Intel's Z68 Chipset and SSD Caching Reviewed

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, May 11, 2011.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    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.
    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.
    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.
    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
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    iDisk

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Location:
    Menlo Park, CA
    #2
    Will this result in cheaper ssd prices now?
     
  3. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    #3
    So what is Apple going to do when they switch to ARM?

    ;)
     
  4. macrumors 6502a

    PlipPlop

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    #4
    I remember reading about it before the imacs were released. I think Toms Hardware did an article on it.
     
  5. macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    #5
    I don't see Apple implementing this
     
  6. Moderator emeritus

    Hellhammer

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #6
    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.
     
  7. Editor emeritus

    longofest

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Location:
    Falls Church, VA
    #7
    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.
     
  8. macrumors 6502a

    iDisk

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Location:
    Menlo Park, CA
    #8
    Thanks Mr.Hammer ;)
     
  9. macrumors 601

    Scottsdale

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    #9
    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.
     
  10. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2011
    #10
    Do the 2011 MBP's have this potential capability like the Imac 2011??
     
  11. macrumors member

    Tike1994

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    Location:
    St. Charles, IL
    #11
    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!
     
  12. 42streetsdown, May 11, 2011
    Last edited: May 11, 2011

    macrumors 6502a

    42streetsdown

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    Gallifrey, 5124
    #12
    $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
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    42streetsdown

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    Gallifrey, 5124
    #13
    Yes, the caching isn't currently supported by OS X. You can still put the OS and Apps on the SSD for better performance.
     
  14. macrumors 6502a

    42streetsdown

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    Gallifrey, 5124
    #14
    no, they don't have the same chipset
     
  15. macrumors 604

    LimeiBook86

    Joined:
    May 4, 2002
    Location:
    Hanging around in NJ with his cutie. :)
    #15
    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. :)
     
  16. macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    #16
    Nope. The MBPs use the HM65 chipset. You need a HM67 to get the feature as far as I know.
     
  17. Moderator emeritus

    Hellhammer

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #17
    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.

    Theoretically yes. There is no word on official OS X support though so we may not see SRT in Macs in the near future.


    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.

    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.
     
  18. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2011
    #18
    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.
     
  19. macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    #19
    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.
     
  20. macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    #20
    Some and arguably newer MBPs have a SATA III optical port
     
  21. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2011
    #21
    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.
     
  22. macrumors 68020

    Sodner

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    #22
    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. :(
     
  23. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Location:
    Bath, UK
    #23
    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.
     
  24. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    #24
    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?
     
  25. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2009
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page