SATA 3 on 2008/2009 Mac Pro

[xmichaelp]

I am looking to pick up an old used 2008 or 2009 8 core Mac Pro and I was wondering if they are able to upgrade to SATA 3 so I can install an SSD.

Anyone? Thanks in advance.

 

[IowaLynn]

Even on the native drive bays which are SATA II an SSD will make a big improvement. All you need is an adapter to fit SSD to the drive sled.

I would advise to not buy a 2008, you should be able to find a 2009 for $495 and up.

You can add SATA III PCIe cards designed for SSDs. Or there are PCIe adapters, not controllers, that let you install even faster (~2x+ what SATA III offers, faster than a pair of SSDs in RAID) using an M.2 blade SSD.

So for $75 + sled adapter you can have 128GB for the system and enjoy SSD.

For $500+ you can get an Apple or Samsung blade. And for $300 you could get a pair of 250GB SSDs and controller.

So at least 3 or 4 different options.

 

[xmichaelp]

Even on the native drive bays which are SATA II an SSD will make a big improvement. All you need is an adapter to fit SSD to the drive sled.

I would advise to not buy a 2008, you should be able to find a 2009 for $495 and up.

You can add SATA III PCIe cards designed for SSDs. Or there are PCIe adapters, not controllers, that let you install even faster (~2x+ what SATA III offers, faster than a pair of SSDs in RAID) using an M.2 blade SSD.

So for $75 + sled adapter you can have 128GB for the system and enjoy SSD.

For $500+ you can get an Apple or Samsung blade. And for $300 you could get a pair of 250GB SSDs and controller.

So at least 3 or 4 different options.

Thanks for the quick response. I would probably just go with sata drive as I'm looking for a cheapish machine.

Any specific reason why not to go for the 2008? I did notice that they are a bit cheaper for 8 core models than 2009 ones... I assume there is a reason for it as the CPU benchmarks aren't that different.

 

[kschendel]

If you might want to do a CPU upgrade, you want the 2009 model (4,1) as a minimum. If you are sure you're OK with the stock CPU's, then the 2008 is usually cheaper to buy.

 

[xmichaelp]

If you might want to do a CPU upgrade, you want the 2009 model (4,1) as a minimum. If you are sure you're OK with the stock CPU's, then the 2008 is usually cheaper to buy.

Thanks for the reply.

The only reason I'm hesitant on the 2008 is lack of a mini displayport as i plan to get a 27 inch cinema display also. I would have to upgrade the gpu and then cheaper price of the 2008 model will not be as enticing if I need to buy another part.

Edit: Also see the RAM is faster on the 2009... 1066 vs 800... Hmm, another reason to go with it.

 

[flehman]

Another big issue imho is the fact that only PCIE slots 1 and 2 are PCIE 2.0. Slots 3 and 4 are only 1.0 so you will end up playing PCIE slot sudoku trying to figure out which cards you could/should put where to maximize performance. On a 2009 or 2010 model all slots are 2.0. 2008 models are less likely to reliably boot from a PCIE-based SSD, although some people are able to do it without incident.

Also, the RAM on a 2008 is not only slower, it is also more expensive and requires special heat sinks.

Just so you have some numbers to consider - the stock 5400rpm hard drives on my 2008 were doing around 150-180 read/write. I now run two Apple/Samsung 2.5" SSDs in drive sleds 1 and 2 and they do about 250-260 read/write. I was very pleased with the improvement. You can expect PCIE-based SSD blades (discussed extensively in other threads) to deliver anywhere from 500-1500 read/write depending on what you are willing to pay and how well you do your research.

 

[nigelbb]

Another big issue imho is the fact that only PCIE slots 1 and 2 are PCIE 2.0. Slots 3 and 4 are only 1.0 so you will end up playing PCIE slot sudoku trying to figure out which cards you could/should put where to maximize performance. On a 2009 or 2010 model all slots are 2.0. 2008 models are less likely to reliably boot from a PCIE-based SSD, although some people are able to do it without incident.

Also, the RAM on a 2008 is not only slower, it is also more expensive and requires special heat sinks.

Just so you have some numbers to consider - the stock 5400rpm hard drives on my 2008 were doing around 150-180 read/write. I now run two Apple/Samsung 2.5" SSDs in drive sleds 1 and 2 and they do about 250-260 read/write. I was very pleased with the improvement. You can expect PCIE-based SSD blades (discussed extensively in other threads) to deliver anywhere from 500-1500 read/write depending on what you are willing to pay and how well you do your research.

The units you are quoting appear to be MB/s as the numbers are correct for the SSDs but I wouldn't expect any better than 60-70 MB/s read/write from a 5400rpm HDD . You will get up to 150-160 MB/s with a modern 7200rpm & 100-120 MB/s with an older 7200rpm.

 

[flehman]

Yeah I meant MB/s. Tried to type out too much info too fast. And now that you mention it, one of the traditional HDD I had purchased a year or two ago was 7200rpm so I just generalized. Sloppy describing on my part. Regardless, doing nothing else but slapping a SSD in the stock SATA-2 drive bays will yield you a significant speed increase.

Back to the main topic - one other big difference between the 2008 and the 2009/10 Mac Pros is the processors. You can get up to 12 cores in the 2009/10 and those CPUs recognize virtual cores. You will see it said in other threads - ALOT of technology changed from the 2008 to the 2009 MP. The 2008 kind of bridges the gap between the 2006-2007 MP and the 2009-10 MP - it introduced some new features like 64-bit EFI but lacks some major advances in the 2009-10.

 

[xmichaelp]

Thanks for making the decision easier guys.

2009 machine is a no brainer now. 12 core upgrade down the line, faster ram, pci-e, etc.