SATA 3 for Mac Pro 2006 (rev 1)?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by blakespot, May 5, 2011.

  1. blakespot Administrator

    blakespot

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2000
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    #1
    Is anyone aware of a SATA 3 board for the Mac Pro that works on the first unit, the mid-2006 release? I am not sure if it has PCIe 1.1 or 2.0.

    Is there one that works in 1-lane? 4-lanes?

    Thanks.



    blakespot
     
  2. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #2
    E.g. this. PCIe is backwards compatible so PCIe 2.0 device will work in PCIe 1.1 slot. However, since that card uses PCIe x1 and one PCIe 1.1 lane can only provide 250MB/s, you wouldn't get that great performance, although it would be fine for two external HDs.
     
  3. blakespot thread starter Administrator

    blakespot

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2000
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    #3
    IS orig Mac Pro PCIe 1.1?

    Would the on-board SATA 2 on that Mac Pro be faster than this card in said Mac Pro?


    bp
     
  4. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #4
    Yes.

    Yes, as each SATA 3Gb/s port can provide up to ~285MB/s in real world (the maximum combined bandwidth is like 660MB/s). Remember that there are two extra SATA ports in first gen Mac Pro so you can use for example this to gain access to them.
     
  5. blakespot thread starter Administrator

    blakespot

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2000
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    #5
    Thanks. I'm already tapped into those.




    bp
     
  6. blakespot thread starter Administrator

    blakespot

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2000
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    #6
    What about a 4-lane SATA 3 controller on that first Mac Pro 2006? Would that get actual SATA 3 speeds? It seems that running a GF7300 (my 2nd vidcard) in a 4-lane slot works ok.

    ?

    Thanks.



    bp
     
  7. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #7
    All the SATA 6Gb/s cards I've seen use PCIe x1 interface. I'm not that familiar with this topic though so nanofrog or Transporteur should be able to help you more on this.

    May I ask what would you use it for? Regular hard drives don't benefit from SATA 6Gb/s interface since they can barely saturate the SATA 1.5Gb/s interface. The SATA 6Gb/s cards I have seen do not support booting so a SATA 6Gb/s SSD doesn't make that much sense either.
     
  8. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #8
    If you mean a 4x lane, 4x port card, it has the same limitations. The basic approach is that 1x PCIe lane is used per port, so you'd top out at 250MB/s per port.
     
  9. blakespot thread starter Administrator

    blakespot

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2000
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    #9
    Ah ok.

    I have a Intel 510 Series 250GB SSD on the way for my 2006 Mac Pro to speed things up. I will likely be upgrading to a Sandy Bridge Pro when it arrives, but will start out using it in my current Mac Pro.

    Seems it will be a nice jump from my 600GB VelociRaptor boot drive even on the SATA 2 bus of this 2006 Mac Pro. I guess I'll not see the full benefit until I move up to the coming Mac Pro.




    bp
     
  10. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #10
    You will still be able to take full advantage of the random speeds which are the whole point of an SSD. Normal usage does not consist of sustained speeds that much. Sustained speeds will be more limited by the SATA 3Gb/s bus but even then, the upgrade will be huge from a regular HD.
     
  11. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #11
    In terms of random access, SSD's are the fastest technology out there, and you should get all it has to offer, as SSD random access still cannot saturate your current SATA ports.

    In terms of sequential throughputs, you'd throttle if the disk can exceed ~275MB/s sustained sequential transfer rates. Even if this is how you end up using an SSD, it's still faster than mechanical can muster (would hit the wall a bit over the 100MB/s mark for most fast SATA disks). ;)

    Slightly different way of saying the same thing as Hellhammer did (beat me to it), but the numbers listed should give you a clear idea as to what's going on. :)
     

Share This Page