IOPS also represent how fast your computer can access random small files. Like those in the cache of your browser, scratch disk or application files.
Granted but my point was about the price.
The Intel might be the fastest in terms of IOPS but look at the price.... It's silly expensive and that brings me back to my original point.
"If you really need the IOPS for the Intel then surely you gonna want more kick to the rest of the system as well?"
Yes the HDD is one of if not the biggest bottle neck in systems but if you truly 'need' the speed of the Intel and are willing to pay a lot more then why use it in what could be consider a relatively slow system when compared to something like a Mac Pro?
Not picking a fight or anything, It's just to me the Intel isn't worth the extra money. That's just me.
Sustained speed only shows how fast you can copy files to your drive. And there is pretty much no source of data that you can connect your MBP to, that can feed it with such a data rate. You can only get aroune
80MB/s with ethernet, wireless is even slower.
I though we were talking about the speed of the OS? In which case the on-board controller should be more than capable of those sorts of speeds.
As for intel hardware being overpriced, I don't think this applies. Intel pretty much plays alone in the CPU department for a few years now and has models for every budget that perform great.
Intel's market share might look damn good but (in my opinion) they chips are horribly over priced. You can get so, so much more for you money with AMD.
Yes the i7's are faster than any of the AMD line up but how many people buy an i7 every day. Even apple don't buy the 'real' i7's. They use the cut down CPU's found on the 1156 socket. I might be wrong on what Apple use but this is how I understand it.
AMD know they money is with the mid to high range CPU's. Not the super top end of things.
Market share isn't everything. Look at Norton Anti Virus. Biggest market share despite being an industry joke.
Again not picking a fight just my opinion on the situation. Guess it's a agree to disagree job
Does the lack of TRIM support in Mac OS X make SSDs a bad choice? Don't the drives slow down over time without TRIM?
From what people have said OSX doesn't seem to be effect too much.
Not sure how that can be... some say HFS+ is better at dealing with SSD's than NTFS but I'll wait and see for myself.
Nope if the controller is good enough.
The OS, Controller (both on the drive and on board the MOBO) as well as the SSD's firmware need to support TRIM work it to work.
Or id did you mean that if the controller has it's own version of TRIM (Garbage Collection) then you'll be fine. Sorry miss read that on
