or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Rumor: Apple manufacturing 2TB SSDs bound for upcoming Mac Pro
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: Apple manufacturing 2TB SSDs bound for upcoming Mac Pro

post #1 of 80
Thread Starter 
A fresh rumor holds that Apple may be producing self-branded large capacity solid state drives for use in the next Mac Pro, the company's professional level tower that is said to be getting a refresh later this year.

Mac Pro Drives
The current Mac Pro with four 3.5" drive bays highlighted in red. | Source: Apple


According to Bright Side of News*, a blog covering the semiconductor industry, a visit to Far East suppliers purportedly revealed a first-batch run of a 2TB solid state drives emblazoned with the familiar Apple logo, prompting speculation that the Cupertino company may include the component into a high-end desktop like the Mac Pro.

It should be noted that AppleInsider is unable to vouch for the veracity of the publication's statements and offers the following information for purposes of discussion only.

The capacious SSDs were reportedly spotted during a factory tour for a "completely unrelated subject," and further information regarding the drives is scarce.

"But seeing a 2TB Solid State Drive with an Apple logo on it opens very large ground for speculation," the report says. "Given that we were not able to learn more about the parts in question, we have to leave it at that."

From what was gathered by the quick look, the SSDs are built on the 3.5-inch form factor with full-height enclosures and boast a standard Serial-ATA connector. If legitimate, the drives would be placed directly in Apple's high-end desktop category, as the new iMacs switched to smaller 2.5-inch laptop drives to save space.

Currently, the Mac Pro can be configured with up to 8TB of storage in the form of four 2TB 7200-rpm hard drives, though solid state options top out at 512GB. The tower eschews the use of cables by utilizing a direct attachment system, with each 3.5-inch bay located above SATA slots on the logic board.

Apple CEO Tim Cook confirmed in an email last year that the Mac Pro, which has not seen a major design overhaul in years, would be getting an update sometime in 2013. Most recently, Apple stopped European sales of its pro-level tower in February, as the computer's fan blades are incompatible with a regulation that recently took effect in the region.
post #2 of 80

Why would Apple be making SSDs?

 

Followup: Can I get a bare Apple-branded SSD for less than the cost of my house?

 

And does Apple branding on drives really mean that Apple made them? I have plenty of hard drives with the Apple logo on them; that doesn't mean Apple made them.

 

Currently, the Mac Pro can be configured with up to 8TB of storage in the form of four 2TB 7200-rpm hard drives, though solid state options top out at 512GB.

 

And for clarity's sake, this is the 'from Apple' configuration. Anyone can buy four 4TB drives and have 16TB in their Mac Pro right now.

post #3 of 80
I don't think for a minute that Apple will be innovative by increasing storage capacity, especially for a desktop computer. IPhone? Yes, I welcomed the 64GB version - with my wallet. But a 2TB SSD - thanks, I'll pass.
Send from my iPhone. Excuse brevity and auto-corrupt.
Reply
Send from my iPhone. Excuse brevity and auto-corrupt.
Reply
post #4 of 80
I don't quite get what the target market is any more for the Mac Pro. I doubt the revenues are even worth mentioning in financial reports. I imagine they keep some guy from Next around updating this product so they don't have to lay him off
post #5 of 80

Remember the Anobit purchase!    As for Apple "making" the storage modules, it would be contractors no matter what.   Either way I expect that Apple will eventually implement Anobits technology into custom storage solutions.

 

As for cost the whole idea behind buying a company like Anobit is that you can put your own IP into a product and not have to pay for somebody else's profits.    There is really no reason for an unaffordable 2TB SSD.

 

The bigger question that should be asked is does the article make any sense at all.    Full height drives went out of production years ago for one.   Further it would be totally asinine on Apples part to debut a new Mac Pro architecture and not have the Solid State Storage on a PCI-Express port along with a standard card.   It really make no sense at all to put what amounts to a Printed Circuit card into the chassis of yesteryears magnetic drive tech.   It is one thing to use SSD in old drive formats to bridge technology but even Apple has given up on that in its laptops.

 

Given the above and a few other issues i suspect the article is bogus.   Or at the very least somebody saw something they didn't understand.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Why would Apple be making SSDs?

 

Followup: Can I get a bare Apple-branded SSD for less than the cost of my house?

 

And does Apple branding on drives really mean that Apple made them? I have plenty of hard drives with the Apple logo on them; that doesn't mean Apple made them.

post #6 of 80
SSDs are falling to near $1/GB these days. So 2TB would cost a hugh $2000. What I think is, they somehow managed to jam 4 x 512GB mSATA SSD into the enclosure, with a RAID controller to help with the distribution of data.
post #7 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Why would Apple be making SSDs?

 

Followup: Can I get a bare Apple-branded SSD for less than the cost of my house?

 

And does Apple branding on drives really mean that Apple made them? I have plenty of hard drives with the Apple logo on them; that doesn't mean Apple made them.

 

 

And for clarity's sake, this is the 'from Apple' configuration. Anyone can buy four 4TB drives and have 16TB in their Mac Pro right now.

I don't know about 2TB SSDs.  I can see Fusion drives since they are as fast as an SSD for a little more than HDD.  2TB drives would cost over $2,000.  Right?  1TB Fusion drives cost about $450.

 

Updated to adjust for 2TB drives.

post #8 of 80

Where did this point of view come from?   The Mac Pro is the only professionally oriented machine they have.   Drop that and respect for the entire Mac Line goes down the tubes.   It is no different than Ford and its pickup trucks, volume goes to the F150 but they do have machines, sold at a much lower volume, for professional use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ifij775 View Post

I don't quite get what the target market is any more for the Mac Pro. I doubt the revenues are even worth mentioning in financial reports. I imagine they keep some guy from Next around updating this product so they don't have to lay him off
post #9 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Where did this point of view come from?   The Mac Pro is the only professionally oriented machine they have.   Drop that and respect for the entire Mac Line goes down the tubes.   It is no different than Ford and its pickup trucks, volume goes to the F150 but they do have machines, sold at a much lower volume, for professional use.
High performance computing is either deployed through commodity clusters or gpu clusters. This product has fallen in the void between those and a desktop that isn't very large.
post #10 of 80
Seems like a perfect fit for Apple's datacenters. SSD has much faster speed and low power consumption.
post #11 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

I don't know about 2TB SSDs.  I can see Fusion drives since they are as fast as an SSD for a little more than HDD.  2TB drives would cost over $2,000.  Right?  1TB Fusion drives cost about $450.

Updated to adjust for 2TB drives.

I don't doubt for a minute that Apple is probably looking at 2 TB SSD drives.

1. SSD drive size continues to get larger. As the chip technology improves, the ability to put more storage in a device improves. Plus, the Mac Pro can hold 3.5" drives, so there's even more room.

2. Fusion does not replace SSD for everyone. If you reuse the same data repeatedly, the Fusion's speed is commendable. But if your data access is truly random (I don't know, but perhaps massive databases?), it won't be as fast as SSD. In the very high end professional market, the extra performance might easily be worth the money.

I have no idea if we'll see 2 TB SSD drives today or in 5 years, but they're coming and they will eventually be affordable. After all, the 500 GB SSD in my laptop was thousands of dollars a few years ago and not attainable at all just a bit before that.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #12 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada View Post

What about 4 plug and play drive bays for those SSD's to bring it up to 8TB SSD. Or you could mix and match with 4TB 7200rpm hard drives for a total of 16TB and configure in software for different RAID configurations or perhaps fusion drives.

I don't think you really want SSD on the SATA interface. Wouldn't it be much faster if it was on the PCI bus? 

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #13 of 80
Axe the Pro and create a modular "stack" of Mac Mini-like components. The basic puck contains the CPU, controller and an SSD. Connector on the top mates with connector on the bottom of the next identically sized module containing a big SSD. Other modules have graphics cards. Fans inside modules as needed. Mix and match. Collect 'em all! See how tall you can build your tower.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #14 of 80
I'd used Mac Towers for nearly 20 years until about 5 years ago when I switched to souped up iMac 27s. As a commercial artist and professional composer, the iMacs did and continue to do a spectacular job. But that's me. I know video pros and CGI pros who would likely have a fit if the MacPro disappeared. I have to agree with Wizard69 in reference to Ford. There may be a more modest market for the MacPro, but there definitely is a market. Not everything they make has to sell like the iPad! Besides, the profit on these high end machines is astronomical. That should be reason enough.
post #15 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Axe the Pro and create a modular "stack" of Mac Mini-like components. The basic puck contains the CPU, controller and an SSD. Connector on the top mates with connector on the bottom of the next identically sized module containing a big SSD. Other modules have graphics cards. Fans inside modules as needed. Mix and match. Collect 'em all! See how tall you can build your tower.

 I suppose you could connect the clusters through Thunderbolt but I doubt that you will achieve the same performance using inexpensive cluster units compared to a couple 8 core Xeons on the same PCI bus. When you have the local chipset multithreading the tasks it trumps load balancing clusters. Besides, clusters are not really suitable for workstations in my opinion, plus you need the GPU in one place for good video throughput. In that configuration you are already talking about a master controller computer so adding dumb processing units is only applicable for final render tasks but adds almost no performance gains for everyday computing.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #16 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I don't doubt for a minute that Apple is probably looking at 2 TB SSD drives.

1. SSD drive size continues to get larger. As the chip technology improves, the ability to put more storage in a device improves. Plus, the Mac Pro can hold 3.5" drives, so there's even more room.

2. Fusion does not replace SSD for everyone. If you reuse the same data repeatedly, the Fusion's speed is commendable. But if your data access is truly random (I don't know, but perhaps massive databases?), it won't be as fast as SSD. In the very high end professional market, the extra performance might easily be worth the money.

I have no idea if we'll see 2 TB SSD drives today or in 5 years, but they're coming and they will eventually be affordable. After all, the 500 GB SSD in my laptop was thousands of dollars a few years ago and not attainable at all just a bit before that.



It seems like 2TB should be possible in the 3.5" drive size.

OWC's price for 1TB PCIe drive is $1500.

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/SSD/PCIe/OWC/Mercury_Accelsior/RAID

Pricey BTO option, maybe.
post #17 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I don't think you really want SSD on the SATA interface. Wouldn't it be much faster if it was on the PCI bus? 

Maybe, although I'm not sure it matters. They can have a number of SATA buses so that each drive would have its own bus. In that case the newest version of SATA might not be a slow down.

It's also possible that they're making SATA drives for testing (because their existing computers have SATA) but plan to switch to PCIe or Thunderbolt for future versions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

It seems like 2TB should be possible in the 3.5" drive size.

OWC's price for 1TB PCIe drive is $1500.

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/SSD/PCIe/OWC/Mercury_Accelsior/RAID

Pricey BTO option, maybe.

That's exactly the point. However, figure another year for the price to come down and it wouldn't surprise me to see 2 TB at $1500 to 2000 - which is certainly not out of the realm of possibility for high end professionals.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #18 of 80
If true, and I think it's has merit, it would appear they are keeping the 3.5" bay which some thought would go away as they move it to all SSD. I guess that's still possible with a PCie SSD card but I think it's highly unlikely as the only option for storage.

I'm not expecting anything radically different; just a smaller case than the current Mac Pro as certain components are shrunk and some removed, like the ODDs. I expect a new "look" but something around that volume and still using 4xHDD bays seems most likely to me.



Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

There is really no reason for an unaffordable 2TB SSD.

I don't see how anyone can say that. A 2TB SSD will be extremely expensive over a 2TB HDD which will put it far out of the "affordable" category for most people.

Here is an article from less than 2 weeks ago regarding a 2TB PCIe SSD: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/storage/display/20130128235100_STEC_Introduces_2TB_Solid_State_Drives_New_Version_of_Caching_Software.html

Even if Anobit can help Apple reduce costs this is a professional machine where they will test the HW more throughly and where they will market it accordingly so if it's thousands of dollars for the cheapest one don't expect Apple to undercut that.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #19 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifij775 View Post

I don't quite get what the target market is any more for the Mac Pro. I doubt the revenues are even worth mentioning in financial reports. I imagine they keep some guy from Next around updating this product so they don't have to lay him off

And yet... every major manufacturer makes workstations. Somebody's buying them.

The difference is... if HP suddenly stopped making Windows workstations... you could still get one from Dell.

But if Apple stops making Mac Pro workstations... you're SOL

Sure... Apple doesn't sell as many Mac Pros as iPhones... but there's still a market for the Mac Pro. There's money to be made from the Mac Pro.
post #20 of 80
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

 

I suppose it doesn't change the outcome very much, but why did you choose to edit the 2006 model image instead of a modern one?

post #21 of 80
Personal High performance computing on your desk is what we are talking about. Not server farms. And this will fit the need nicely.

The Mac line needs high performance machines.

The 15" MBP Retina is pretty sweet, but for pure, ultimate destructor performance for those who don't own server farms and don't want to rent processing time, this is where it's at.

Final Cut Pro X and its supporting apps get better all the time. some folks like myself do everything from web development, multimedia editing, book layout, and do many of these at once in a workflow.

The current machine is great. But a truly updated Mac Pro with the latest multicore CPUs, gobs of blazing fast RAM, and big SSDs to match the rest of the system would be a Godsend.
post #22 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Here is an article from less than 2 weeks ago regarding a 2TB PCIe SSD: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/storage/display/20130128235100_STEC_Introduces_2TB_Solid_State_Drives_New_Version_of_Caching_Software.html
.

Wow.

"Working together with architects from STEC, DataON Storage evaluated an all-flash storage solution that yielded an unprecedented 16GB/s sustained throughput featuring 48 2TB STEC s840 enterprise SAS SSDs within two DataON DNS-1640 external storage JBODs."

At $8,000 a piece, that's almost half a million dollars just on drives.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #23 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifij775 View Post


High performance computing is either deployed through commodity clusters or gpu clusters. This product has fallen in the void between those and a desktop that isn't very large.

 

Who in the hell ever said the Mac Pro targets HPC computing? Get real. This is a pre-production workstation which off-loads large scale cluster work to a Rack server scenario but you sure as hell won't use an HPC solution with dumb terminals for your Solid Modeling, Animation, and any other Design Work modifications from, but when you need massively parallel nodes sure.

 

If you think the world is strictly for embedded/laptop and iMac desktop office drones or reams of Servers you're seeing a different world that exists in any Engineering Firm across the globe.

post #24 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Wow.

"Working together with architects from STEC, DataON Storage evaluated an all-flash storage solution that yielded an unprecedented 16GB/s sustained throughput featuring 48 2TB STEC s840 enterprise SAS SSDs within two DataON DNS-1640 external storage JBODs."

At $8,000 a piece, that's almost half a million dollars just on drives.

 

Try this one on for size:

https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9235277/Micron_unveils_its_first_1TB_SSD_for_under_600

 

 

Quote:

Micron unveils its first 1TB SSD -- for under $600

At about 60 cents per gigabyte, the M500 is priced well below average SSD pricing

January 10, 2013 09:01 AM ET
 

Computerworld - LAS VEGAS -- Micron on Thursday unveiled its first terabyte-sized solid-state drive (SSD) for consumers, the Crucial M500, which will sell for under $600, or 60 cents per gigabyte.

 

The new SSD, almost doubles the capacity over its predecessor the 512GB C400 drive, and comes in several versions, including an ultrathin card. A 2.5-in. laptop drive version that can hold up to 960GB of data will sell for $599.

 

The Crucial M500 SSD uses the latest SATA 6Gbps drive interface and performs at up to 80,000 input/output operations per second (IOPS). The drive's sequential read and write speeds reach up to 500 MBps and 400 MBps, respectively.

 

By comparison, OCZ's first 1TB SSD, the Octane, delivers up to 560MBps read performance and up to 45,000 random IOPS, but at about $1.10-$1.30 per gigabyte, it retails for well over $1,000.

 

Online sites price the Octane from $2,549.99 and $3,006.99.

 

Samsung's latest high-performance SSD, the PM830, offers sequential read/write speeds of 500MBps and 350MBps, respectively; a 480GB model retails for around $800.

 

Intel's fastest consumer drive, the 520 Series SSD, can also deliver up to 80,000 4K-block random write IOPS and up to 50,000 4K random read IOPS.

 

And, it boasts sequential read/writes of up to 550MBps and 520MBps, respectively -- according to Intel's specification sheet.

 

While the performance may be similar to the new Micron SSD, the price isn't.

 

Intel's 520 Series SSD retails for $999 for a 480GB model, based on 1,000 unit orders. You can also find the Intel 520 SSD on sites such as Amazon.com for little more than $1 per gigabyte of capacity.

 

The 60-cent per gigabyte M500, introduced at International CES here today, is priced well below the average 80- to 90- cents-per-gigabyte price of most SSDs today.

 

"It is an aggressive introduction for a high-density SSD, where per GB pricing is still over $1/GB," said Ryan Chien, an analyst at IHS.

 

"The peak performance is impressive as is fitting 960GB of NAND in a 2.5-inch form factor. However, many enthusiasts and businesses have been burned by low-cost consumer drives with poor quality characteristics, and sustained success of products in this segment ultimately depends on latency, endurance, and sustained performance during mixed workloads," Chien added.

 

The M500 uses Micron's densest NAND flash chips, made with 20 nanometer node lithography. Micron claims the 128Gbit-sized chips are an industry first.

 

The new SSD also comes with power management capabilities.

 

The average active power use is 150mW, but a Device Sleep mode allows that to be cut by 93% to only 5mW, said Ben Thiel, Micron's senior product marketing manager. "By comparison, hard disk drives draw five to 10 times more power than this drive when its active," Thiel said. "With Device Sleep, we can still recover in less than 100 milliseconds, or about 65 milliseconds. All of this comes together with idea of giving ... a system builder the ability to claim extended battery life."

 

Form factors

 

Micron's new drive comes in three form factors: an M.2 SATA card that's not much larger than a stick of gum (22mm wide by 80mm long by 35mm high); an mSATA (mini-SATA) card (50.8mm long by 29.8mm wide by 3.75mm high); and a traditional 2.5-in laptop SSD.

 

The M.2 and mSATA drives are geared for use in tablets, ultrathin netbooks and thin clamshell-style notebooks, while the 2.5-in is designed to run in a typical notebook.

 

The M.2 and mSATA cards include 120GB, 240GB and 480GB capacity versions. The 2.5-in. SSD adds to the latter a 960GB model.

Micron would not release pricing of anything but the 960GB, 2.5-in model.

 

The M500 SSD comes with native, hardware-based 256-bit AES encryption.

 

The drive is also compliant with the Opal 2.0 Storage Specification from the Trusted Computing Group. The Opal specification provides for a secure boot capability (pre-boot authentication).

 

The M500 is compliant with Microsoft Window eDrive, also known as Encrypted Hard Disk Drive. Microsoft eDrive can be used With Windows 8, RT and Windows Enterprise OSes automatically encrypt a drive by using TCG and IEEE 1667 transport standards.

 

Additionally, Micron's new SSD includes a power loss data prevention feature that uses internal capacitors to store data for up to one microsecond after a system shutdown.

 

"We don't use DRAM as a buffer on our SSDs; that's used for page table management," Thiel said. "But we've all had software hang on us when we've hit to power button, and that's when data in flight is not saved. This addresses that."

 

The 2.5-in. Crucial M500 SSD is expected to be available in the first quarter of 2013 through global channel partners. The M.2 and mSATA drives are expected in the second quarter of 2013.

post #25 of 80
The only reason why this would make sense is maintaining the Mac Pro pricing policy in a level high enough where desktop users cannot afford it and only a "niche" can buy it. Then call the Mac a niche market.

Last year Apple said the fusion drive was released because SSD was expensive. However, reality is that you can buy 512GB SSD drives at really affordable prices that any home user can afford. Maybe that's the reason why SSD starts at 768 GB on the iMac, in order to make SSD expensive and fool customers into the fusion drive, where Apple can get more margins.

I feel they just realized they cannot keep current prices of the 512GB SSDs for the Mac Pro, so they need to introduce bigger units in order to keep same prices, where margins are high.

Apple doesn't get what's the problem on the Mac line. Margins are a compromise that must be carefully driven. The Mac product line cannot be designed from a bare margins strategy, but from demand. It's fine if you've a box starting at $3000, but without considering it a competitor with the other Mac products, because it isn't (ie: don't tell customers that if they want a 2GB GPU or a SSD unit they've to pay $3000, because they won't, they'll move to Windows or Linux rather than paying $3000). You must offer such options on $2000 Macs, without fearing cannibalizing the Mac Pro. And yes, you need to release an iMac without display, without fearing cannibalizing the Mac Pro. You want Mac sells, not Mac Pro sells. And the only way of having Mac sells is to offer what desktop users want, with a price not higher than 30% of what they would pay for the same configuration on a PC.
post #26 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Why would Apple be making SSDs?

 

Followup: Can I get a bare Apple-branded SSD for less than the cost of my house?

 

And does Apple branding on drives really mean that Apple made them? I have plenty of hard drives with the Apple logo on them; that doesn't mean Apple made them.

 

 

And for clarity's sake, this is the 'from Apple' configuration. Anyone can buy four 4TB drives and have 16TB in their Mac Pro right now.

 

People may have forgotten that Apple bought the flash memory company Anobit a year ago and are probably about to revolutionize the flash drive industry.


Edited by bdkennedy1 - 3/4/13 at 9:20pm
post #27 of 80
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post
People may have forgotten that Apple bought the flash memory company Anobit a year ago.

 

If Apple has used that to spin some magic and get SSDs up in capacity and down in price by enough that a 2TB model is viable even in the Mac Pro as a BTO, that would be extraordinary.

post #28 of 80

Apple is known for extraordinary.

post #29 of 80

Surely the whole point of Apple offering a 2TB SSD drive or array would be for bandwidth.  I still have two XServe RAIDs in my facility and they cost way more than $8000 - which is probably what you would spend to put 4 of these alleged drives into a MacPro.  Shoot, Apple is still selling Promise RAIDs starting at $15k for the non-Thunderbolt models.  

 

So if they can sell the alleged 2TB SSD for around $2k I don' think they's have any problems selling them.  If you are going to be cutting 4k video clips (which FCP X supports) you are going to need some bandwidth.  An 8TB SSD internal RAID will do nicely.

post #30 of 80

Put an affordable 2TB SSD in a MacBook Pro and I'll be in heaven. In a Mac Pro I could always have redundant striped 10000RPM RAIDs in a 2x2 configuration for 8TB of fast, dependable storage.

 

Why the HELL do people think the retina MacBook Pro hasn't been selling? There simply isn't enough storage.

post #31 of 80

How about we forget about the Mac Pro and make it so that Mac minis can be shared via Thunderbolt for x-san to utilise the available hardware on the "chain".

Cheap, reliable, expandable and AVAILABLE !!

post #32 of 80

"It should be noted that AppleInsider is unable to vouch for the veracity of the publication's statements and offers the following information for purposes of discussion only."

 

This should accompany all of Kaspers Slave posts. Especially analyst post.

Too funny.

AI has developed a conscience.

post #33 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Put an affordable 2TB SSD in a MacBook Pro and I'll be in heaven. In a Mac Pro I could always have redundant striped 10000RPM RAIDs in a 2x2 configuration for 8TB of fast, dependable storage.

 

Why the HELL do people think the retina MacBook Pro hasn't been selling? There simply isn't enough storage.

Why the hell do people think the Macbook Pro hasn't been selling? A 3.5" drive won't fit in an MBP, btw.

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #34 of 80
Why in the hell would they use a Sata interface to the drive??? PCI-e anyone?
post #35 of 80
I'll take 4 in a RAID 0 and max it out on RAM. I'll get on the horn to the bank about the mortgage.
post #36 of 80

Maybe they think the CPUs won't be able to strut their stuff if disk bandwidth is a bottleneck. In a way the Mac Pro doesn't make sense without these drives.

post #37 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Put an affordable 2TB SSD in a MacBook Pro and I'll be in heaven. In a Mac Pro I could always have redundant striped 10000RPM RAIDs in a 2x2 configuration for 8TB of fast, dependable storage.

Why the HELL do people think the retina MacBook Pro hasn't been selling? There simply isn't enough storage.
Why the hell do people think the Macbook Pro hasn't been selling? A 3.5" drive won't fit in an MBP, btw.
I didn't say it would. Nor did I imply that these mystery drives had anything to do with the MBP. I was simply sharing my opinion that a (future) 2TB drive in the RMBP would be nice.
post #38 of 80
As long as you keep data on HDD and put the OS + Apps on SSD I'm failing to see the point of a 2TB SSD. But times are changing, and if we 'enter the UHD / 4K video era' we might need larger storage solutions, not fater throughput. The 48 minute docu TimeScapes is 330GB, thus 117MB/s video so current 4TB HDD can only hold 12 of those 4K files.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pats View Post

Seems like a perfect fit for Apple's datacenters. SSD has much faster speed and low power consumption.

Apple doesn't use their own hardware for their datacenters. Heck, they don't use their own software; it's all supplied by Microsoft / Amazon / Oracle et cetera
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I don't think you really want SSD on the SATA interface. Wouldn't it be much faster if it was on the PCI bus?

Indeed much faster, that's why I got the PCIe card for my MP. Follow JeffDM's link to OWC and read reviews.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


It seems like 2TB should be possible in the 3.5" drive size.

OWC's price for 1TB PCIe drive is $1500.

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/SSD/PCIe/OWC/Mercury_Accelsior/RAID

Pricey BTO option, maybe.

But definitely getting cheaper, slashed by about $100 every 6-9 months
Send from my iPhone. Excuse brevity and auto-corrupt.
Reply
Send from my iPhone. Excuse brevity and auto-corrupt.
Reply
post #39 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

As long as you keep data on HDD and put the OS + Apps on SSD I'm failing to see the point of a 2TB SSD. But times are changing, and if we 'enter the UHD / 4K video era' we might need larger storage solutions, not fater throughput. The 48 minute docu TimeScapes is 330GB, thus 117MB/s video so current 4TB HDD can only hold 12 of those 4K files.
Apple doesn't use their own hardware for their datacenters. Heck, they don't use their own software; it's all supplied by Microsoft / Amazon / Oracle et cetera
Indeed much faster, that's why I got the PCIe card for my MP. Follow JeffDM's link to OWC and read reviews.
But definitely getting cheaper, slashed by about $100 every 6-9 months

 

Outside of enterprise level SSD drives, the Read/Write caps are 550MB/sec performance. There is a reason you see nearly 400 models for SATA III on Newegg and 7 PCI Express models of SSD on Newegg.

 

The SATA III bandwidth is 6Gbits/sec. No SSD drive is ever saturating that bus.

 

This up-to 1GB/sec PCI Express Card from Intel that is a 400GB SSD Drive:

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167125

 

costs $2,049.99

 

This Corsair 480GB with up to 545MB/s/495MB/s  read/write at $594.69

 

has the following IOPS advantages:

 

 

Quote:
Max Sequential Read
Up to 545MB/s
Max Sequential Write
Up to 490MB/s
4KB Random Write
Up to 55,000 IOPS
MTBF
2,000,000 hours

 

The overpriced POS from Intel:

 

 

Quote:
Max Sequential Read
Up to 1 GB/s
Max Sequential Write
Up to 0.75 GB/s
4KB Random Read
Up to 90,000 IOPS
4KB Random Write
Up to 38,000 IOPS

 

 

Sorry, but only a fool chooses PCI Express for the theoretical bandwidth expansion while eating it hard on actual IOPS and costs.

post #40 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by habi View Post

Why in the hell would they use a Sata interface to the drive??? PCI-e anyone?

It's much more compatible to use SATA. Think of Disk Utility, partitioning tools, and Bootcamp. As long as they use 6Gbps SATA, they'll get up to 750MB/s throughput. The use of SATA 6G isn't a certainty though as the chipsets only have 2x 6G ports and 4x 3G ports.

Apple hasn't branded their custom SSD storage:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6727/apple-is-using-sandisk-ssds-in-retina-macbook-pro-as-well

but maybe there just isn't room on the stickers. They could be using some patented processes from Anobit to help drive prices down and if this is true, it should be seen in the laptop line too. Cutting prices in half would make them competitive with the cheapest SSD drives that are available right now and would allow them to sell a 2TB SSD for about $1200. I don't think I'd take a $1200 SSD with a 1 year warranty though. Samsung SSDs have a 3 year warranty so I'd just put two 512GB (1TB when they come out) in a 3.5" adaptor.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Rumor: Apple manufacturing 2TB SSDs bound for upcoming Mac Pro