AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's unveils new Mac Pro desktop with up to 12 processing cores
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's unveils new Mac Pro desktop with up to 12 processing cores - Page 3

post #81 of 210
7/27/10 at 12:24pm
i guess this update could be subtitled 'how to confuse a consumer'

Good to see the wide variety of build to order options regarding the processor- would still be nice to have a 4th pci slot (even as an option)- 3 is never enough without built in esata.


not sure why people moan about no bluray option- just put one or two in yourself, my machine has 2 LG BD's internally- they are simpler to instal than ram.
as for price-mactowers have always been cost effective as long as they are the right tool for the right job.

great update
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 210
7/27/10 at 12:37pm
Hmm slightly disappointing, especially after all this time.

6 core @ 3.33ghz seems like the sweet spot, though the lack of nVidia GPUs sucks.
Mac Pro 2008
2.8ghz Quad Core Intel Xeon
8GBs 800mhz RAM
160GB Intel X25-M G2 SSD
300GB WD VelociRaptor
EVGA GTX 285
iPhone 4 32GB
YouTube
Twitter
Reply
Mac Pro 2008
2.8ghz Quad Core Intel Xeon
8GBs 800mhz RAM
160GB Intel X25-M G2 SSD
300GB WD VelociRaptor
EVGA GTX 285
iPhone 4 32GB
YouTube
Twitter
Reply
post #83 of 210
7/27/10 at 12:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by KindredMac View Post

They are coming out in August.

BS on the price points and BS on the fact that it is still the same case as 6 years ago!

You know, I bet most of the people complaining about the look aren't the market for a mac pro.

A)Its internals have been re-designed plenty, the outside is excellent still: durable, elegant, and functional

B)I don't know about everyone using them, but mine sits under my desk - I prop my feet up on it! I don't *want* glass anywhere on the machine!
MBP (15, 2.33, 3GB,10.6/win/lin on 250GB)
MP (3,1 oct 2.8, 10GB. 10.6 on 4x1TB RAID10, Win/Lin on 1x2TB, 2407WFP on 1x5770 + 2xSamsung 910t on 1xGT120)
also a lot of other systems :-p
I met a...
Reply
MBP (15, 2.33, 3GB,10.6/win/lin on 250GB)
MP (3,1 oct 2.8, 10GB. 10.6 on 4x1TB RAID10, Win/Lin on 1x2TB, 2407WFP on 1x5770 + 2xSamsung 910t on 1xGT120)
also a lot of other systems :-p
I met a...
Reply
post #84 of 210
7/27/10 at 12:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

Might I suggest: http://computers.shop.ebay.com/Apple...=p3286.c0.m282

Thanks for the link. I came close to buying a used one in March when I thought my PC died. Back then about 1400-1500 was the best I saw, and that was for the original MP. I'll keep waiting til the more recent generation MPs come down in price. My PC is close to four years old and will be due for an upgrade in a year or two.
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 210
7/27/10 at 1:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree View Post

Thanks for the link. I came close to buying a used one in March when I thought my PC died. Back then about 1400-1500 was the best I saw, and that was for the original MP. I'll keep waiting til the more recent generation MPs come down in price. My PC is close to four years old and will be due for an upgrade in a year or two.

Yeah I built my PC 2 1/2 years ago and is coming on the tail of using the same system for 5 years prior w/only minor upgrades. 512Mb up to 1.5Gb RAM, 2nd hard drive for storage and upgraded TI4200 to 6800, I think. It was still an AGP based mobo. I'm expecting to get a similar lifespan out of my current system w/no upgrades, expect possibly a new videocard as a E6850 c2d and 4GB of RAM is enough for browsing the web, listening to music and playing World of Warcraft when I'm not busy with work or my kids

I won't be surprised at all if my next system is actually a laptop. I like keeping up with all the changes tho b/c a)I'm a geek and b)it's good to lust after new tech
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 210
7/27/10 at 1:23pm
so you buy a new mac pro in august, but have to wait for the cinema display until september???
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 210
7/27/10 at 1:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by edub View Post

so you buy a new mac pro in august, but have to wait for the cinema display until september???

Leave the MP in the box til the display arrives. It ages it like wine or cheese or something
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 210
7/27/10 at 3:06pm
The single processor Mac Pro only has a single CPU socket, so you can't add a second processor without also changing the CPU+memory tray. So what is the advantage of using a Xeon instead of a Core i7 for a single processor system?
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 210
7/27/10 at 3:23pm
http://tonymacx86.blogspot.com/2010/...c-os-x-on.html
stimuli.ca | freshtunes.ca
Reply
stimuli.ca | freshtunes.ca
Reply
post #90 of 210
7/27/10 at 3:39pm
OK... seriously... $5,000 for a screaming fast machine that is gimped by not having USB 3.0, SATA3 and Firewire 3200?

Whatever Steve Jobs is smoking, I want some.

I'm totally stunned they don't have USB 3.0
Reply
Reply
post #91 of 210
7/27/10 at 3:40pm
No Blu-ray PLAYBACK on the Mac sucketh big time.
Reply
Reply
post #92 of 210
7/27/10 at 5:31pm
Gee.

I waited a YEAR AND A HALF

and what did I get?

Barely a SPEED BUMP.


Meh
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 210
7/27/10 at 5:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

It's a great looking case that acts as a giant heat-sink. Changing it simply for the sake of changing it just means that you should consider having your kool-aid checked

I have no problem with the design, but I don't know about the heat sink part. The case isn't thermally connected to anything inside that gets hot. Between the CPUs and the case, the graphics card and the case, there's nothing but a cushion of flowing air.
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 210
7/27/10 at 7:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomMcIn View Post

Is it necessary to get two 6-core processors initially or can I get one 6-core now and install a second if I need it?
I run a G5 PPC with a GeekBench of 1888 and looking for something at least 5 times more powerful. Would like to consider SSD in place of extra processors initially.

My G5 2.5 dual benched 2312.

Here's what my iMac Corei7 (not today's refresh but previous) benches:



High end Mac Pros (current refresh) average bench is 15,000.

The 12-core models? Expect a lot more than that.

The other thing that I wanted to talk about: all of the people kvetching for USB3 = what devices are available on USB3 that you can't live without? Seriously.
http://pod.ath.cx/
Reply
http://pod.ath.cx/
Reply
post #95 of 210
7/27/10 at 7:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

They did quit offering upgrades for it pretty quickly. Fortunately, some of the newer cards are compatible. I bought Apple's ATI Radeon HD 4870 for my 2006 Mac Pro and it works fine, even though their page said it's not supported. The key thing is that it's compatible, but they might not be able to help you if something doesn't work.

I have a Mac Pro 1,1 and I got a used ATI HD3870 off of eBay and it's working great in mine. It was noisy because I keep my Mac on its side, but I also got a passive cooler for it and it's quiet as can be.

I must say thought, that I bought this Mac Pro 1,1 used as a "stop gap" a while back, so that I could buy some time waiting for the new Mac Pros that were announced today. I use my Mac for audio recording and MIDI running Digital Performer. My G5 was really not keeping up any more so I got the used Mac.

Any way, I love Macs as much as the next guy, but I have to admit I'm a bit let down about the announcement. It really seems that aside from the graphics card upgrade, those of us who can only afford $2500 (I was going to sell my interim machine and scrape of the difference by selling some gear) are out of luck. I kind of see a rehash of the same Nehalem Quad that Apple's been selling for a year and a half now. It seems it was pointless now to hold off. It also seems that since there's no significant performance boost in the $2499 model, we won't see bargains in used Nehalem quads either since nothing more powerful is available at that price point.

I'm thinking since the Mac Pro 1,1 is actually working okay for me now... I may sit this round out. I did see that there's an option to upgrade the $2499 quad to the six-core Westmere processor but at what price???
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 210
7/27/10 at 7:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

Yes, such at the NewerTech MAXPower eSATA 6G PCIe 2.0 Controller Card. Driverless, hot plug, etc. Anyone tried this nifty card?

I was going to buy that one, but I opted for the one up the line that does various Raids. It does require a driver, even if you're not using Raid.

Over at http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/ they've talked about the less expensive board, and like it.
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 210
7/27/10 at 7:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Their chart suggests the performance of competing drives go to almost zero over time. That seems very dishonest, the figures I recall were a 25% drop without TRIM, certainly nothing like a 90% drop.

More like a 75% drop in write speed.
Reply
Reply
post #98 of 210
7/27/10 at 7:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I still think AMD would have been better in the low end. The W3530 2.8GHz CPU costs $323 and scores 4,964 here:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

The 3.2GHz AMD X6 1090T scores 6,080 (22% faster) and costs $295.

Maybe the Intel one is more efficient though. Performance per watt is more important to Apple than raw performance and I wouldn't criticize that.

It's good to see a bump in the entry GPU for the same price, 3DMark scores are:

GT120 = 5431
R5770 = 7604

No double floating point precision support in the 5770 though.

Totally expected update, no innovation, no redesign, no real thought put into it whatsoever and still high pricing.

No AMD, please!
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 210
7/27/10 at 7:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

More like a 75% drop in write speed.

I've never heard of anything that severe in the articles discussing this. Source?

Edit: I found one, Intel X25 is in that ballpark for write, that's pretty bad, worse than I thought it was. Still nowhere near the diagrams on OWC's site.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/sto...ce-and-trim/13
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 210
7/27/10 at 7:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWalla View Post

OK... seriously... $5,000 for a screaming fast machine that is gimped by not having USB 3.0, SATA3 and Firewire 3200?

Whatever Steve Jobs is smoking, I want some.

I'm totally stunned they don't have USB 3.0

FW 3200 isn't yet available, and won't be until the end of the year, or thereabouts.

SATA 3 is nice, but Apple has four SATA busses inside, and that's more than enough. The only thing that SATA3 is good for now is RAID from one E-SATA 3 port, where you're using port multiplexing. Look it up.

While USB 3 is out, there isn't much of anything available for it now, and won't be for some time. You can always add a board for $30 or so if you really need it.
Reply
Reply
post #101 of 210
7/27/10 at 7:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I've never heard of anything that severe in the articles discussing this. Source?

Edit: I found one, Intel X25 is in that ballpark, that's pretty bad.

I'm not going to look up articles up now, but you can find them on Anandtech, Diglloyd, and others. Without trim, writes drop to HDD levels.
Reply
Reply
post #102 of 210
7/27/10 at 7:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I've never heard of anything that severe in the articles discussing this. Source?

Edit: I found one, Intel X25 is in that ballpark for write, that's pretty bad, worse than I thought it was. Still nowhere near the diagrams on OWC's site.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/sto...ce-and-trim/13

If you intend to fill your drive once, and then just use it for reads, as with a drive devoted to music or video, that works great. Otherwise, it's a problem.

But drives with Sandforce controllers have less of a problem with this. Apple does have some trim in the OS now, but it doesn't work. Hopefully updates with the new computers will include trim.
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 210
7/27/10 at 7:59pm
I'm surprised the 5870 option is not the "Eyefinity-6" edition card. I had figured Apple would use the one with six mini-DisplayPorts.
Reply
Reply
post #104 of 210
7/27/10 at 8:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

I'm surprised the 5870 option is not the "Eyefinity-6" edition card. I had figured Apple would use the one with six mini-DisplayPorts.

Apple doesn't work that way. They figure pros will use two monitors, and that's what they will supply. The Eyefinity is mostly for crazed gamers. I haven't found much about it on professional sites, but plenty on gamer sites. How many gamers do you think would buy a Mac Pro because of that board?
Reply
Reply
post #105 of 210
7/27/10 at 8:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

FW 3200 isn't yet available, and won't be until the end of the year, or thereabouts.

SATA 3 is nice, but Apple has four SATA busses inside, and that's more than enough. The only thing that SATA3 is good for now is RAID from one E-SATA 3 port, where you're using port multiplexing. Look it up.

While USB 3 is out, there isn't much of anything available for it now, and won't be for some time. You can always add a board for $30 or so if you really need it.

What we are running into is transfer times for large video projects are painful. Sometimes we get a drive from the client and they want to start working right away. We won't work off of a client drive (not safe if something goes wrong) so the copying begins. Even if they wait until later in the day we still spend a lot of time copying files around. Once to my archive server where I stage files before writing to LTO4 for safety. Then to the system that is going to be doing the work. Maybe even to another system if more than one editor or designer needs the media. We got a drive for some Nikon work the other day and it was almost 600 gigs of material.

eSATA would be great, but some of my systems don't have room for an eSATA extender or host card. Plus adding unproven cards to a system with a Kona 3 and a Fibre Channel card makes me nervous. I don't like experimenting with a profit center. I would have been nice to see one of the faster bus interfaces on this batch of Mac Pros.
Reply
Reply
post #106 of 210
7/27/10 at 8:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

What we are running into is transfer times for large video projects are painful. Sometimes we get a drive from the client and they want to start working right away. We won't work off of a client drive (not safe if something goes wrong) so the copying begins. Even if they wait until later in the day we still spend a lot of time copying files around. Once to my archive server where I stage files before writing to LTO4 for safety. Then to the system that is going to be doing the work. Maybe even to another system if more than one editor or designer needs the media. We got a drive for some Nikon work the other day and it was almost 600 gigs of material.

eSATA would be great, but some of my systems don't have room for an eSATA extender or host card. Plus adding unproven cards to a system with a Kona 3 and a Fibre Channel card makes me nervous. I don't like experimenting with a profit center. I would have been nice to see one of the faster bus interfaces on this batch of Mac Pros.

I understand your problems as I had a commercial photo lab here in NYC for many years, and we did a fair amount of video projects as well.

But you can buy E-SATA 3 cards now. Yes, I did read what you said, but still... I bought a NewerTech MAXpower 2 port Raid card recently for $79 from OWC, here:

http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Newer...gy/MXPCIE6GRS/

This works very well. If you don't need Raid, then the less expensive model might be exactly what you need, if you have the slot, because it's natively supported, and so needs no driver. The system sees it the same way it sees Apple's own SATA slots, though it's coming from an Express slot of course, and labels it as what it is. It's also E-SATA 3.

http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Newer...gy/MXPCIE6GS2/

On the other hand, if you're not needing all four internal drives, or you don't need the second optical slot, there are adapters to bring some out through the rear with an adapter.
Reply
Reply
post #107 of 210
7/27/10 at 8:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I've never heard of anything that severe in the articles discussing this. Source?

Edit: I found one, Intel X25 is in that ballpark for write, that's pretty bad, worse than I thought it was. Still nowhere near the diagrams on OWC's site.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/sto...ce-and-trim/13

If you go with an iMac with an HDD and SSD you can easily set it so your OS is on the SSD and your User accounts are on the HDD. This is how I have my MBP set up and it's been working great. Also, I have yet to noticed any drop in performance from SSD.


Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I'm not going to look up articles up now, but you can find them on Anandtech, Diglloyd, and others. Without trim, writes drop to HDD levels.

As I recall it was still much faster than any HDD, even Velociraptors, but was severely crippled compared to it's original state.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #108 of 210
7/27/10 at 8:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

If you go with an iMac with an HDD and SSD you can easily set it so your OS is on the SSD and your User accounts are on the HDD. This is how I have my MBP set up and it's been working great. Also, I have yet to noticed any drop in performance from SSD.

If you don't update programs, the OS, or a million other things that the OS itself isn't updating constantly, then you'l be fine. But I'll bet your speed is below what it started with, but that you just haven't noticed yet. At some point, you will.

Quote:
As I recall it was still much faster than any HDD, even Velociraptors, but was severely crippled compared to it's original state.

Most drop to write speeds that are lower than other fast HDDs.

But, you know, most people don't realize at what speeds their machine is running. If you cut the speed down by half, they still wouldn't notice.
Reply
Reply
post #109 of 210
7/27/10 at 8:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronHeadSlim View Post

Seems like a speed bump for entry level mac pro. Don't need SSD since e first time.

OF NOTE DUDE THE SSD is always ON
AND all hard spinning drives do die
SSD don't die because no moving parts

i think

9
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #110 of 210
7/27/10 at 8:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep View Post

OF NOTE DUDE THE SSD is always ON
AND all hard spinning drives do die
SSD don't die because no moving parts

i think

9

So far, SSDs have had a higher failure rate than HDDs.
Reply
Reply
post #111 of 210
7/27/10 at 8:48pm
Error type11
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #112 of 210
7/27/10 at 8:49pm
I think few people on this planet need the raw power the fine upgrades Have given us .

Maybe the high end laptops are closing in on the desk tops

Maybe in the future 3 mini's with one as a server will replace these
low end MB DESK TOPS desk tops .

??WHAT is e-sata ??

9
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #113 of 210
7/27/10 at 8:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

So far, SSDs have had a higher failure rate than HDDs.

WOW shut my mouth .
I tote the SSD to all my apple minion who think i know what i am talking about .


w0w

9
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #114 of 210
7/27/10 at 8:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

If you don't update programs, the OS, or a million other things that the OS itself isn't updating constantly, then you'l be fine. But I'll bet your speed is below what it started with, but that you just haven't noticed yet. At some point, you will.

Most drop to write speeds that are lower than other fast HDDs.

But, you know, most people don't realize at what speeds their machine is running. If you cut the speed down by half, they still wouldn't notice.

I'll see if I still have my benchmarks on file from when I installed it. If I do I'll run them again and post the data.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #115 of 210
7/27/10 at 9:34pm
delet questions answered
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #116 of 210
7/27/10 at 10:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilM View Post

However Mac support for third party SSDs is incomplete at present (no TRIM...or have they added that now?)

OWC Mercury Extreme. No TRIM support needed to maintain top performance).

Quote:
and people have reported being unable to install the OS directly to the SSD (clone from the HD instead).

Huh? That makes no sense at all. You can install or clone - I've done both.
Reply
Reply
post #117 of 210
7/27/10 at 11:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Without trim, writes drop to HDD levels.

Unless you have a drive like the OWC Mercury Extreme that has extra space and built-in garbage collection that is OS independent.

I had an original Intel 80 GB SSD before the whole no free-flash cell = dismal write performance thing was well understood, and experienced it myself. I have had my OWC SSD for almost six months and it's performed flawlessly - no speed issues and no need for TRIM.

Not that it wouldn't be nice to not have to pay for extra space that I will hopefully be able to reclaim via a firmware update if OSX ever supports TRIM
Reply
Reply
post #118 of 210
7/27/10 at 11:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

If you don't update programs, the OS, or a million other things that the OS itself isn't updating constantly, then you'l be fine. But I'll bet your speed is below what it started with, but that you just haven't noticed yet. At some point, you will.



Most drop to write speeds that are lower than other fast HDDs.

But, you know, most people don't realize at what speeds their machine is running. If you cut the speed down by half, they still wouldn't notice.


The first two are from May 5th after I installed my 80GB MLC Intel X25 and 500GB @7200RPM WD HDD. The next two are from just prior to this posting. All tests use the same version of Xbench, but the newer tests have 10.6.4 installed.


Code:

System Versiont10.6.3 (10D2125)
Physical RAMt4096 MB
ModeltMacBookPro7,1

Drive TypetINTEL SSDSA2M080G2GC
Sequential
Uncached Write 83.99 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 77.93 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read27.17 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read195.13 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random
Uncached Write73.79 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write80.58 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read10.66 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read170.63 MB/sec [256K blocks]


Drive TypetST9500420AS
Sequential
Uncached Write78.70 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write78.73 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read17.62 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read82.58 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random30.61
Uncached Write1.02 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write44.35 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read0.57 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read26.06 MB/sec [256K blocks]



Code:

System Versiont10.6.4 (10F569)
Physical RAMt4096 MB
ModeltMacBookPro7,1

Drive TypetINTEL SSDSA2M080G2GC
Sequential
Uncached Write88.01 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write78.29 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read29.80 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read201.82 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random
Uncached Write44.21 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write53.77 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read11.69 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read177.44 MB/sec [256K blocks]


Drive TypetST9500420AS
Sequential
Uncached Write78.62 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write69.18 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read18.02 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read81.78 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random
Uncached Write0.70 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write38.97 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read0.28 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read15.10 MB/sec [256K blocks]



After 3 months of heavy useas my only PC there is certainly an effect on Random Writes but nothing that even comes close to making me regret my decision.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #119 of 210
7/27/10 at 11:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

That's one hell of a price increase.

We thinketh it's tine for osx86 a 6 core and for half the price.
$5000 for 12 cores??? The ProSumer mRket is tripple the the pro market yet Apple continues tonavoid this segment.
Reply
Reply
post #120 of 210
7/27/10 at 11:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

More like a 75% drop in write speed.

As Apple moves to SSD's this needs to be addressed. TRIM would be nice to have in the next upgrade in OS X, but I understand that this might not be of help to those who have already made the commitment to SSD in the MBA and MBP's using Apple's supplied SSD's--bummer
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's unveils new Mac Pro desktop with up to 12 processing cores