much better performance without having to think about it or configure anything to make it so.

2. The 2011 iMac refresh does not contain this chip.

3. However, you can attain even higher performance than the Intel chip provides if you want to buy an SSD and install the OS and your apps on it, and store data/media on the hard drive. This is easy?

Is there any way that Lion will manage this for us?

I've got a late 2006 iMac that is fine for what I use it for, but the video card is failing at even warm temperatures and I am prone to Windows-like lockups lately. I was waiting for the 2011 refresh and hoping for the ridiculous performance boost that SSDs have provided MacBook Airs. Will No. 3 above provide it, or should I wait for Lion for more robust management of this?
tjb1013 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 11:00 AM   #24
dustinsc
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
I'm sure Apple is going to integrate an SSD card (perhaps smaller than the Air's) on every model for either caching or installing the system and critical applications. That will really speed up the system, especially in the areas that most people notice.
dustinsc is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 11:00 AM   #25
Elijahg
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bath, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjb1013 View Post
I've got a late 2006 iMac that is fine for what I use it for, but the video card is failing at even warm temperatures and I am prone to Windows-like lockups lately. I was waiting for the 2011 refresh and hoping for the ridiculous performance boost that SSDs have provided MacBook Airs. Will No. 3 above provide it, or should I wait for Lion for more robust management of this?
Take your iMac apart and blow out all the dust, that'll help keep the GPU temperature down. Installing all your apps and OS on a SSD would be the best option. That way you can ensure exactly what you want to be fast (apps, iPhoto library, OS, etc) can be fast, but media like your iTunes library is kept off the SSD. I have an SSD in my 2006 Mac Pro, and it feels like a new machine.
Elijahg is offline   2 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SSD Intel 530 speeds flurescent MacBook Pro 4 Jan 15, 2014 04:37 AM
2013 MBA Chipset vs 2010 MBp Chipset? Zaphyrus Buying Tips and Advice 0 Jun 22, 2013 06:09 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:29 AM.

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

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