Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
mac pro 5,1..update it or pc w/ 8th i7
- Thread starter kensic
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, I realised that some latest high end consumer SSD can deliver 100MB/s on the 4k random read test. Which will be noticeable faster than an average SATA SSD can do. But the cost is also noticeable higher (for the same capacity)
update. installed 3x8gb of samsung ram bought on eBay. it reads all 24gb. lightroom seems to be running better and faster. more ram really helps.
daily work flow uses about 8-9gb of ram. now with 24gb (vs old 10gb) computer can really breathe.
thanks for the suggestion, I'm happy for now.
Yes, the 970 Pro NVMe is noticeably faster in daily use. It loads faster & it launches Apps faster. You have to pay to drive fast, but it's worth it for some (specifically me).
Last edited:
Wanted to chime in and say that Lightroom (and all Creative Cloud software) benefits greatly from having a halfway decent GPU. Each piece of software has a little checkbox somewhere in the preferences for enabling/disabling the acceleration. I use Illustrator a lot these days, threw in an old 2GB GTX 650 for fun (waiting to see what the world of Mojave will bring before buying an AMD card), installed the Nvidia Web Drivers and now scrolling and zooming keeps up with me. Illustrator specifically needed a GPU with 1gb+ of VRAM.
My experience with LR is that working with large RAW files (30+mb) will start to stutter if you're working off a drive that can't keep up. A speedy RAID or a decent SSD for those files will help a lot. Jumping between big files the way it does can become painful on a single rotating drive and is especially bad if the drive is starting to get full. This forced me to come up with a workflow that involves moving files off my fast storage when I'm done in LR and storing them on a NAS for if I ever want them later.
My experience with LR is that working with large RAW files (30+mb) will start to stutter if you're working off a drive that can't keep up. A speedy RAID or a decent SSD for those files will help a lot. Jumping between big files the way it does can become painful on a single rotating drive and is especially bad if the drive is starting to get full. This forced me to come up with a workflow that involves moving files off my fast storage when I'm done in LR and storing them on a NAS for if I ever want them later.
It's also good to remember that while a SATA II SSD delivers the fastest boot time in the cMP, that's about the only performance lead it delivers. Operations in mail, photos, imovie, etc that are disk I/O intensive will be much slower than SATA III which is much slower than a modern PCIe SSD.
When considering any SATA III ssd, consumer oriented chipsets whether asmedia or marvell, introduces boot time delays and slower 4k performance compared to any Intel SATA II or III controller. Slightly higher file transfer, by a couple hundred mb/s is the only benefit.
As I have been stating for years, running MacOS from a PCIe SSD, delivers a class of performance not attainable from SATA II or III. Without a special controller, a 2009+ cMP can achieve 1500 mb/s reads and writes.
Last edited:
While 1,500 MBP/sec reads / writes seems impressive it's not really relevant to the work that a lot of people do. It represents the sequential speed and not the random speed. IMO the strength of SSDs, for most users, is in their random performance and not the sequential performance. While > 1GB/sec speeds look impressive it's not the type of disk access which benefits most users. Random performance is where most people benefit and, in many cases, it has not reached SATA-II speeds. Therefore moving to a PCIe AHCI or NVMe is unlikely to provide any tangible results for many people. Blindly suggesting PCIe based solutions may lead to disappointment.
Are you kidding? I've got more that one of each kind of drive in my system and nothing, and I mean NOTHING SATAII comes close to the performance of PCIe SSD/NVMe SSD in pretty much everything. PCIe SSD (AKA: SSUBX) isn't far behind an NVMe as a daily driver, but there is a difference. Both in cost, and performance in daily use. SATAII isn't even on the same planet.
I also have some swap land in DC for sale if you are interested. It sounds like you are still using a SATA II SSD along with some traditional spinning hard disks.
This is no blind recommendation, my vision is still great, Random read/writing speeds are also substantially faster. Your web browser will load faster, although you probably will not see any performance increase posting here. As I have said since 2012, PCIe SSD's deliver an enhanced cMP experience that a SATA SSD cannot match.
The system I'm responding to your post on has both a 256GB M.2 AHCI SSD as well as a 512GB M.2 NVMe. It's an HP Z620 with a Z-Turbo drive (M.2 AHCI) boot disk and a Z-Turbo G2 drive (M.2 NVMe) used for my virtual systems (the Z-Turbo G2 will not work as a boot drive in the Z620 system). The G2 drive replaced an SATA 850 EVO drive. I speak from experience.
[doublepost=1534026605][/doublepost]
You must be hearing a different sound than reality.
Then please provide us with your random read/write benchmarks instead of the sequential ones.
Great, now put in an SATAII drive, and tell me it's just as fast as your current configuration.
The system you're posting from is much newer and faster to begin with. You already have PCIe 3.0, and SATAIII capabilities.
Coming from an SATAII connection, it's not even in the same ballpark as a fast M.2 AHCI SSD or an NVMe SSD.
What would be the point? I already stated the M.2 NVMe drive replaced a SATA 850 EVO drive with no discernible difference.
There's a significant difference between SATA-III limitations and PCIe NVMe yet the NVMe drive does not provide any perceptible difference in "day to day" usage. This tells me that SATA is not a limiting factor.
I agree, the PCIe based solutions, in sequential throughput, greatly exceed that of SATA. Yet, in "day to day" usage the PCIe based solutions offer no perceptible benefit over SATA SSD solutions.
Sequential PCIe AHCI and NVMe throughput is impressive but, IME, sequential read performance is a small percentage of a normal users disk usage. Therefore, impressive as they may be, sequential performance numbers are not the correct metric upon which to base an SSD recommendation.
This conversation has drifted too far 'OFF-TOPIC'. I've posted countless benchmarks from 2009 and 2010 cMP's from Quickbench showing 4k performance on a variety of SSD's, Hard Disks, and PCIe media. While I could post #'s from a x58 Gigabyte Hackintosh to compare with your HP, that probably belongs over at tonymacx86.
Good luck with your HP
Last edited:
My point was, you were using an SATAIII connection to your SATAIII SSD.
I was coming from an SATAII connection. There is a HUGE perceptible difference in day to day usage for me. It's not even close. I've felt a performance bump with each iteration of drive upgrade I've done.
I disagree with you, as I have my own experience and you have yours.
We disagree, let's put a fork in it and call it day.
I was coming from an SATAII connection. There is a HUGE perceptible difference in day to day usage for me. It's not even close. I've felt a performance bump with each iteration of drive upgrade I've done.
I disagree with you, as I have my own experience and you have yours.
We disagree, let's put a fork in it and call it day.
Or you could, you know, support your position here where you've made your claims.
[doublepost=1534030611][/doublepost]
You did not achieve 1,500MB/sec with a SATA-III drive. It was that metric which I responded to, not some SATA-II versus SATA-III metric.
Disagree all you'd like, it won't change the facts.
LOL! Can't support your position so you try and bury it.
How many photos are 4k in size? MP3's/mp4's? How about photoshop files. PDF's. Not many data files are 4k in size anymore. We're not running on an OS based on the 8-bit z-80..
Go read here:
SATA Express meets the '09 Mac Pro - Bootable NGFF PCIE SSD
Or Here:
Highpoint 7101A - PCIe 3.0 SSD performance for the cMP
For comparison to your benchmarks(still waiting):
And A 840Pro...
Looking at a 4k 1Gib test.. The SATA II 840 pro takes a face plant.
Many have opinions, but you can never tell which end it's coming from.
Plain and simple, I run on facts. There is too much FAKE NEWS out there.
Last edited:
Not sure what MP3's / MP4's, Photoshop, or PDF files have to do with booting a system. If it's your argument the sequential throughput of PCIe based SSD's can outperform those of SATA based SSD's you'll get no argument from me.
However booting a system doesn't involve a lot of large file sequential reads. Instead it primarily consists of random reads. Therefore quoting sequential read metrics is useless.
If you have a specific post or posts you'd like me to review then please point me to them. I am not going to read through a thread in search of...well, I don't know what you're asking me to find.
What benchmarks are you expecting from me?
Agreed, which is why your statements are being challenged.
What facts?Plain and simple, I run on facts. There is too much FAKE NEWS out there.
So.... What's your point beyond disagreement? I could color code the benchmarks I just posted, showing the random read performance variances between devices, but the crayons needed won't transfer through the screen.
Have a great weekend.
Oh grow up!
My point is simple: For most users random performance is more important than sequential performance. Therefore discussing sequential performance, which is what your 1,500 MB/sec number is, is moot (which is the metric I responded to). Furthermore the 4K random read performance you provided tops out at 41.39 MB/sec...well below SATA-II's 300MB/sec limitation. Even the 369.4 MB/sec rate doesn't significantly exceed SATA-II's bandwidth.
In the end SATA-II, even using the most optimistic random benchmark you provided, isn't much of a bottleneck. Move it to SATA-III and PCIe based random access provides no perceptible advantage over SATA based SSDs.