yeah, xbench shows data for sata usage. Nameci, how did you find going from typical spin drives in raid0(not much fun if one drive decides to go belly up) to SSD on your G5?
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.
Just stuck an SSD in my G5
- Thread starter Jethryn Freyman
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I knew by numbers that the drive was faster but you don't notice the speed increase. While I know that in day-to-day usage it is faster it's honestly no noticeable. I found the same true when I had an Agility 3 in the DP. This is one of the reasons zen gets so excited, people will tell him he's wrong without ever trying what he did. I will never have a platter drive in any of my notebooks, if I build another hack it will get an SSD, but on my to PM's it isn't worth the space trade.
Last edited:
Using AJA System test, 8-bit 1080p frames, 2GB files:
7,200 rpm 1TB Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 480GB free
vs
OCZ Vertex Plus SSD, 120GB
Hard disk: read/write at ~67MB/sec
SSD: read/write at ~125MB/sec
----------
7,200 rpm 1TB Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 480GB free
vs
OCZ Vertex Plus SSD, 120GB
Hard disk: read/write at ~67MB/sec
SSD: read/write at ~125MB/sec
----------
It does make copying much master, even between the SSD and the other SATA hard disk; especially when you turn off all Leopard's superfluous pretty effects you really see some speed.
Right, except I don't which was that entire long winded post was about..pulling the Black and adding the SSD did not improve the speed in any noticeable way on either of my G5's. The did improve the MP, Hackintosh, MB, and MBP.
I now understand why you don't like OpenMark's consistent graphic results. Because you're an Xbench user. I now get why you're used to scores being different on the same hardware.
Xbench is a sketchy inconsistent joke and it really really seems like you have no idea what makes a good benchmark. Anyone who gives a thumbs up to XB and a thumbs down to OM is truly lost. Good luck with all that.
----------
Virtually everything you state is a personal assumption on what I said. You throwing a bunch of conjecture at me does nothing but show that you're trying to twist what I said to suit your own argument.
I am one of the biggest advocates here of fact based help for people so I can assure you that my goal was not to generalize what I said as if it would be everyones experience.
Once agin... when the words are coming from me I am obviously speaking for myself. Not for you or anyone else.
I do agree that on modern boards and SATA controllers that yes an SSD likely will be faster but that logic is useless to PowerPC users since we are all on either SATA I or PATA drive controllers. My VR runs on a SATA I PCI card as does my SSD.
Last edited:
Yes you do... like continuing to not get that consistency is good in benchmarks. Do you judge all that is good as bad and vise versa?
Vanne,
I got around 70~80 read/write on the spin drive and average of 120 MBps on the SSD. I have never tried s/w RAID0 on spin drives but with the SSD, It doesn't have any difference at all in my experience, still saturating at 120MBps. That is all I can get with SSD RAID0 or single. By the way SSD is generic Microcenter SSD with SF 2281 controller, so it might be slower compared to other brands.
I might try zen's VR path just to see the difference and might stick to it if it reads much faster than the SSD. I will throw back the SSD's unto my dual core or get a FirmTek SATA card and throw it on my MDD FW800.
If it's just a curiosity type thing then save money and buy a small used VR on ebay. Because they are so robust they live a lot longer than normal magnetic drives. Because of that I would say the VR has about the biggest used aftermarket of any drive that I have seen.
You can get used 80GB on ebay for about 50 US shipped. Mine is a new 160GB but 80 would even be enough for me. I am thinking of getting another and keeping my SSD as a spare part.
Zen, correct me if I'm wrong but do we not need to make sure any VR we purchase for our pet PPC's needs to be SATA 2.
I mention this only because when searching for them on the web I notice that the majority of them today are SATA 3.
I mention this only because when searching for them on the web I notice that the majority of them today are SATA 3.
Half the drives I own are SATA III and they all run perfectly on SATA I. Why do you have this idea that SATA III drives cannot work on SATA I?
There are some very rare exceptions with cheaper SATA III SSD but any good drive company either has a hardware jumper or an auto-jumper in the firmware to run at SATA II speed on a SATA I or II controller. WD drives all have hardware jumpers.
There you go again zen, I invited you to correct me, not scold me, if I was wrong, you have a real knack for trying to make others feel less then human.
I got the idea, as you put it from information on the internet, like this thread in which you post information, a lot of which states that SATA III drives will not be recognized by a lesser SATA controller.
Last edited:
You call asking why you have that idea scolding? Oh my...
If you have issues with how I answer things then don't ask me questions. I am not on this earth to word things in a way that pleases you or strokes your ego.
Your information on SATA III is a combination of your own misunderstanding and ignorant 3rd party sellers. It would be economic suicide for any drive company to leave the majority of SATA controllers behind.
There is also the fact that I use 4 SATA III drives on SATA I controllers on PowerPC systems. It's the ones that are set to SATA III speeds that won't work until you set them to II.