MacPro said:

commentzilla said:

tzeshan said:

cia said:

tzeshan said:

cia said:

First off, in regards to speed, this is a SATA III drive.  The SATA III bus is the limiting factor for speeds, not the drive.  

Second, this drive uses MLC, which allows it to provide those peak speeds over very long writes.  TLC is great and cheap, but when you are copying large files (Example, 2 hours of ProRes video in one file, is about 122 gig) TLC based drives will hit bottlenecks and slow down.  TLC has limits that most users don't ever see.  MLC (and even better, SLC) handles stuff like this better.

This is a "pro" drive for pro users who are still using SATAIII based machines.

If you don't read/write hundreds and hundreds of GB every day, you don't need this drive, buy a cheaper SSD and you won't notice the difference.   

I have an NVME PCI card in my MacPro, but also have a cheap $20 SATA III card in there too, this drive will work well in my video workflow as a 1080p live video record drive.

Thanks for the info? Is TLC suitable for Time Machine backup?

Literally anything (even old slow cheap massive spinning drives) is fine for Time Machine backups.  I personally use a Western Digital 8TB spinning disk USB3 external drive for my Time Machine Backups.  I paid maybe $100 for it.

I use a G-drive. But it takes too much time. 

I'm using a standard Apple Time Capsule which backups up incrementally every hour. Why would I care how long it takes? For a clone time might be an issue.

In the end these OWC drives are an all around cost effective solution. There are also some middle of the road NVME drives that offer 1GB/s which are less pricy than the 2GB/s models. 

I worry about Time Machine these days.  Dropped in 2018 by Apple.  No APFS.  I worry about how well it can truly back up and restore an APFS boot drive with Catalina.  It's dog slow due to hardlinks and I swear it degrades the LAN speed.

APFS formatted volumes have issues with hard links so the TimeMachine volume must be HFS+. Whether that's TM on a TimeCapsule or TM on an external HD it has to be HFS+ so support for APFS is somewhat irrelevant at this point. If there are any performance compatibility issues I haven't noticed. I also use CCC to backup clones with a safety net so I'm covered either way.

My only issue with Time Machine is that I've yet to find a 3rd party solution that has all of TM's features. I tried using one such solution with a Netgear router and it was lacking in so many ways, plus it would fail weekly and have to be rebuilt from scratch.

Types of disks you can use with Time Machine on Mac

https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/types-of-disks-you-can-use-with-time-machine-mh15139/mac

Are we ready for Time Machine 2.0 yet?

https://eclecticlight.co/2019/08/16/are-we-ready-for-time-machine-2-0-yet/

KITA said:

commentzilla said:

KITA said:

entropys said:

pulseimages said:

I wish Apple would put discrete graphics into it’s smaller MBP, it is a Pro model after all! 

Probably too many thermal and battery issues. Now, if they put an AMD Ryzen in there that might expand the Possibilities.

Razer did a pretty good job putting a GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q in a 3 lbs 13" laptop, and lesser dGPUs like the MX250/MX350 could also work.

Ryzen 4000 U would have made a big difference.

Here's a budget $650 Acer laptop that beats out even the most powerful MBP 13". It's using Ryzen 7 4700U. It has 8 cores / 8 threads + Vega 7 graphics.

  

1065G7 is not the most powerful processor in the 13" MBP 2020. The most powerful is the i7 1068NG7 28W  chip with the Intel Iris Plus. It may still not be as fast but it will be able to sustain a higher speeds with 28W vs the 15W in the Ryzen.

The MBP with the 28W i5 only scored ~1700 points. The i7 is not going to come anything close to the Ryzen 4700U in that test.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb1W_Zbg-FQ

EDIT:

I'd also mention that the 27W Ryzen 7 4800U (8 cores / 16 threads + Vega 8) scores almost 3600:

I never said the 28W i7 would be faster than the 15W 4700U Ryzen in a Cinebench test. I'm just talking about the processor in general under sustained load since I don't play games or use 3D application, so for me this kind of test isn't important.

I more interested in general real world CPU speed, SSD speed and encoding speeds. The Mac certainly has an advantage in the last two because of the T-2 chip (video encoding/decoding and SSD encryption) and Apple's SSD (best in class speeds). But there are also other things you won't find in that $650 laptop like a best in class T-1 chip fingerprint reader, a best in class Trackpad, 4x full-speed Thunderbolt ports and what are apparently some of the best speakers in a slim laptop.

There's a lot more to a laptop than just the CPU/GPU which affect the experience and the price.

Below is from the review on Tom's Hardware... the display just makes it useless for any professional grade video or photography. Despite having an awesome Ryzen processor it doesn't really seem to outpace the Del XPS with a 1056G7 in any meaningful way other than 3D.

You have to compare Apples to Apples when looking at the value of a laptop. That $650 laptop would easily cost $1799 if it had comparable all around specs.

Acer Swift 3 (AMD): Meet Ryzen 7 4700U

FOR

A nice processor that has an advantage with 3D application

AGAINST

• Display is dark with poor contrast
• Audio lacks bass
• Webcam image is barely visible regardless of lighting
• Build quality feels fragile
• Slow SSD (in comparison to the MBP which blows it out of the water by a factor of 6x)
• Lower resolution display
• Poor color range
• No Thunderbolt (integrated into the 10th GEN Intel chips)
• Lackluster trackpad
• Lackluster finger printer reader and no T-1 Chip security
• No T-2 Chip with on the fly encryption and encoding which takes load off of the CPU
• Only a single cooling fan which may cause CPU/GPU throttling under load
• Older LPDDR4 RAM which is less power efficient
• Etc, etc, etc,.

Philtky said:

You’re all talking CPU and screen size, but all I want is a GPU on a Pro Apple computer! I’m sure many of the prosumers need a laptop to move around, but actually work on desktop, plug on the charger and an external display. I mean using an intel gpu on a pro laptop is a joke to me.

I've pretty much stopped caring since I'm not doing 4k multi-cam editing, 3D or gaming any more. For everything else the IRIS PLUS should be plenty zippy. It's just about on par with a low end dGPU.

bitsandbytes said:

commentzilla said:

bitsandbytes said:

Any app made in a day could have been made in Excel, PowerPoint, or HTML.

Nonsense.

Their app replaced a piece of paper

They replaced it with a multi-usr networked relational database application which could be accessed from computers and mobile devices, instead of a piece of paper hanging on the wall of a single room.

22july2013 said:

I'm aware that most/all Intel chips come with multiple "cores". I'm not aware if any ARM chips come with multiple cores. (I googled it and found some A9 and A11 chips with multiple cores, but we're already up to A13.) Will an ARM-based Apple computer come with only a single core?

The A13 has six-cores: two high performance and 4 energy efficient.

The A-Series isn't going to replace Intel in a MacPro anytime soon. I wonder if ARM will start as the casual consumer end of the Mac line or maybe they've figured  out a way to make them work at scale. They've undoubtably have been planning this for over over 10-years so maybe they are much farther ahead than we think.