New Macbook Pro with SDD
If anyone is wondering how fast new MBP runs with SDD
2.5 ghz, 4 gig RAM, 128 gig OZC SDD II.
http://vimeo.com/2023047
2.5 ghz, 4 gig RAM, 128 gig OZC SDD II.
http://vimeo.com/2023047
Comments
Why can't we do that on our iMacs?
P.S. The ProBook looked like it was loading some boot cache, if you try to start that again it should be faster the next time.
Wasn't that quite slow?
Well, most of the time of the boot process taken by "bios". SSD kicks in right after apple logo with spinning thingy shows up. And the time from that point to the complete boot is significantly faster. I don't have 2 MPB's so I can demonstrate
SSD = Solid State Disk
And you wrote OZS (not OZC) on your video title.
Just saying.
Anyone who can't get acronyms right doesn't deserve a computer.
SSD = Solid State Disk
And you wrote OZS (not OZC) on your video title.
Just saying.
You are absolutely right. I apologize for a typo and will send my computer to a local charity.
I am expecting you to do the same thing since it's OCZ and not OZC
Cheers
Anyone who can't get acronyms right doesn't deserve a computer.
SSD = Solid State Disk
And you wrote OZS (not OZC) on your video title.
Just saying.
He wrote what the video site wrote: "OZS SDD in new MacBook Pro 2.5 , 4 g RAM"
Does your name mean 'before Christ' or did you mean to write "antiChrist" - against Christ?
Anyone who can't get his own name right doesn't deserve to be an AI member. "Just saying." Whatever the he__ that means.
Someone out there MUST have the $$$ to own 2 MBPs...
No, it means "Ante", as in an "ante". So I'm all set.
Is that ante as in "before" or putting your money in the pot?
But really, let's see if we can get two MBPs... One with SSD and other with HDD... boot tests and times? I can remember when Apple first went to Intel, there were videos all over the internet showing off the boot times compared to PPC boots.
Someone out there MUST have the $$$ to own 2 MBPs...
You only really need one as the drives are really easy to replace now. I doubt people would opt for Apple's SSD when you can get the OCZ one much cheaper so they would have 2 drives.
Here is PC SSD vs 7200rpm HDD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt6Vb...eature=related
Benchmarks generally show SSD as around double the speed of a 7200 rpm HDD.
You only really need one as the drives are really easy to replace now. I doubt people would opt for Apple's SSD when you can get the OCZ one much cheaper so they would have 2 drives.
Here is PC SSD vs 7200rpm HDD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt6Vb...eature=related
Benchmarks generally show SSD as around double the speed of a 7200 rpm HDD.
If one is manually replacing the 7200 RPM drive from the new MBP with the OCZ II, does anyone make an external enclosure so that you can at least use the extra drive for VM images, etc.?
If one is manually replacing the 7200 RPM drive from the new MBP with the OCZ II, does anyone make an external enclosure so that you can at least use the extra drive for VM images, etc.?
Yes there are external enclosures from Macally etc. I would only do this if you bought the 7200 rpm one though. If you planned on using SSD before purchase, buy the cheaper 5400 rpm drive and put the saving towards SSD.
One other question, battery life... what are people seeing compared to HDDs?
Damnn... I didn't expect the SSD to be that much faster. Thanks for the link!
It wasn't faster, on start up.
Damnn... I didn't expect the SSD to be that much faster. Thanks for the link!
One other question, battery life... what are people seeing compared to HDDs?
I think battery life is improved but not that much - there are some figures on this site:
http://hothardware.com/Articles/Four...-Mtron/?page=3
The interesting part is that these drives are holding up against a 10,000 rpm velociraptor drive. In fact, still getting faster read performance. This is why they boot so fast because they can read all the small files so much quicker.
Write performance is about the same, sometimes less than the 10k but they are dead silent and we're still talking in excess of 80MB/s.
I still don't know if it's a good idea just yet to go for one (unless you have some money to burn) as they are fairly new and some people aren't getting the performance they expect - this could be due to their drive controllers. The tech is at a stage where it's starting to become viable storage-wise vs HDD:
http://www.eclipsecomputers.com/prod...-250SSD2&af=50
250GB for £512.
Prices will be coming down as competitors get in on it. If the price halves by next year, I will be switching. I could switch this year to 128GB but I'll hold out a bit longer for the first revisions to get out the way.
2009 looks to be the year for performance computing: SSD, GPU computing, quad core mobile chips. This time next year, the computing scene will be very different.
2009 looks to be the year for performance computing: SSD, GPU computing, quad core mobile chips. This time next year, the computing scene will be very different.
I'll be expecting a 17" MacBook Pro with a quad-core CPU, 16GB RAM, four 256GB SSDs (configured as a RAID array) & dual nVidia QuadroFX Mobile GPUs in SLI mode (AND supporting/running OpenCL at the same time)...
Oh, and can I get that in a convertible laptop/tablet...?!? Thanks Steve!
I'll be expecting a 17" MacBook Pro with a quad-core CPU, 16GB RAM, four 256GB SSDs (configured as a RAID array) & dual nVidia QuadroFX Mobile GPUs in SLI mode (AND supporting/running OpenCL at the same time)...
On that machine, Office for Mac will finally run at the same speed as the Windows version on a Pentium 3. Of course then they'll release Office 2009 where the interface is raytraced in 3D.
Here are some more benchmarks:
http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-64g...hmarks-278717/
Random writes seem to be an issue with SSD and people have noted bottlenecks writing multiple files at once. This article says that RAID-0 can get round some of these issues:
http://www.nextlevelhardware.com/storage/battleship/
I noticed there was a recommendation to use an Nvidia chipset. I wonder if better SSD performance was part of Apple's Nvidia chipset choice.
Here's a single drive in the old MBP with installation:
http://www.slashgear.com/slashgear-e...ok-pro-098426/
No benchmark but they mention Samsung says 10-15% battery life improvement. You're talking maybe half an hour extra. Every improvement helps I guess. If you get an extra hour from integrated graphics and half an hour from SSD, it all adds up.
For raw performance, I think I'd prefer i-Ram over SSD:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...te,1111-9.html
Basically use Ram DIMMs in a box for storage. RAID-0:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOpaXbnmbnw
If you lose all power including backup battery your data is gone though so it's not great for that but the performance is incredible. Ah, the good old days of the Ramdisk. Shame it would be £10 per GB vs £2 per GB for SSD vs £0.10 per GB for HDD.
Price is one point that is sometimes overlooked in the SSD discussions. SSD performance can rival a 10k drive and those drives actually costs £0.50-1.00 per GB so SSD is closing in on the price/performance ratio. Half the price next year, sort out the write issues and they are on even ground. Plus they will go into a laptop much more easily than a 10k drive.
Laters...