Question regarding SSD for MacPro 1,1

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by sachinwalia, Apr 18, 2011.

  1. sachinwalia macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    #1
    Guys,

    sorry if this has been posted earlier. I am looking for an SSD for my 2006 MacPro (1,1). Anyone has any suggestions. I have looked at AData S599 which looks alright and it is based on Sandforce controller. Please let me know if there are better alternatives. Appreciate any suggestion.
     
  2. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    That depends how you define "better".

    Faster are Intel 510 and Sandforce 2000 based drives such as the new OWC or OCZ Vertex 3.

    More reliable than any other drive are Intel drives. That has been proven for the Postville and since the 320 uses the same controller, I don't expect this to change. Intel themselves claims improved reliability of both their 510 and 320 series over the Postville.

    Personally, I put reliability over performance and I honestly doubt that one will notice any difference between current generation drives in real world applications.
     
  3. sachinwalia thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    #3
    Thanks Transporteur. I've heard that the Sandforce 2000 based drives are good where SATA speed is 6Gb/s which is only present in 2011 Macbook Pro. Do you think it'll help in 2006 MacPro as well? I think OCZ vertex 3 is based on Sandforce 2000.
     
  4. MRiOS macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    #4
    I've got an Intel X-25v 40GB SSD in my 1,1 and I have to say it spoils me with how fast it starts up Mac OS. it feels like forever when I have to boot into my other OSs which reside on mechanical HDDs. My only problem with it is that 40GB is really small even for just the OS and Apps. (I'll probably upgrade to an 80GB or larger Intel 320 or 510 drive around christmas when the budget can fit it in.)
     
  5. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    Well, you'd still benefit from the higher random speeds of the Vertex 3 as those are well under the maximum throughput of 3Gb/s SATA.

    Check out anandtech.com for detailed benchmarks of SSDs and decide for yourself.
     
  6. Another1 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #6
    Well, the 320 and 510 uses both 25nm MLC which officially only "survives" (im not sure about the correct english word for it) 3.000 writes/cell, the Postville used 34nm MLC which "survives" 5.000-10.000 writes/cell. I'm not sure if Intel could compansate this completely.
     
  7. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #7
    How fast the drives wears out has, however, nothing to do with its reliability, rather than its longevity.
    If a drive (or the chips) are supposed to last 1 year and it doesn't within that timeframe fail, it still is 100% reliable.

    I don't have the numbers for the 320/510 drives but for the G2 Intel claims a lifespan of 5 years in case that 20GB of raw data gets written to the drive every day (which is a lot!).
    But good that you mentioned it, I wasn't aware of the reduced write cycles for the new drives. Would be nice to get some numbers (such as the 5 year span) for those drives as well.
     
  8. Another1 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #8
    Micron says the same (5 years 20GB/day) for the actual m4/C400 64GB version. The 256GB version should take double the time or traffic. And youre right, i mixed reliability and longevity. But the 25nm chips makes more trouble in matters of reliability, too. Thats a main cause why the C400 was deferred.
     
  9. durruti macrumors regular

    durruti

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2004
    Location:
    Jersey
    #9
    I'm using an Adata SSD S599 64 GB in my macbook pro right now and it works great.

    Before this, I used the Kingston V Series 40GB that was basically a rebadged Intel SSD with TRIM support disabled in firmware. I replaced it with the Adata one because I was having issues with system hangs, mp3s skipping, due to fragmentation, and lack of TRIM or garbage collection in Mac OS X.

    The Adata SSD which uses a Sandforce controller and has built in Garbage Collection has been great, but there are issues with hibernation that have been mentioned, but can be worked around by disabling hibernation. My Adata SSD is in a drive caddy where the optical drive would be, and I have another Hard Drive in my Hard Drive Bay for Media files. There is an article on Anandtech about Sandforce controllers and firmware versions and respective issues.

    Currently, all I am aware about are the new Intel SSDs and the SSDs based on the newer Sandforce controller. With the newer Intel SSDs, my main concern would be fragmentation and when TRIM support would be available (from what I know it will be in Lion).

    If I'd choose a newer Sandforce based one, I'd do more research to make sure any issues with firmware versions are present. But likely if I had to buy an SSD today, I'd get one of the newer Sandforce based ones, so I wouldn't have to worry about lack of TRIM/garbage collection and the potential issues.
     
  10. durruti macrumors regular

    durruti

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2004
    Location:
    Jersey
    #10
    This was the article on Anandtech I was talking about.
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/3661

    Currently the Adata 599 I'm using has issues with Sleep. I have disabled Hibernation with SmartSleep Preference Pane. But, the issue is, when my MBP sleeps, it occasionally wakes up by itself, then goes back to sleep. Hopefully in the future there will be someway to do a firmware update in Mac OS that will address these issues.

    For your consideration.
     
  11. durruti macrumors regular

    durruti

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2004
    Location:
    Jersey
    #11
    the new Sandforce SF-2000 based SSDs seem to vary in performance compared to their capacity size...

    So I can't recommend them anymore...

    My advice, do your own research....
     
  12. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #12
    The fact is that all SSD's available today perform so close on low queue-depth random read/write performance (which is the most important benchmark for desktop users) that it would be near impossible to notice any difference in every-day use.

    Pick your SSD on other factors like reliability and cost. I would prefer Intel and Micron products for these reasons although OWC drives are also fairly highly regarded here.
     

Share This Page