Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
3G vs 6G SSD
- Thread starter r.gen
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
^What he said. Go for Samsung, they're reliable, well known, faster than most and on sale.
The macbook pro mid 2010 model only supports SATA II in both the optical bay and the disk bay. This means read/write speeds can only reach a maximum of about 385mb/s.
Although it can't use an SSD at SATA III speeds, it will still be able to use it (in most cases) but just dim the speeds down to SATA II. I've never heard of an SSD that can actually reach the height of SATA III speeds, most remain in the 4-5gb region to be honest.
The macbook pro mid 2010 model only supports SATA II in both the optical bay and the disk bay. This means read/write speeds can only reach a maximum of about 385mb/s.
Although it can't use an SSD at SATA III speeds, it will still be able to use it (in most cases) but just dim the speeds down to SATA II. I've never heard of an SSD that can actually reach the height of SATA III speeds, most remain in the 4-5gb region to be honest.
Buy whatever is the right price.
3G v 6G, in real day to day running you will not notice the difference at all.
If you get a 6G SSD its backwards compatible to a 3G, so I would say get a samsung 830 6G if the price is right and smack it in.
Moving my system to 6G was unnoticeable, unlike the jump from HDD to SSD. Only time I can gloat about 6G is when you benchmark.... though benching is so so so so far removed from real day to day operation of a system.
3G v 6G, in real day to day running you will not notice the difference at all.
If you get a 6G SSD its backwards compatible to a 3G, so I would say get a samsung 830 6G if the price is right and smack it in.
Moving my system to 6G was unnoticeable, unlike the jump from HDD to SSD. Only time I can gloat about 6G is when you benchmark.... though benching is so so so so far removed from real day to day operation of a system.
Not true. You can easily tell the difference between SATAII (3G) and SATAIII (6G). It's about twice the difference :\
Not really. The vast majority of the time the SSD is being used at speeds less than SATA 2.
If you stuck them in a data centre however that might be different.
I hope you're kidding here, because you're entirely incorrect.
Current gen SSDs constantly hit SATAIII speeds. Like my Samsung 830 in my early 2011 MBP.
Actually I'm not - but it can depend on what you're doing on a machine. If you're hammering the machine and doing large scale data transfers then I would agree with you. Most normal use though doesn't put enough data through to realise the difference between SATA 2 and SATA 3 most of the time - most of the action happens at lower than SATA 2 speed.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sata-6gbps-performance-sata-3gbps,3110.html
Bit like having two cars, one with 180mph top speed, and one that maxes out at 100mph. Most of the time driving around town you're lucky to hit 30mph - at least where I live
Just to be clear I am not saying there is no difference between a SATA 3 and a SATA 2 SSD.
----------
Agree with that 100% - except I'd pay a small premium for SATA3.
Your argument is sound, but it's just an argument.
Of course if all you do is read emails, you're not even hitting SATAI speeds. Only during launching of the application.
However, if you have multiple applications open and doing heavy file reading/writing, then you will definitely benefit from SATAIII.
Of course if all you do is read emails, you're not even hitting SATAI speeds. Only during launching of the application.
However, if you have multiple applications open and doing heavy file reading/writing, then you will definitely benefit from SATAIII.
No you cannot. I said day to day running.
If your someone that runs benchmarks, awesome to you, you get get a snap shot and show people. For everyday use, its pointless, as you will get bottlenecks in your system may they be CPU or network that will prevent you from hitting max transfer rate.
The huge jump as I stated is from HDD to SSD.
I run 2x Sata 2 SSDs and 3x sata 3 SSDs, the sata 3 SSDs are NOT twice the speed of my sata 2.... I wish they were! There is only a slight noticeable difference between the two for day to day tasks.
What do you do all day?
I push 2k files around in After Effects with multi-layered projects. Photoshop, 2-5GB files all the time. Illustrator, saving, etc. are all quick for me and I benefit from SATAIII.
Maybe you do word docs all day, that's something else.
SATAIII protocol is twice as fast as SATAII, but single ssd's do not hit that wall yet. If you put in 2x128GB Samsung 830's in RAID0 mode, you will definitely hit the SATAIII wall.
Given what you do, you have not realised that the bottleneck in you system is CPU/GPU/memory??.
For what you do, you are not getting twice the performance, even raid 0 is not going to overcome the bottleneck you have...
You really need to stop looking at marketing hype on the back of boxes that makes you think SATA 3 SSDs are giving your system twice the performance over SATA 2.
Read this, as a start anyway. And don't mislead people on here to spend more money, in hope of getting twice the performance...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4341/ocz-vertex-3-max-iops-patriot-wildfire-ssds-reviewed/3
Sorry, but you are completely incorrect.
CPU is not a bottleneck. The Quad Core i7 Sandy Bridge chip is quite fast. So is the RAM. The GPU is rarely used for FCP 7.
I also have a Mac Pro, but that only supports SATAII.
Please don't tell me about marketing hype. I've been using computers probably way before you were born
Your argument is that SATAIII is unnecessary over SATAII when in fact someone like me, a power user (a small percentage probably) benefits from the extra bump in SATAIII.
Sorry, but you are completely incorrect.
CPU is not a bottleneck. The Quad Core i7 Sandy Bridge chip is quite fast. So is the RAM. The GPU is rarely used for FCP 7.
I also have a Mac Pro, but that only supports SATAII.
Please don't tell me about marketing hype. I've been using computers probably way before you were born
Your argument is that SATAIII is unnecessary over SATAII when in fact someone like me, a power user (a small percentage probably) benefits from the extra bump in SATAIII.
ha ha ha. yeah keep the insults flying
Few minor facts, my first computer was a Vic 20, I'm much older then you think.
My background is hardware.
If you a power user.... damn.. I must be something like a super super power user, running a hexacore i7 processor at 4.6 Mhz, 24GB ram, GTX 690, Samsung 830s in Raid 0, and for some proper speed a PCI enterprise grade SSD. Its bottleneck is the CPU. I run my machine either as a PC or a Hackintosh. Your setup, is a toy.... sorry!
My judgement is that SATA 3 will not give you TWICE the performance in real life scenarios....
Did you even read the link I sent you? Its actually written quite well and easy to follow.
As I stated to the OP, buy what you can afford at a price that is right, in real life use there is little practical difference between sata 2 and sata 3.
Let me Stress what you are missing here ------ > "Real World Performance" <--------
I assume your one of these mac "power users" who also upgrades the CPU right???
- Status