7200rpm PATA vs SSD PATA

[Goftrey]

Some of the slowers models had a 5400 drive as an option. The first with such an option was the DVI Tibook. Even 7200rpm was an option for some of the 1.33Ghz+ models.

I'm on about stock, out of the gate models with no BTO options ticked. Listing every capacity/speed option available for each model spanning a 5 year time period would take an age.

 

[Intell]

I'm on about stock, out of the gate models with no BTO options ticked. Listing every capacity/speed option available for each model spanning a 5 year time period would take an age.

Stock is out of the Apple factory box with no user alterations. If the device comes out of the box with a 7200rpm drive, then it's stock. No matter the build options.

 

[Goftrey]

Stock is out of the Apple factory box with no user alterations. If the device comes out of the box with a 7200rpm drive, then it's stock. No matter the build options.

Alright now you're nit-picking

If you want to list every single PowerBook G4 model ever released with each corresponding hard drive speed including every BTO option then go wild.

 

[Intell]

4200rpm-PowerBook3,2 PowerBook3,3 PowerBook3,4 PowerBook3,5 PowerBook5,1 PowerBook5,2 PowerBook5,3 PowerBook5,4 PowerBook5,5 PowerBook6,1 PowerBook6,2 PowerBook6,4
5400rpm-PowerBook3,4 PowerBook5,2 PowerBook5,3 PowerBook5,4 PowerBook5,5 PowerBook5,6 PowerBook5,7 PowerBook5,8 PowerBook5,9 PowerBook6,4 PowerBook6,8
7200rpm-PowerBook5,8 PowerBook5,9

There's your list, total time about 3 minutes.

 

[Frost7]

To answer the original question, I'd stick with the 7200 RPM hard drive. With the age of the computer, I doubt you'll be seeing any significant performance increase with the SSD.

No... no, you'll see a significant difference. I swapped the 5400rpm 320GB WD Scorpio Blue I had in my 1 GHz TiBook (which was already a noticeable step up from the original 4200rpm 60GB Toshiba) for a 480GB OWC Mercury Legacy Pro earlier this year and the difference in performance is night and day. Totally breathed new life into the old machine.

It's bottlenecked at 66 MB/sec thanks to the old ATA/66 bus, true, but as far as random small reads and writes, it ties or beats the already speedy 960GB Crucial M500 running on SATA-I in my MacBook Pro, at least according to Xbench.

Far as real world usage, you can tell the difference there easily as well, and if you use it for OS9 gaming it just blows the doors off of everything.

Only real problem is the price. You need to really want that PowerBook as a hobby machine to spend that kind of cash on it (raises hand).

 

[\-V-/]

No... no, you'll see a significant difference. I swapped the 5400rpm 320GB WD Scorpio Blue I had in my 1 GHz TiBook (which was already a noticeable step up from the original 4200rpm 60GB Toshiba) for a 480GB OWC Mercury Legacy Pro earlier this year and the difference in performance is night and day. Totally breathed new life into the old machine.

It's bottlenecked at 66 MB/sec thanks to the old ATA/66 bus, true, but as far as random small reads and writes, it ties or beats the already speedy 960GB Crucial M500 running on SATA-I in my MacBook Pro, at least according to Xbench.

Far as real world usage, you can tell the difference there easily as well, and if you use it for OS9 gaming it just blows the doors off of everything.

Only real problem is the price. You need to really want that PowerBook as a hobby machine to spend that kind of cash on it (raises hand).

That is a horrendous bottleneck for an SSD. :/

 

[Frost7]

That is a horrendous bottleneck for an SSD. :/

No argument there, but if you're using old PowerBooks, there's really no way around that ceiling sadly.

That said, unless you're moving big files, most of the "snappy feel" of the machine comes from the ability to make quick, speedy, small reads and writes with near-instant access times rather than large sequential reads and writes. That's where an SSD can shine even with the old, slow bus.

 

[\-V-/]

No argument there, but if you're using old PowerBooks, there's really no way around that ceiling sadly.

That said, unless you're moving big files, most of the "snappy feel" of the machine comes from the ability to make quick, speedy, small reads and writes with near-instant access times rather than large sequential reads and writes. That's where an SSD can shine even with the old, slow bus.

I'll take your word for it. :]

 

[robertosh]

I would advise against using the KingSpec SSDs, due to their sub-par controllers. You will run into freezes and other nuisances when this thing handles small files (especially when writing those).

I have a KingSpec SSD and i don't have any problem at all. The only important thing is that you need to set the drive as master.(I had to cut the cable for that). If you don't do it, the machine will freeze after waking up from sleep.

 

[mayuka]

So the SSD wouldnt significantly increase app loading times/boot times? I was under the impression it would be a night and day difference. I have been massively impressed by how my Pro is so quick because of the SSD...

It depends. Sequential readings won't be faster with the SSD, because the computer bus is the limiting factor here. I think the computer is limited to 30-40 MB/s sequential read spead. The SSD however will show significantly faster random access to small files such as configuration files or plists whatever. Since most instruments and sound files are rather huge, you won't see much improvement. I tried this on my G4 PB 12" and boot times were approx 2-3 sec. faster if that's any help to you.

 

[Andropov]

It depends. Sequential readings won't be faster with the SSD, because the computer bus is the limiting factor here. I think the computer is limited to 30-40 MB/s sequential read spead. The SSD however will show significantly faster random access to small files such as configuration files or plists whatever. Since most instruments and sound files are rather huge, you won't see much improvement. I tried this on my G4 PB 12" and boot times were approx 2-3 sec. faster if that's any help to you.

Boot implies reading a huge amount of data (sequential reading). That's not where the SSD benefits would show up against a 7200rpm. SSDs are faster than hard drives, no matter how narrow the bottleneck is.

Applications, in the other hand, are smaller so there you should see an improvement.

 

[seveej]

That is a horrendous bottleneck for an SSD. :/

No argument there, but if you're using old PowerBooks, there's really no way around that ceiling sadly.

That said, unless you're moving big files, most of the "snappy feel" of the machine comes from the ability to make quick, speedy, small reads and writes with near-instant access times rather than large sequential reads and writes. That's where an SSD can shine even with the old, slow bus.

I totally agree with Frost7...

As a matter of fact, I strongly suggest that the OP gets himself a decent (forget KingSpec) SSD unless (s)he needs umpteen gigabytes. The *real* real-life difference comes in eliminating seek-times, not in max throughput (BTW, show me a 2,5" PATA HDD which systematically saturates that ATA66 bandwidth).

I've had good experiences with a Transcend SSD in a 12" PB (10.4. Boots in 12 seconds flat - you can almost forget sleep), and a noiseless PB is bliss.
Sadly, switching a HDD for an SSD also exacerbates the fan noise - a near constant companion with the 12" PB

RGDS,

----------

I tried this on my G4 PB 12" and boot times were approx 2-3 sec. faster if that's any help to you.

I'm no OS technician, so I do not know what files are needed for loading the OS, but my experiences point in another direction. Boot times are generally out of another world with an SSD, even with machines having constrictive buses, and this experience comes based on having supplanted boot drive HDD's with SSD's in a total five computers (MacBook (Alu), MBP 15" (early 2011), MBP 13" (Mid 2010), PBG4 (12") and MacPro (3,1)) (all SSD installations based on cloning, so no difference there either)

EDIT: I knew I had my records somewhere, so I went searching: 12" PBG4 (1,5 Ghz, 10.4.11): Boot time with 60 GB 7200 rpm HDD: 38 secs; Transcend 64 GB SSD, 12 secs flat. So, my experience is more like 3 times faster than 3 secs faster...
RGDS,

 

[Cox Orange]

Did one of you test a 1,8" IDE SSD against a 1,8" SATA SSD?

 

[crewkid89]

What about running everything through FireWire from an external enclosure? Isn't FireWire faster than IDE?

 

[Intell]

What about running everything through FireWire from an external enclosure? Isn't FireWire faster than IDE?

FireWire 400 is about as fast as ATA/33. FireWire 800 can be faster than ATA/66, but not ATA/100. The Macs that have FireWire 800 also have ATA/100 or SATA. Then there's the higher latency and loss of advanced ATA commands. No real advantage in using FireWire as a boottable bus for production.

 

[MisterKeeks]

I have a KingSpec SSD and i don't have any problem at all. The only important thing is that you need to set the drive as master.(I had to cut the cable for that). If you don't do it, the machine will freeze after waking up from sleep.

Have you run any benchmarks on it? Is it slowing down at all?

 

[Cox Orange]

Originally Posted by robertosh:
I have a KingSpec SSD and i don't have any problem at all. The only important thing is that you need to set the drive as master.(I had to cut the cable for that). If you don't do it, the machine will freeze after waking up from sleep.

cable?

 

[robertosh]

cable?

Sorry, language mistake. I meant the wire connector. The reason is that you have to put the drive as master using a jumper but the apple IDE connector is so wide and cover all the pins of the drive, including the four pins for slave/master selection. If you need more information just ask....

Regards

 

[Cox Orange]

Ah, I see. Thank you! Didn't remember the size of the connector.