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.
MP 1,1-5,1 Should I upgrade my 2006 Mac Pro 1,1 or get a newer one?
- Thread starter CaliforniaDreamin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Excellent idea on the USB 3.0, and that will help with speed if I’m using this unit primarily as storage. Any suggestions on brand?
On another note, there’s a 3,1 locally available for $150 with the following:
- 2x 2.8GHz quad-core Xeon
- 10GB RAM (2x1GB, 4x2GB, 2 empty)
- ATI Radeon HD 2600
- 128GB SSD
- 750GB HDD
Is this worth picking up given the specs? You may be asking why I’m considering going in different directions. I’m enjoying getting into the basics of upgrading and learning more about these machines. So far, I’ve been able to do so for very short money, which I’d recoup easily upon selling the 2,1. How much better off would I be served longer term with a hooked up 3,1 flashed to 5,1?
On another note, there’s a 3,1 locally available for $150 with the following:
- 2x 2.8GHz quad-core Xeon
- 10GB RAM (2x1GB, 4x2GB, 2 empty)
- ATI Radeon HD 2600
- 128GB SSD
- 750GB HDD
Is this worth picking up given the specs? You may be asking why I’m considering going in different directions. I’m enjoying getting into the basics of upgrading and learning more about these machines. So far, I’ve been able to do so for very short money, which I’d recoup easily upon selling the 2,1. How much better off would I be served longer term with a hooked up 3,1 flashed to 5,1?
You cannot "upgrade" a 3,1 to a 5,1 as they are completely different architectures (the 5,1 is a very minor revision of the 4,1 and that's why you can flash a 4,1 to essentially be a 5,1).
The 3,1 is a nice system but I would not recommend buying one with the intent to upgrade and resell it for profit. Neither would I recommend you buy one unless you have a specific for doing so. Official operating system support ended after OS X El Capitan (10.11). I believe you can hack Sierra (10.12) and possibly High Sierra to run on them but I have no experience doing so so I cannot speak with any authority about this.
As to this specific unit I feel $150 is not unreasonable and I might pick it up if I didn't already have a 3,1. I recall when this system was released. Many considered it the best value for what it offered and I'm not sure it ever lost that title to subsequent offerings. This alone makes it difficult to not be enthusiastic to recommend one except under user specific factors.
Thanks for your thoughts, defjam. I’ve got my 2,1 headed in a good direction. Could this 3,1 far exceed it with some minimal investments in upgrades?
I don't believe so. The 3,1 was essentially an update on the 1,1 (everything I say also applies to the 2,1 as the 2,1 was just a dual quad core version of the 1,1) model. It was not nearly the leap the 4,1 was over the 3,1. IMO the most significant advantage the 3,1 has over the 1,1 is official support for OS X. The 1,1 line ended with Leopard whereas the 3,1 ended with El Capitan therefore the 3,1 can, officially, support significantly newer software.
Hardware wise I'd say the most significant advantages the 3,1 has over the 1,1 is double the maximum RAM capacity (16GB for the 1,1 and 32GB for the 3,1, officially) and the PCIe slots. The 3,1 added two PCIe version 2 slots (the 1,1 only has PCIe version 1 slots). The 3,1 does have a 64-bit EFI (1,1 had a 32-bit EFI and it is for this reason many feel the 1,1 lost official OS support). Otherwise I don't feel there is any end user performance benefit.
Those are probably the most notable benefits the 3,1 has over the previous models. Everything else was incremental improvements (larger cache, faster memory, faster optical, etc.). IMO unless you need 32GB (or, unofficially, 64GB) the 3,1 offers and / or PCIe 2.0 speeds the 1,1 you have now is just as capable. I doubt you would notice a speed difference in anything but benchmarks.
If you didn't already own the 1,1 then I would definitely recommend the 3,1. Since you already own the 1,1 I would only recommend the 3,1 for the later OS support and, possibly, the higher memory capacity.
Thanks, defjam. Helpful info as usual. This is good for framing my plans going forward.
I’ve got the option to pick up a 5,1 for a great deal. It’s got the X5675 in single processor format, even though that chip typically came in dual format.
It’s a 6-core with 32GB RAM, 256GB SSD and 1TB HDD, as well as a Radeon 5770. Ratings of the X5675 versus the W3565 are favorable.
Can you (and the other gurus) please give me the pros/cons of such a 5,1 versus my 2,1? Seems I’d be best served going with this 5,1 for long-term usage. Mojave, much better processor, fast RAM, etc.
I’ve got the option to pick up a 5,1 for a great deal. It’s got the X5675 in single processor format, even though that chip typically came in dual format.
It’s a 6-core with 32GB RAM, 256GB SSD and 1TB HDD, as well as a Radeon 5770. Ratings of the X5675 versus the W3565 are favorable.
Can you (and the other gurus) please give me the pros/cons of such a 5,1 versus my 2,1? Seems I’d be best served going with this 5,1 for long-term usage. Mojave, much better processor, fast RAM, etc.
A 5,1 is a significant step up from the 1,1 - 1,3 models. The 5,1 has an identical architecture to the 4,1 which was a significant change from the previous models and many considered them to be the best versions of the cMP. There are plenty of people who continue to use them and it only recently lost official OS support with Mojave. Thus it is capable of running most of the current software which runs on the Mac.
If you want a cMP to use on a daily basis a 5,1 is a great option. It's weak in the single thread performance but can hold its own in many multithreaded applications. It's highly expandable so you can use much more capable GPUs than you would in the earlier models. I could definitely recommend purchasing one as long as it's not excessively priced.
As for being a single CPU they're capable systems with just a single CPU but it's best potential is with a dual processor configuration. I say this because, due to its age, you really need as many cores as possible in order for it to perform with or exceed the performance of newer systems. Changing it from a single processor to dual processor system is very easy, just swap the single CPU tray for a dual CPU tray. The problem lies in the cost of obtaining a dual CPU tray. They go for, IMO, unreasonable prices and can often exceed the cost of buying a dual processor 5,1 system. Furthermore you cannot use a dual CPU tray from a 4,1 in a 5,1 or vice-versa (technically you can but the cooling fans run at full speed and there's no way to change that). I say this because 4,1 trays tend to be reasonably priced compared to 5,1 trays. Thus should you buy a single CPU 5,1 know that it is possible, but likely unreasonably costly, to change it to a dual CPU configuration (though this may change as the 5,1 ages and becomes less desirable).
The 5,1 does away with the FB-DIMMs used in the previous architecture Macs, instead utilize more common DDR3 DIMMs. You will also need a dual CPU tray in order to obtain the 5,1's maximum memory configuration (single CPU tray has four DIMM slots, the dual CPU tray has eight)
Essentially if you want a cMP then the 5,1 is the way to go and is worthy of consideration over any 1,1 - 3,1 model.
If you want a cMP to use on a daily basis a 5,1 is a great option. It's weak in the single thread performance but can hold its own in many multithreaded applications. It's highly expandable so you can use much more capable GPUs than you would in the earlier models. I could definitely recommend purchasing one as long as it's not excessively priced.
As for being a single CPU they're capable systems with just a single CPU but it's best potential is with a dual processor configuration. I say this because, due to its age, you really need as many cores as possible in order for it to perform with or exceed the performance of newer systems. Changing it from a single processor to dual processor system is very easy, just swap the single CPU tray for a dual CPU tray. The problem lies in the cost of obtaining a dual CPU tray. They go for, IMO, unreasonable prices and can often exceed the cost of buying a dual processor 5,1 system. Furthermore you cannot use a dual CPU tray from a 4,1 in a 5,1 or vice-versa (technically you can but the cooling fans run at full speed and there's no way to change that). I say this because 4,1 trays tend to be reasonably priced compared to 5,1 trays. Thus should you buy a single CPU 5,1 know that it is possible, but likely unreasonably costly, to change it to a dual CPU configuration (though this may change as the 5,1 ages and becomes less desirable).
The 5,1 does away with the FB-DIMMs used in the previous architecture Macs, instead utilize more common DDR3 DIMMs. You will also need a dual CPU tray in order to obtain the 5,1's maximum memory configuration (single CPU tray has four DIMM slots, the dual CPU tray has eight)
Essentially if you want a cMP then the 5,1 is the way to go and is worthy of consideration over any 1,1 - 3,1 model.
Great stuff, defjam. You talked me into it. I bought a mid-2010 cMP 5,1 today for $350 with: 3.06ghz 6-core (X5675 single slot) with 32GB RAM, 256GB SSD and 1TB HDD, and Radeon 5770.
Upgrading the CPU to a 3.46ghz looks much simpler than the transplant in the 1,1 so I may do that soon. First, I’ll be picking up 48GB RAM in sticks of 16 so I can get the full 1333 speed using only three slots. Currently, the speed showing is 800 but that’s because all four slots are being used on the single processor. You guys said that more RAM of a slower speed is better than less RAM of a higher speed, so I’m keeping all four slots filled until the new stocks arrive.
Aside from that, I’ll probably relocate the SSD boot drive to a PCIe slot and RAID 10 the four top slots then connect an external backup for more redundancy. I’m studying up on that now and expect to post in the server forum with questions soon. I’d also like to throw in faster USB.
The 1GB graphics card is likely plenty for me since I’m not a gamer, but I wouldn’t mind HDMI outputs and could eventually upgrade the GPU. In the meantime, I plan on enjoying a faster Mac Pro than I’ve ever used.
Any further suggestions and comments are appreciated, including specific models of upgrade products you all suggest.
Upgrading the CPU to a 3.46ghz looks much simpler than the transplant in the 1,1 so I may do that soon. First, I’ll be picking up 48GB RAM in sticks of 16 so I can get the full 1333 speed using only three slots. Currently, the speed showing is 800 but that’s because all four slots are being used on the single processor. You guys said that more RAM of a slower speed is better than less RAM of a higher speed, so I’m keeping all four slots filled until the new stocks arrive.
Aside from that, I’ll probably relocate the SSD boot drive to a PCIe slot and RAID 10 the four top slots then connect an external backup for more redundancy. I’m studying up on that now and expect to post in the server forum with questions soon. I’d also like to throw in faster USB.
The 1GB graphics card is likely plenty for me since I’m not a gamer, but I wouldn’t mind HDMI outputs and could eventually upgrade the GPU. In the meantime, I plan on enjoying a faster Mac Pro than I’ve ever used.
Any further suggestions and comments are appreciated, including specific models of upgrade products you all suggest.
Congratulations on your purchase. That seems like a fair price for the system. You'll find it much more upgradeable than the 1,1 you have (and the 3,1 you were considering).
One thing I did not mention about the 5,1 is the CPUs support hyperthreading which aids in multithreaded performance. If you open Activity Monitor you'll see it has more threads than the 3,1 you were considering. Thus a single, four core CPU can possibly process eight threads simultaneously. It would not be surprising to see a 5,1 configured in this manner outperform the dual, four core CPUs in the 3,1. Having a six core processor means you have access to twelve threads. Thus your six core processor system is likely to outperform the 1,1 and 3,1 in just about every metric (single core performance of the 5,1 is better than that for the 1,1 - 3,1 systems). IOW in just about every CPU related metric your system already bests those systems. Adding a second processor makes it that much more so for multithreaded applications.
The processors also support Turbo Boost which has the potential to increase CPU frequency above the base clock. The X5675 installed in your system has a base clock of 3.06GHz but can potentially clock up to 3.46GHz. The X5690 you're considering has a base of 3.46GHz and the potential to clock up to 3.73GHz.
Upgrading the CPU is dirt easy on this system. All you need is a long handled T-15 torx driver and some thermal paste to put on the new CPU. There have been many discussions as to what brand of thermal paste to buy but any name brand paste should be more than sufficient.
As for memory there are two type of memory performance for the 5,1:
For both situations sufficient memory is more important than faster memory configured in a triple channel configuration (which offers the best performance). Note that I said "sufficient" because 16GB of memory doesn't offer any additional speed over 8GB if your usage doesn't exceed 8GB. If all you require is 8GB then having 3 x 4GB, 1333MHz modules will provide you with the best performance (even though those requirements could be met with 2 x 4GB or 1 x 8GB). Of course if you require 16GB your only option is 4 x 4GB (officially, single CPU tray).
Will you ever notice this increased performance? Unlikely in anything but benchmarks. Typically it's better to have sufficient slower memory / configuration than insufficient, faster memory / configuration. If all of this is making your head spin then, IMO, a general rule of thumb is you are unlikely to go wrong by having a smaller number of higher capacity memory. Always go with the faster memory, all else being equal. This is all academic for you as you've already decided to purchase 3 x 16GB of 1333MHz memory.
One thing I did not mention about the 5,1 is the CPUs support hyperthreading which aids in multithreaded performance. If you open Activity Monitor you'll see it has more threads than the 3,1 you were considering. Thus a single, four core CPU can possibly process eight threads simultaneously. It would not be surprising to see a 5,1 configured in this manner outperform the dual, four core CPUs in the 3,1. Having a six core processor means you have access to twelve threads. Thus your six core processor system is likely to outperform the 1,1 and 3,1 in just about every metric (single core performance of the 5,1 is better than that for the 1,1 - 3,1 systems). IOW in just about every CPU related metric your system already bests those systems. Adding a second processor makes it that much more so for multithreaded applications.
The processors also support Turbo Boost which has the potential to increase CPU frequency above the base clock. The X5675 installed in your system has a base clock of 3.06GHz but can potentially clock up to 3.46GHz. The X5690 you're considering has a base of 3.46GHz and the potential to clock up to 3.73GHz.
Upgrading the CPU is dirt easy on this system. All you need is a long handled T-15 torx driver and some thermal paste to put on the new CPU. There have been many discussions as to what brand of thermal paste to buy but any name brand paste should be more than sufficient.
As for memory there are two type of memory performance for the 5,1:
- Number of memory channels (three versus four)
- Memory speed (1066MHz versus 1333MHz)
For both situations sufficient memory is more important than faster memory configured in a triple channel configuration (which offers the best performance). Note that I said "sufficient" because 16GB of memory doesn't offer any additional speed over 8GB if your usage doesn't exceed 8GB. If all you require is 8GB then having 3 x 4GB, 1333MHz modules will provide you with the best performance (even though those requirements could be met with 2 x 4GB or 1 x 8GB). Of course if you require 16GB your only option is 4 x 4GB (officially, single CPU tray).
Will you ever notice this increased performance? Unlikely in anything but benchmarks. Typically it's better to have sufficient slower memory / configuration than insufficient, faster memory / configuration. If all of this is making your head spin then, IMO, a general rule of thumb is you are unlikely to go wrong by having a smaller number of higher capacity memory. Always go with the faster memory, all else being equal. This is all academic for you as you've already decided to purchase 3 x 16GB of 1333MHz memory.
Last edited:
Awesome stuff! I was aware of a fair amount of that and you also educated me more on several items. I’m feeling like I’m acquiring a stronger grasp of all of this each day thanks to your tutelage. Really helps as I navigate where to take things.
Pursuant to setting up my home network with remote access, I posted a lengthy set of ideas and questions in the Server section of this forum. Feel free to read it and respond as you desire:
forums.macrumors.com
Pursuant to setting up my home network with remote access, I posted a lengthy set of ideas and questions in the Server section of this forum. Feel free to read it and respond as you desire:
Questions on setting up my home network with remote access
I’m looking to set up my home network. This forum has given me a tremendous amount of help since recently joining and I’m grateful you folks have taken the time to share your knowledge. This is lengthy, so feel free to comment or answer specific questions or several if you so choose. I am here...
forums.macrumors.com
You won't get too many people saying to keep the Mac Pro going, but I will.
It isn't your primary machine, correct?
The 2006/2007 Mac Pro 1,1 are amazing machines, and really fast for their age.
I purchased a 2006 Mac Pro 1,1 almost 13 years ago, and it is still used today, right now actually. It isn't my main Mac, and has been since I purchased my Late 2012 iMac, but it still has plenty of power to do a lot of stuff.
I have made many upgrades over the years, the GPU I have upgraded twice, bought RAM a few different times, I think I am up to 11GBs on it.
I replaced the internal drives many times changing to bigger sizes or just configurations, first with HDDs, then HDDs in software RAID0s, then added a SSD boot drive, and now 2 SSDs with a RAID0 as my boot drive with 2 HDDs in a RAID0 that I use for my media storage.
I also upgraded to El Capitan using boot loader hacks, and it runs pretty well. It actually runs much better with El Capitan than Maverick which I was using before.
I would have done a SSD a long while ago if I were you, it is such a great, cheap, and easy upgrade.
Maybe for your boot drive, do a software RAID 0 with 2 SSDs like I have.
Here is a screen shot of my boot drive RAID0 in my Mac Pro 1,1:
![Screen Shot 2019-08-07 at 3.18.40 PM.png]( "Screen Shot 2019-08-07 at 3.18.40 PM.png")
Not bad for SATA II.
It isn't your primary machine, correct?
The 2006/2007 Mac Pro 1,1 are amazing machines, and really fast for their age.
I purchased a 2006 Mac Pro 1,1 almost 13 years ago, and it is still used today, right now actually. It isn't my main Mac, and has been since I purchased my Late 2012 iMac, but it still has plenty of power to do a lot of stuff.
I have made many upgrades over the years, the GPU I have upgraded twice, bought RAM a few different times, I think I am up to 11GBs on it.
I replaced the internal drives many times changing to bigger sizes or just configurations, first with HDDs, then HDDs in software RAID0s, then added a SSD boot drive, and now 2 SSDs with a RAID0 as my boot drive with 2 HDDs in a RAID0 that I use for my media storage.
I also upgraded to El Capitan using boot loader hacks, and it runs pretty well. It actually runs much better with El Capitan than Maverick which I was using before.
I would have done a SSD a long while ago if I were you, it is such a great, cheap, and easy upgrade.
Maybe for your boot drive, do a software RAID 0 with 2 SSDs like I have.
Here is a screen shot of my boot drive RAID0 in my Mac Pro 1,1:
Not bad for SATA II.
Thanks VS, and no, it is not my primary machine. However, it will be hard not to use a lot with the speed it seems to have and load of tasks it can handle.
Any other thoughts on my post/thread about the home network setup?
Any other thoughts on my post/thread about the home network setup?
Reading about your direction, I can really congratulate yourself in regards to the 5.1 cMP. It's an awesome machine that can be upgraded to almost today's technology. When you think about SSD, I really would recommend either AHCI blades (if you can get them-> Samsung 951 or 941) or even a modern up to date NVMe blade that requires a firmware update.
Regardless of which blade you go for, most important is the PCIe adapter card. (See NVMe / AHCI SSD main blog)
A PCIe switch card makes a huge difference compared to regular SATA SSD's or single blade adapter solutions.
My 951 is doing 1900MB/sec and boots in no time with the I/O Crest card.
All those things cant be done in a 3.1, and you certainly can't use a VEGA Pro card. The 5.1 still has a lot of life left in it, especially with a working Catalina patch thanks to dosdude. Great decision on the 5.1 and a warm welcome to the cMP 5.1 custom club..
Thanks for the good words, Alex. I’m looking forward to owning and enjoying the cMP 5,1.
For the blades and I/O Crest Cards you mention, do you mind copying links here to specify which products I can and should use? I did a search for the Samsung cards you mentioned and found a wide array of models and pricing.
What makes a blade SSD Mac-compatible vs solely PC? There looks to be some new terabyte SSDs under $100 but only for PC.
Obviously, with this 5,1 I’m looking to get max performance and usage out of minimal investment.
For the blades and I/O Crest Cards you mention, do you mind copying links here to specify which products I can and should use? I did a search for the Samsung cards you mentioned and found a wide array of models and pricing.
What makes a blade SSD Mac-compatible vs solely PC? There looks to be some new terabyte SSDs under $100 but only for PC.
Obviously, with this 5,1 I’m looking to get max performance and usage out of minimal investment.
He's referring to two types of SSD interface technology:
Recently it became possible to upgrade the 5,1 with native NVMe support. I believe the upgrade results from the installation of Mojave. Definitely ask others for their guidance as I have not performed this upgrade.
- AHCI - This utilizes the SATA protocol and is useable in systems which do not natively support NVMe.
- NVMe - This is a "native" interface for SSDs and requires the system to have native support.
Recently it became possible to upgrade the 5,1 with native NVMe support. I believe the upgrade results from the installation of Mojave. Definitely ask others for their guidance as I have not performed this upgrade.
Solid info. Should I RAID two NVMe drives in an I/O slot? Again, trying to balance cost and performance.
There's no practical reason to do so for your use case. TBH a SATA 2.5" drive would be more than sufficient performance for your needs. You're unlikely to notice anything faster. If you've got the drives go for it, otherwise I wouldn't recommend spending money on it.
Ok. Not even one blade startup drive? I may run out of room up top in the four bays unless I go 2TB across. There are a finite number of slots in the back for upgrades, but I was figuring boot drive was good for one of them.
With the addition of native NVMe support to the very latest 5,1 firmware I see no reason why you shouldn't unless other factors are in play. For example if you already have a SATA SSD it's unlikely, for your use case, you'll notice the increased performance over the SATA SSD. Or if you're unable to upgrade the firmware (for example you do not have a metal capable GPU and therefore cannot install Mojave, the installation of which installs the NVMe capable firmware).
Since this is more of a hobbyist system for which tinker is part of the reason you have it I would say look into an NVMe SSD (and associated PCIe card). Unfortunately I can't give you any specifics as I have not done this myself (the 2.5" SATA drive in my system is sufficient for my needs) so I would recommend following others advice. I think there might be a thread about this somewhere here.
Sorry to interfere, but Mr defjam is NOT entirely correct on this one. To understand this, you need to know about three speed stages in the 5.1.
1. SATA SSD, limited to SATA bus speed, meaning about 500MB/sec.
2. AHCI SSD in a single PCIe adapter, in PCI port 3 & 4 -> speed about 850MB/ to 1350MB/sec depending on type of used SSD blade.
3. AHCI SSD in a dual PCIe adapter (Switch card) in PCIe port 1 or 2 -> 1500MB to 1900MB/sec depending on type of used SSD blade.
4. NVME SSD has the same speed limitation in PCIe port 3 & 4 because of the port limit of the Mac (!)
5. NVME SSD in Port 1 & 2 in dual or Quad blade adapter Switch card (Highpoint, Sonnet Fusion or Amfeltech) can do up to 6000MB/sec in software raid configuration.
Also worth mentioning, AHCI blade boot faster in the Mac Pro 5.1 then any NVMe blade because of the old boot software (even on 144.000xx bootrom)
Where defjam IS correct, AHCI blades are tougher to find these days, because of the industry transition to NVMe.
Since I have tested almost every sort of SSD's in a desperate hunt for the max speed on my 5.1, I can tell you that you will notice a difference between a regular SATA SSD and a 1900MB/sec AHCI blade.
The unique selling proposition for the dual Crest card is a superior cooling, a compact form factor working with AHCI & NVMe alike and the price tag, which is only half of the expensive Amfeltech or Sonnet fusion card. By using two blades in one slot, this saves you one complete slot in the cramped 5.1. compared to using a single adapter. However, this was the best setup before Apple introduced the surprising NVME firmware upgrade. In today's world you can easily put an NVMe SSD in the Crest card and be very happy. The AHCI route was a solution when NVME was not possible in the 5.1. However, it's still not bad if a fast boot time for an OSX start volume is your thing. Unfortunately, the Samsung 951 max capacity was 512GB only, the older HyperX 941 did go till 960GB but its the slightly slower predecessor. However you decide, I would never ever go for a SATA SSD.
Syba Dual M.2 M-Key NVMe Ports to PCIe 3.0 x16 Bifurcation Riser Controller - Support Non-Bifurcation Motherboard (SI-PEX40129)
The I/O CREST SI-PEX40129 is a great accelerated secondary storage solution for any workstation with true PCIe 3.0 x8 bandwidth (x16 Interface). It has two M.2 NVMe ports to accept two NVMe M.2 SSDs, so each NVMe M.2 SSD has dedicated PCIe 3.0 x4 bus bandwidth. It delivers transfer speeds 20 time...
www.amazon.com
Samsung SM951 256GB PCIe Gen3 8Gb/s x4 M.2 80mm (AHCI Version) Solid State Drive SSD
Samsung SM951 256GB PCIe Gen3 8Gb/s x4 M.2 80mm (AHCI Version) Solid State Drive SSD
www.amazon.com
I am very happy with my current setup, I can promise you that.
I read through your post and I did not see where you referenced an error of mine. I'd appreciate if you could highlight it so that I know where I was wrong so I might learn from the error.
-
"In fact I would say you're unlikely to notice the difference between AHCI and a SATA 2.5" drive for most things."
-
At least in my opinion, the difference is remarkable between SATA SSD and AHCI in a switch card. For me it feels like the difference between a 2014 iMac and a 2017 iMac, -- something of that nature. But then again, "my feeling" is relative of course, I can not measure it, so it is highly objective. But since the OP might as well spend hundreds of $ for a regular Samsung SATA SSD, he/she might as well go the more up to date PCIe route. I just can't recommend a SATA SSD in 2019, - I just can't. That's my personal opinion. There are professionals out there that think, to invest in a 5.1 in 2019 is already questionable. So from that kind of view, beeing a die-hard enthusiast, at least get the latest tech possible, hence at least AHCI blade or NVMe depending on local availability. The only small weakness the 5.1 cMP has for me is the somewhat slow single-core performance, so my personal theory was always to compensate for that with avoiding bus-speed bottlenecks on the SSD-CPU transfer. Hence the importance to use the max on MB/sec with the lowest invest, which is why I stranded on the Crest card. But thats just me..
Then why did you say I was incorrect instead of saying that your opinion differs from mine?
Despite the fact it's my opinion the OP, based on his previously defined workload, will not see a benefit from NVMe over a SATA SSD I did say:
" I see no reason why you shouldn't unless other factors are in play."
In response to his question "Not even one blade startup drive?"
I love my 1.1, ultimate Snow Leopard machine.
Still use it in the studio, for tethered shooting.
Some older stuff works better on it, software or firewire devices.
It is slow, but doesn't feel slow. My i7 8GB air should be much faster,
but can only work at 2 medium format photographs at a time.
The 1.1 crushes it for that purpose ... an almost 15 year old PC.
Main computer is a 6.1, also really love that one, but there is so much stuff connected.
AHCI and NVME blades in thunderboxes. Between 6 and 10 external hard drives.
Raid boxes for more spinners. A 4 bay to pop in Sata SSD's, I use them like floppy disks ...
All those boxes and adapters, makes not portable at all. My cheesgraters are on wheels.
I have different AHCI's, the 960gb ones from Kingston, also the last AHCI blades Samsung made,
there was also an NVME version. They are all much faster than a sata SSD.
Large PSB files save instantly. But that's my specific use case.
At my flat, I have a 3.1, with a GTX 680, 64 gig ram, USB 3, also have a blade in there
but slot 2 can't go over 700mb/read and write ... It's to close to the SATA SSD's in real life experience
so put the full 64 gig ram back. ( BUT AS IT IS ON A 3.1 )
Would like a mini or a windows pc as I get more video work.
Not interested in a 5.1 now, a retired 6.1 or mini can be a nice living room device.
The towers not so ...
Also have an Imac they gave me, I hate glossy screens so gave it to my girlfriend ...
would never buy one.
Had a Macbook Pro, under duress It got very very hot and terminated itself under of pro workload.
Have the alu unibody macbook, upgraded the ram and put a SL en EL Cap SSD in It.
Won't buy the 7.1. I don't need an insane workstation.
Still use it in the studio, for tethered shooting.
Some older stuff works better on it, software or firewire devices.
It is slow, but doesn't feel slow. My i7 8GB air should be much faster,
but can only work at 2 medium format photographs at a time.
The 1.1 crushes it for that purpose ... an almost 15 year old PC.
Main computer is a 6.1, also really love that one, but there is so much stuff connected.
AHCI and NVME blades in thunderboxes. Between 6 and 10 external hard drives.
Raid boxes for more spinners. A 4 bay to pop in Sata SSD's, I use them like floppy disks ...
All those boxes and adapters, makes not portable at all. My cheesgraters are on wheels.
I have different AHCI's, the 960gb ones from Kingston, also the last AHCI blades Samsung made,
there was also an NVME version. They are all much faster than a sata SSD.
Large PSB files save instantly. But that's my specific use case.
At my flat, I have a 3.1, with a GTX 680, 64 gig ram, USB 3, also have a blade in there
but slot 2 can't go over 700mb/read and write ... It's to close to the SATA SSD's in real life experience
so put the full 64 gig ram back. ( BUT AS IT IS ON A 3.1 )
Would like a mini or a windows pc as I get more video work.
Not interested in a 5.1 now, a retired 6.1 or mini can be a nice living room device.
The towers not so ...
Also have an Imac they gave me, I hate glossy screens so gave it to my girlfriend ...
would never buy one.
Had a Macbook Pro, under duress It got very very hot and terminated itself under of pro workload.
Have the alu unibody macbook, upgraded the ram and put a SL en EL Cap SSD in It.
Won't buy the 7.1. I don't need an insane workstation.
Last edited:
It kinda gets you into the territory of 'just because I can', if the system you are upgrading is not a primary one for use.
Nothing wrong with that, if it floats your boat.
For me, I only ever upgrade my primary system and get very attached to it - it's my workhorse, my baby.
For now, the 5.1 is my absolute core machine. I have a souped up PC next to it which I occasionally game with - and wrestle with an OS I have come to loath so much - windows.
You know the drill - fancy a quick blast an an FPS to clear some cobwebs, fire up the gaming PC only to be faced with the inevitable 'windows updates' - 20 minutes later, Why? Why? Why am I putting up with this?
Hobbying with hardware is great - but to me, it's what I can do with a computer in terms of creativity which trumps all - I was once into the whole hardware for hardwares sake, and even an OS for an OS sake - tweaking, fiddling, doing anything other than actually using it for productive creative work.
Each to their own - there's an entire lucrative market for those who like to tinker, but like anything, the entry barrier is *massive*, the competition immense, the expense - whatever if you enjoy it.
For me, a computer is a tool. Sharpen it, hone it, use it. I'm not a tool maker, I'm a tool user.
Nothing wrong with that, if it floats your boat.
For me, I only ever upgrade my primary system and get very attached to it - it's my workhorse, my baby.
For now, the 5.1 is my absolute core machine. I have a souped up PC next to it which I occasionally game with - and wrestle with an OS I have come to loath so much - windows.
You know the drill - fancy a quick blast an an FPS to clear some cobwebs, fire up the gaming PC only to be faced with the inevitable 'windows updates' - 20 minutes later, Why? Why? Why am I putting up with this?
Hobbying with hardware is great - but to me, it's what I can do with a computer in terms of creativity which trumps all - I was once into the whole hardware for hardwares sake, and even an OS for an OS sake - tweaking, fiddling, doing anything other than actually using it for productive creative work.
Each to their own - there's an entire lucrative market for those who like to tinker, but like anything, the entry barrier is *massive*, the competition immense, the expense - whatever if you enjoy it.
For me, a computer is a tool. Sharpen it, hone it, use it. I'm not a tool maker, I'm a tool user.