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.
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.
Intel's Z68 Chipset and SSD Caching Reviewed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
I hope the redesigned MBP bring an SSD such as these in the stock paired with and HDD to make the system run faster!
Thanks, I really should blow the dust out. This machine is perfectly fine for home use. I'm not sure the chassis can handle an SSD and a hard drive, but perhaps a USB hard drive for data/media will be sufficient? My iTunes media are already on one...
Good to know, but I'd rather go full SSD. After using computers with it I can't go back. Just like the MBA, I wish those kind of options would come across to other Macs as well.
Go to Apple system profile. Go to the SATA serial ATA tab: if it looks like this for the optical bay: you have sata 2
Intel 6 Series Chipset:
Vendor: Intel
Product: 6 Series Chipset
Link Speed: 3 Gigabit
Negotiated Link Speed: 1.5 Gigabit
Description: AHCI Version 1.30 Supported
If it looks like this is the optical bay you have sata 3:
Vendor: Intel
Product: 6 Series Chipset
Link Speed: 6 Gigabit
Negotiated Link Speed: 3 Gigabit
Description: AHCI Version 1.30 Supported
Unless you lost the use of the optical drive (which is most likely parallel ATA, so you can't plug a SSD into it anyway) you wouldn't have enough ATA connectors for a second internal drive, even if you could find space. Your best bet would be to swap the hard disk for a SSD that's big enough for all your apps and the OS, and have your iTunes library on an external FireWire drive. USB is a bit slow for a hard disk.
My brother bought a kit for his new MBP where it takes your optical and puts it in a usb external enclosure, he moved his 750gig drive into the optical bay via a mounting kid and put his SSD in as the primary. Using the Trim app he gets crazy speeds now. Kit cost $100.
Just as another FYI your HDD bay is 100% SATA 3 in the MBP they all are. The bay in questions is the optical bay.
Robson, reborn ?
Remember 2007 and the big buzz about the Intel Santa Rosa chipset for Core2duo. They had a 1 GB SSD integrated on the motherboard, codenamed "Robson", marketed as "TurboMemory" or something. It was supposed to automatically cache frequently accessed system files for faster application - and OS - startup.
I bought a Tosh laptop with that. I never saw anything good about Robson, the hard disk LED is constantly blinking. Big fail it was...
Hopefully the new gimmick works better...
Remember 2007 and the big buzz about the Intel Santa Rosa chipset for Core2duo. They had a 1 GB SSD integrated on the motherboard, codenamed "Robson", marketed as "TurboMemory" or something. It was supposed to automatically cache frequently accessed system files for faster application - and OS - startup.
I bought a Tosh laptop with that. I never saw anything good about Robson, the hard disk LED is constantly blinking. Big fail it was...
Hopefully the new gimmick works better...
In a system with multiple HD (potentially including external ones), will the SSD cache data from all of them or just one?
I much prefer this new one, the way I work 4g cache wouldn't be nearly enough. Heck, I wish they didn't have the 64 gig limit, for certain applications there will probably be benefit with even larger SSD.
I much prefer this new one, the way I work 4g cache wouldn't be nearly enough. Heck, I wish they didn't have the 64 gig limit, for certain applications there will probably be benefit with even larger SSD.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
We've long had a good variation of this in older iMacs with SSD and a hard drive. For example, in my own case, I've had the prior generation of iMac set up with all of the applications on the SSD and my home folder on the internal hard drive. Mac OS X has a feature that makes it rather easy to move your whole home folder to a second drive and then make one change to make it all work.
As a result, I get the quick bootups and application loads from the SSD without worrying about stuff like library updates & caches writing too many times to the SSD. Relative to my old Mac without an SSD, bootup and load times are extremely (even crazy) fast.
The big thing with SSDs is to think about their primary benefit (very fast read times) and their primary disadvantage (don't write to them too many times or you wear them out). Then, divvy up what gets stored on the SSD and what gets stored on the hard drive accordingly.
This new thing that makes an SSD cache seems nice. Basically, things you've been working on lately will probably be in the cache, so when you go back to them, they'll load really quickly. But I wonder how the (too many) writes problem is addressed. I would think that if you installed a big SSD to use as cache plus a section of it as app storage as referenced in the article, the cache section would get worn out much sooner than the rest of the space on the drive. I wonder how that is overcome, or if the expectation is to wear out an SSD faster to motivate purchases of additional (or dedicated cache) SSDs.
As a result, I get the quick bootups and application loads from the SSD without worrying about stuff like library updates & caches writing too many times to the SSD. Relative to my old Mac without an SSD, bootup and load times are extremely (even crazy) fast.
The big thing with SSDs is to think about their primary benefit (very fast read times) and their primary disadvantage (don't write to them too many times or you wear them out). Then, divvy up what gets stored on the SSD and what gets stored on the hard drive accordingly.
This new thing that makes an SSD cache seems nice. Basically, things you've been working on lately will probably be in the cache, so when you go back to them, they'll load really quickly. But I wonder how the (too many) writes problem is addressed. I would think that if you installed a big SSD to use as cache plus a section of it as app storage as referenced in the article, the cache section would get worn out much sooner than the rest of the space on the drive. I wonder how that is overcome, or if the expectation is to wear out an SSD faster to motivate purchases of additional (or dedicated cache) SSDs.
I'm not smart
So admittedly I'm not real smart with all of this but...
I'm looking at buying a new iMac and one option is to buy a 256GB SSD and 1 or 2TB Serial Drive.
Can't I use the SSD for start up and apps and use the serial drive for files, etc?
Is this the same thing that the article is talking about?
So admittedly I'm not real smart with all of this but...
I'm looking at buying a new iMac and one option is to buy a 256GB SSD and 1 or 2TB Serial Drive.
Can't I use the SSD for start up and apps and use the serial drive for files, etc?
Is this the same thing that the article is talking about?
Thanks for this info. I had overlooked (or fogotten) the news of Seagate's "On HDD" solution, which I can see as an easy-for-hardware-vendors to implement without having to do much other work (and which also is of benefit to home DIY'ers to refit legacy hardware).
In general, I personally have seen the lack of SSD caching as a longstanding hardware shortfall that Apple should have changed two years ago, given that they're selling "we don't know how to make cheap junk" premium hardware.
The "SSD Sticks" in the current MBAir design were IMO a very welcome sight to see ... even though I know that the MBA is all SSD-based now, I thought that Apple had finally had woken up to an approach for a relatively "cheap" SSD-based hardware speed improvement ... and of course, to see the new iMac now come out without having that interface was not the case, and IMO a disappointing step backwards in the form of "Opportunity Lost".
In looking at AnandTech's page, it appears that the Intel Z68 chip is really for reducing dependencies on clock timings (ie, it makes overclocking easier for harwdware developers), and the SSD caching feature almost seems to be a secondary thought that was thrown in.
As such, I don't see this as a huge piece of 'good news', other than it appears that in doing some of this, Intel now has the published data to inform hardware developers that they dont need a huge (=expensive) SSD to get the basic performance gains: they only need ~64GB (and the faster it is, the better).
Personally, I'd love to see the MBA's "SSD Sticks" design be proliforated across all of Apple's product line - - their size & form factor should make them be as easy of an upgrade as RAM, and should offer a nice boost at very low relative cost (another Apple Store Option, too) ... particularly if it starts with lower-end models with a ~16GB stick instead of a $100 64GB one, we're probably looking at an easy 5% boost for only $25 or so.
-hh
Very interesting stuff. Looks like SSD caching is really just a good temporary thing, but in the long run pure SSD will always win hands down. Very awesome stuff, and I'm glad the feature is offered. However, if I could afford it, I'd rather just get a large fast SSD.
God I hope the prices on SSDs drop sometime soon. They're definitely a crap-ton cheaper than what they used to be, but still a bit expensive.
God I hope the prices on SSDs drop sometime soon. They're definitely a crap-ton cheaper than what they used to be, but still a bit expensive.
I don't know that I'd call that a variation, it's really a different animal. Doing that will speed up boot and application launch, but the caching method has the potential to speed up any loading on the machine, which has the potential to provide much bigger speed gains. Wear and tear on the SSD is an issue, although that is lessened if they have a smart algorithm that puts more emphasis on caching most often used data and not writing everything that is loaded from HD.
Absolutely, and it will give you a nice speed boost.
No, the new technology caches frequently used data automatically as opposed to the user having to decide what goes on SSD and what on HD.
And it also makes for an OS-agnostic arrangement (whereas the Intel solution is software-based and OS-dependent).
At $2000+ per terabyte? That would be wildly expensive and impractical for my usage (which I'll readily admit is very different than mainstream usage, but it would still make sense for intel to make the technology as flexible as they can). But caching like this with a 128 or 256 in the $250-500 range would be perfect.
Here are the specific criteria:
1 Huge amount of data on HD (way to expensive to put it all on SSD)
2 Only a small portion of that data is used on a regular basis
3 Extremely difficult if not impossible to manually grab that small portion and copy it to SSD
This technology is perfect for handling that at low cost although removing the limit of 64 gigs would make it even more useful.
Any chance it may be supported by the Lion OS X though and that is why Apple put it in the new iMacs?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I don't think so unless Apple has changed their approach to installing OS X on new iMacs since last year. When I bought mine (with SSD + HDD) the whole OS came installed on the SSD. Then, I had to figure out how to leave certain things on the SSD and store other things on the HDD. Ultimately I decided to simply store the whole "Home" folder on the HDD.