Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 56

Thread: The SSD Thread

  1. #16
    The SSD Thread

    Member Since
    Aug 17, 2012
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by cwa107 View Post

    Well, I almost hate to say it, but the most likely reason you haven't found any specific commentary on it, is because it's elementary. Any time you increase throughput on mass storage, you're going to see an overall performance increase.
    No, it is NOT elementary. In fact, regarding application speed, several SSD techs have written that there should be no difference at all. If there WERE a difference, then you would expect to see many online tests showing how much of this difference exists between the various brands & models of SSD, yet there are none.

    CWA, I'm not sure you read my question carefully, or perhaps simply don't understand what I'm asking ABOUT.

    Any pro user running apps that require heavy data reads & write (Photoshop, Protools, Final Cut Pro, etc) will have the data on a separate drive, so the boot drive's throughput has nothing to do with accessing that data. Your comment makes no sense.

    Even if we were talking about running an app that accesses data, and is (stupidly) storing that data on the same drive (which no pro would ever do) it is not AUTOMATIC that there would be an increase in app performance. Probably yes (in that bizarre scenario) but there can be other bottlenecks, such as ram limitations of the memory controller. - but this is not much of a real-world scenario, so it's moot, anyway.

    - And as far as apps that do NOT access data, throughput may not matter at all.

    Please don't post unless you are sure.
    -------------

    The only reason I even brought it up is that I feel there might be a performance boost in some applications, simply because the Mac has to write-read a lot of invisible files as an app runs. However, the standard tech response to this idea is that those write-reads typically happen in the heap file, which is in ram and thus just as fast as an SSD. (faster, actually.)

    So, I'm still curious if there are any specific benchmarks that might show additional benefit.

    It seems that a lot of people are spending big money on SSD boot drives, for almost no reason. If saving 30 seconds on your system boot speed, or maybe 15 seconds on an application boot, is important to you, then fine, but that money could be better spent elsewhere.

    Now, if you are a pro A/V use that typically opens many large sessions in a day, and time is big money, then the application-boot difference could be more like 2 minutes per session, and that could perhaps add up to enough time to warrant the cost. But if you're idea of a large program is some video game, then I dunno ....
    ---------------------------------------------------
    Still hoping for some real data, if it exists.
    Last edited by Cableaddict; 09-04-2012 at 06:42 PM.

  2. #17
    The SSD Thread
    cwa107's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 20, 2006
    Location
    Lake Mary, Florida
    Posts
    26,758
    Specs:
    15" MBP, Core i7/2GHz, 8GB RAM, 480GB Crucial M500 SSD
    Quote Originally Posted by Cableaddict View Post
    No, it is NOT elementary.
    Sure it is, you're just too stubborn-headed to see it. You've already got your mind made up, so I'm not sure why you bothered to ask the question. Perhaps you're more interested in making a subjective rant.

    In fact, regarding application speed, several SSD techs have written that there should be NO difference. If there WERE a difference, then you would expect to see many online tests showing how much of this difference exists between the various brands & models of SSD, yet there are none.

    CWA, I'm not sure you read my question carefully, or perhaps simply don't understand what I'm asking ABOUT.

    Any pro user running apps that require heavy data reads & write (Photoshop, Protools, Final Cut Pro, etc) will have the data on a separate drive, so the boot drive's throughput has nothing to do with accessing that data. Your comment makes no sense.
    I understand exactly what you're talking about and your area of concern. You're referring specifically to a situation where data is stored on a separate volume from the boot drive. Data is on traditional rotating media, and the OS and apps are on an SSD. In the event that were true, you are correct that there would be little difference in accessing data on the mass storage volume (i.e. in/out operations to the data files). However, your applications, being stored on the SSD and OS are going to be inherently more efficient, running from an SSD.

    Even if we were talking about running an app that accesses data, and is (stupidly) storing that data on the same drive (which no pro would ever do) it is not AUTOMATIC that there would be an increase in app performance. Probably yes (in that bizarre scenario) but there can be other bottlenecks, such as ram limitations of the memory controller. - but this is not much of a real-world scenario, so it's moot, anyway.

    - And as far as apps that do NOT access data, throughput may not matter at all.

    Please don't post unless you are sure.
    I'm not sure why you're being so combative here. This is a discussion forum. You have your opinion, which you are welcome to share in a respectful manner. I'm going to let this one slide, but perhaps you should revisit our Community Guidelines, which you agreed to abide by when you joined here - and particularly rule number one.


    -------------

    The only reason I even brought it up is that I feel there might be a performance boost in some applications, simply because the Mac has to write-read a lot of invisible files as an app runs.
    That would be correct. Also in use of virtual memory and interacting with the OS.

    However, the standard tech response to this idea is that those write-reads typically happen in the heap file, which is in ram and thus just as fast as an SSD. (faster, actually.)
    It depends on the app. Yes, some apps will load all of their dependencies into memory at once, given adequate system memory. Even still many apps cache and interact with the OS and they stand to gain from the OS and application being installed on an SSD in that case.

    So, I'm still curious if there are any specific benchmarks that might show additional benefit.

    It seems that a lot of people are spending big money on SSD boot drives, for almost no reason. If saving 30 seconds on your system boot speed, or maybe 15 seconds on an application boot, is important to you, then fine, but that money could be better spent elsewhere.

    Now, if you are a pro A/V use that typically opens many large sessions in a day, and time is big money, then the application-boot difference could be more like 2 minutes per session, and that could perhaps add up to enough time to warrant the cost. But if you're idea of a large program is some video game, then I dunno ....
    ---------------------------------------------------
    Still hoping for some real data, if it exists.
    I would venture to say that the benchmark you're looking for is probably too specific of a scenario. However, I still think that anyone, even those running traditional HDDs for mass storage of project data, will still stand to gain significant performance by upgrading the OS/Application drive to an SSD.

    I'd say if you want proof, pick up an SSD and if you're not satisfied with it, return it. OWC has something like a 30 day unconditional satisfaction guarantee.
    Liquid and computers don't mix. It might seem simple, but we see an incredible amount of people post here about spills. Keep drinks and other liquids away from your expensive electronics!

    https://youtu.be/KHZ8ek-6ccc

  3. #18
    The SSD Thread
    cwa107's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 20, 2006
    Location
    Lake Mary, Florida
    Posts
    26,758
    Specs:
    15" MBP, Core i7/2GHz, 8GB RAM, 480GB Crucial M500 SSD
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnCL View Post
    Interesting, thanks for the link. Which method did you use to enable TRIM on your M4?
    Trim Enabler
    Liquid and computers don't mix. It might seem simple, but we see an incredible amount of people post here about spills. Keep drinks and other liquids away from your expensive electronics!

    https://youtu.be/KHZ8ek-6ccc

  4. #19
    The SSD Thread

    Member Since
    Aug 17, 2012
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by cwa107 View Post

    I would venture to say that the benchmark you're looking for is probably too specific of a scenario. .
    No, it isn't. The various online tech sites test things like this constantly. Every single area of performance is looked into with careful benchmarks, yet application speed on a SSD boot drive has never even been mentioned.

    I'm not being stubborn, I'm being careful. You have an opinion, backed up by zero evidence, and I'd very much like to know the correct answer.
    Once again, every tech that has ever commented on this issue has said there should be NO increase in application speed or efficiency. So, if you have specific evidence to back up your position, I'd very much like to know about it. If you don't, then I think you should stop claiming what you are claiming, because a lot of folks are probably wasting hard-earned money for almost no gain.

    This is a great forum, it has helped me a lot, but you know, it's OK to be wrong once in a while.

  5. #20
    The SSD Thread
    XJ-linux's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jul 02, 2007
    Location
    Going Galt...
    Posts
    3,418
    Specs:
    MacBookAir5,2:10.9.5-MacMini3,1:10.9.5-iPhone6,1:8.3
    Quote Originally Posted by Cableaddict View Post
    No, it isn't. The various online tech sites test things like this constantly. Every single area of performance is looked into with careful benchmarks, yet application speed on a SSD boot drive has never even been mentioned.
    Links please. That's a pretty broad statement composed of absolutes to just toss out there. Just because you say it is so, does not make it so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cableaddict View Post
    I'm not being stubborn, I'm being careful. You have an opinion, backed up by zero evidence...
    As do you at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cableaddict View Post
    ...and I'd very much like to know the correct answer.
    Once again, every tech that has ever commented on this issue has said there should be NO increase in application speed or efficiency...
    Again with the absolutes. Oh, and "should be"... not quite as definitive as your earlier statements. At least be consistent. Leaving open a back door only magnifies the holes in an already baseless argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cableaddict View Post
    So, if you have specific evidence to back up your position, I'd very much like to know about it. If you don't, then I think you should stop claiming what you are claiming, because a lot of folks are probably wasting hard-earned money for almost no gain.
    Back at ya bud. Put up or shut up as some might say. Even if you were 100% correct, your presentation sucks and your position thus far lacks the very things you belittle another member for omitting. Your anecdotal feces is worth no more than anyone else's IMHO. Congrats on derailing an interesting thread by adding very little.
    Never judge a man, untill you have walked a mile in his shoes...
    That way you'll be a mile away from him, and you'll have his shoes.

  6. #21
    The SSD Thread
    Dysfunction's Avatar
    Member Since
    Mar 17, 2008
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    6,821
    Specs:
    Way... way too many specs to list.
    My advice, skip the SSD, skip the 7200rpm drives. Stick with 5400rpm. It's just as fast..


    umm well, not really. No wait...
    mike
    This machine kills fascists
    Got # ? phear the command line!

  7. #22
    The SSD Thread

    Member Since
    Aug 17, 2012
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by XJ-linux View Post
    Links please. That's a pretty broad statement composed of absolutes to just toss out there. Just because you say it is so, does not make it so.



    As do you at this point.



    Again with the absolutes. Oh, and "should be"... not quite as definitive as your earlier statements. At least be consistent. Leaving open a back door only magnifies the holes in an already baseless argument.
    .

    I guess you just like to argue.

    Have fun, I'm done with this thread. I just hope others here realize that the emperor has no clothes.

  8. #23
    The SSD Thread

    Member Since
    Aug 17, 2012
    Posts
    55
    HEY, I'm Back. This was really bugging me, so I re-checked with my mid-level source at Apple, and also sent a specific query to DigiLloyd. They both concurred that, except in very rare cases,

    AN SSD BOOT DRIVE WILL NOT CAUSE AN APPLICATION TO RUN ANY FASTER.

    He's Lloyd's response: (since I got it in an email)

    " (A faster boot drive) helps only if I/O goes to the SSD... for example a Photoshop job that is too big to fit into memory, and using the SSD as the scratch volume.
    It's a big help for Lightroom catalogs (no need to put the original images on the SSD though)."

    - Note that no one but a complete newb amateur would use the boot drive as a scratch volume, so that's not even a real-world scenario.

    ------------------------------------

    Granted, for some folks, having apps launch faster might be worth it (especially for DAWS and FCP) but people on a budget need to understand what they will NOT be improving, and spend their money accordingly.

    ------------------------------------

    CWA, your mistake is understandable (and extremely common) but your "obvious" fact is simply wrong, and it's a source of MASSIVE confusion for people.
    Last edited by Cableaddict; 09-07-2012 at 06:05 PM.

  9. #24
    The SSD Thread
    XJ-linux's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jul 02, 2007
    Location
    Going Galt...
    Posts
    3,418
    Specs:
    MacBookAir5,2:10.9.5-MacMini3,1:10.9.5-iPhone6,1:8.3
    "The problem with internet quotes and anonymized sources is that they are very difficult to prove or refute."
    -Abraham Lincoln circa 1923
    Never judge a man, untill you have walked a mile in his shoes...
    That way you'll be a mile away from him, and you'll have his shoes.

  10. #25
    The SSD Thread
    cwa107's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 20, 2006
    Location
    Lake Mary, Florida
    Posts
    26,758
    Specs:
    15" MBP, Core i7/2GHz, 8GB RAM, 480GB Crucial M500 SSD
    Quote Originally Posted by Cableaddict View Post

    CWA, your mistake is understandable (and extremely common) but your "obvious" fact is simply wrong, and it's a source of MASSIVE confusion for people.
    I will agree to disagree and in an effort to not further derail this thread, let it go at that.
    Liquid and computers don't mix. It might seem simple, but we see an incredible amount of people post here about spills. Keep drinks and other liquids away from your expensive electronics!

    https://youtu.be/KHZ8ek-6ccc

  11. #26
    The SSD Thread

    Member Since
    Sep 07, 2012
    Posts
    2
    Hi - This is my first post, so I hope I'm not posting it in the wrong place. I have a simple question about my SSD.

    I have an iMac (mid 2011) with a single factory installed SSD. There is no internal HDD in the machine. I'm considering replacing the existing 256GB SSD with an Intel 520 Series 480GB SSD. I have some experience modifying electronics (not computers), so I was thinking about doing the install myself. The question is simply...

    Once I open the machine, can I simply remove the existing SSD and plug the new SSD in its place? Will I have to make any modifications to brackets, cables, etc.? Or is it plug and play?

    Thanks for your help,
    Bryon

  12. #27
    The SSD Thread
    chscag's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 23, 2008
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    45,202
    Specs:
    27" iMac i5, 3.2 GHz, iPad 3, iPhone 5c, iPhone 6+, 3 iPods, Yosemite
    Replacing a SSD or hard drive in a 2011 iMac is not plug and play. The drives used by Apple and the connector are proprietary. You run the risk of not only voiding your warranty, but could also experience problems with the heat sensor and fan. Also, you need to take a look at the instructions for opening up an iMac and gaining access to the interior. Check the instructions at iFixit: The free repair manual.

  13. #28
    The SSD Thread

    Member Since
    Sep 07, 2012
    Posts
    2
    I looked at the link you provided and read some of the articles. Everything I can find are instructions to install an SSD in place of an existing HDD. But that's not the situation I'm in. I already have an SSD that was factory installed. I just want to replace it with a larger capacity one, or possibly one from a 3rd party.

    I was hoping that, because my machine already has an SSD, the process of swapping it out for a larger capacity one wouldn't be that difficult. Maybe you or someone else can help me with the particulars of what is involved...

    --Once I remove the LCD (which I see how to do from videos online), will I have direct access to the SSD, or will I have to remove the optical drive to access the SSD?

    --Once I remove the existing SSD, what modifications, if any, will be required?

    --Is the formfactor for the Intel 520 different than the formfactor for the apple stock SSD? And if it is, does anyone know if there are any 3rd party SSD's with a formfactor that's identical to the apple SSD?

    Thanks!
    Bryon
    Last edited by bryon; 09-08-2012 at 01:04 PM. Reason: typo

  14. #29
    The SSD Thread

    Member Since
    Sep 08, 2012
    Posts
    1
    SSD Installation
    Hi all, I'm new to these forums, I have bought an SSD OCZ Vertex 2 to install. My plan is to keep all parts in the Imac 21.5" the plan is to install it under the super drive. I've been reading loads about whether to enable trim or not. What do you all think?

    Also has anyone managed to complete the task that could help me or give best practises.

    Robbie

  15. #30
    The SSD Thread

    Member Since
    Sep 17, 2012
    Posts
    4
    Upgraded my macbook Pro Unibody last week with a Kingston SSD. The MBP is a 2008 model C2D 2.53gHz which I've already added 4 gigs of 3rd party ram to. It's now the proud owner of a Crucial M4 6GB/s drive and boots.... like nothing I've seen before (think the MP 2008 2.8gHz 8 core in my basement allows me to say that!) All I did was use Disk utility to restore the drive from the mac onto the SSD in an external enclosure, repaired disk permissions on the SSD and swapped them over. Can't ever consider going back to a 2.5 inch mechanical drive on my macbook again. Now considering the same option on the Mac Pro, but think that might just be taking the pee. Oh and Dreamweaver boots in 4 seconds now, firefox before the icon even jumps for a second time, webpages are faster (remember pages are designed to cache to your drive), no more spinning wheel and saving any doc is done instantly. The MBP is a 5,1, so think it's sata 2 and the drive's sata 3, so not even getting max throughput!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Dual ssd+hdd VS Single ssd
    By Pamotis in forum Apple Notebooks
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-12-2015, 10:51 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-01-2013, 04:09 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-14-2012, 03:01 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-03-2011, 05:05 PM
  5. The Stock Thread (The FSX discussion thread)
    By PowerBookG4 in forum Schweb's Lounge
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-24-2009, 06:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •