SATA Express meets the '09 Mac Pro - Bootable NGFF PCIE SSD

[handheldgames]

Thanks for the in-depth response Thomas.

I am looking to do the upgrade from the perspective of retouching.

I don't play games on the system and want to create the best real world environment as I also work on very large files.

So my question is, are you running a separate scratch disk when working on those 1GB files?

I'm a little confused as to how exactly you have your system set up for working in Photoshop.

Thanks,
Rory

Hey Rory,

Great question on optimizing a PCIe SSD setup for workflow / performance.

Q: Do I uses a separate scratch disk when working with large files? Heck Yea!

As a mater of practice, I've allocated scratch partitions on my fastest drives to support image and video workflow on my '09 32GB cMP and a 2013 8GB rMBP via Thunderbolt 2. Large and contiguous workspaces for scratch and project data are essential for the best performance.

FWIW., A ramdisk can also be leveraged in the mix to boost performance, depending on your hardware and application workflow. Windows users have been enjoying Samsung's SSD magician to accelerate 3G SSD's with a RAM buffer for years. Going back to the System 7 days, Connectix ram disk's could be leveraged as system disks for fast system response.

To be honest, I have not delved into Adobe's scratch disk activity for some time. With an Apple/Samsung or Samsung x4 ACHI drive, any writes greater than 128kb surpass Sata III drives. With the driver available at MacVidCards, a m.2 / ngff NVMe ssd offers the fastest performance across the board for a scratch and project drives / partitions.

Thx,
Thomas

 

[eos1x]

Thanks again Thomas.

I ordered a 512GB SM951 and additional ram which will bring my total ram to 56GB when installed in my Mac Pro 3,1.

Do you recommend I partition the 512GB SM951 and if so, how much should I give to Photoshop. I regularly work on files that are 2-3 GB.

Also what is your impression of the card that Lucas Godfrey got on ebay.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/321946526574.

Thanks for that link Lucas

 

[jrwo]

I seem to be having speed issues with a 512Gb SM951 in the usual Lycom adapter in a 3.1 Pro. Getting 700-750 speeds on read and write, in both slots 2 and 3 - showing up as 4 lanes active in both. Have reset PRAM, and done a clean install of El Capitan. Any suggestions on what I should be checking?

James

 

[flowrider]

^^^^Yes, your problem is that slots 3 & 4 in the 3,1 cMP has PCIe spec 1.0. Slots 1 and 2 are PCIs spec 2.0. With the issues folks with 4,1, and 5,1 cMPs have had with slot 2, I don't know if a 3,1 would fare any better.

Lou

 

[eos1x]

I bought this Ableconn PEXM2-SSD card

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B017JGVTAM?psc=1

for a 512MB SM951 because the Lycom was not available at the time.

The pictures of it look identical to the Lycom. But now I'm wondering if it is as advertised because it is not showing up as 6 Gigabit under Link speed or Link Width. I'm running 10.10.5 on a 2008 Mac Pro.
The card is in slot 2 which is x16 in the 2008

Here are the details and the speeds I'm getting.

Are these speeds good?

Is this card no good or is there a setting I need to change?

Should I return it and get the Lycom which is now back in stock?

 

[sailmac]

I believe the issue is with how the SM951 behaves in MP x16 slots. If you read back through this thread you'll see that the SM951 doesn't max out in x16 slots 1 or 2. That's why users with a 4,1 or 5,1 MP put it in slot 3 or 4 which behaves correctly. But you're using a 3,1 machine and slot 3 or 4 won't help.

The speeds you report are almost identical to what I get with a 3,1 in slot 2.

So, you're adapter appears fine and the SM951 is performing the same as similarly configured systems.

 

[eos1x]

Thank you for the quick response Sailmac.

I thought the performance would be higher based on the image at Barefeats from Ramcity with a xp941

Is the Link Speed 2.5GT/s equal to 6 Gigabit, as seen on page 1 of this thread with the Lycom card and XP941?
Image from page 1 below

[doublepost=1453260807][/doublepost]I ran the same test as Bare Feats and got the following

These results are 20.3% slower on the write speed and 33% slower on read than bare feats results using an XP941.

"* To achieve max throughput in the 2008 Mac Pro, one of the two PCIe 2.0 x16 slots must be used. These models have two x16 PCIe 2.0 slots and two x4 PCIe 1.0 slots. In our testing on May 12th, 2014, we confirmed the speeds listed above for the x16 PCIe 2.0 slot with the 512GB XP941. We also tested in the 4 lane PCIe 1.0 slot which measured 742MB/s READ, 588MB/s WRITE."

This is why I was wondering if there was problem with the card. The read speed is barely faster than barefeats 4 lane PCIe 1.0 speed at 742MB/sec/

 

[eos1x]

Reading back through the thread I see slot 2 may be the problem. I had read through the thread before but it didn't make much sense to me at the time.

Would placing the card in slot 1 make a difference or is it really just a case of how either the card or the SM951 handles the x16 slots?

I still don't understand how Barefeats got the results they did with a 2008.
Is there a major difference between the XP941 and the SM951? If so would a firmware update from Samsung address the problem.
I though I was buying the faster model but it now appear I may have bought the slower version for my 3,1

Is there the possibility that a future x16 card would unleash the SM951 true potential ?

Sorry about all the questions. I read the whole thread over the holidays but the answers are not easy to find when there are so many different Mac Pros talked about.

 

[sailmac]

It's something to do with the way the SM951 responds to the x16 lane config in the Mac Pro. It's a quirk that the XP941 does not exhibit. This quirk in the SM951 does not occur in a x4 slot. I don't think Barefeats did anything special with the XP941 in a 3,1. If the SM951 didn't have this quirk it would indeed beat the XP941 in the benchmarks being considered.

 

[eos1x]

Thanks again Sailmac.

So in the case of the 3,1 the SM951 is currently inferior to the XP941?

Wish I had know that before i purchased it. Do you think a firmware update could rectify this situation? I'm surprised this hasn't come up in all the glowing reviews I read.

Is this cMac specific or is it fair to say it is more than a quirk and is actually a flaw in the firmware design relative to the XP941.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Thanks again Sailmac.
So in the case of the 3,1 the SM951 is currently inferior to the XP941. Wish I had know that before i purchased it. Do you think a firmware update could rectify this situation? I'm surprised this hasn't come up in all the glowing reviews I read. Is this Mac specific?

Samsung doesn't issue firmware updates to the public for OEM drives.

 

[eos1x]

Thanks SoyCapitanSoyCapitan. That's even more disappointing. So basically this is as good as it gets on a 3,1 ?

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Thanks SoyCapitanSoyCapitan. That's even more disappointing. So basically this is as good as it gets on a 3,1 ?

The options that are available such as XP941, SM951, Amalfec adapted etc are plenty fast for even best use cases. It's the CPU that hold back 'modern performance' levels.

 

[eos1x]

I was just a little surprised when I saw the numbers relative to what everyone else was reporting.

Overall I'm happy with the upgrade.

I also replaced the graphics card with a GTX 750ti and increased the ram from 14GB @ 800Mhz to 56 GB @ 667Mhz.

All the updates went smoothly and the machine is much improved performance wise. It should get me to the next release of Mac Pro.

Photoshop now reports 90-100% efficiency when working on 2GB+ files.

Thanks to everyone for their input. I appreciate it.

 

[PowerMike G5]

I believe the issue is with how the SM951 behaves in MP x16 slots. If you read back through this thread you'll see that the SM951 doesn't max out in x16 slots 1 or 2. That's why users with a 4,1 or 5,1 MP put it in slot 3 or 4 which behaves correctly. But you're using a 3,1 machine and slot 3 or 4 won't help.

The speeds you report are almost identical to what I get with a 3,1 in slot 2.

So, you're adapter appears fine and the SM951 is performing the same as similarly configured systems.

Yes, the only adapter I know at the moment that negotiate's the speed properly in the x16 slot 2 is the Amfeltec PCI card, which I have. I have a SM951 in all 4 slots on that card and they all read at full speed independently.

Its pricey, but a great solution to use multiple x4 SM951s on one PCI slot.

 

[sailmac]

Yes, the only adapter I know at the moment that negotiate's the speed properly in the x16 slot 2 is the Amfeltec PCI card, which I have. I have a SM951 in all 4 slots on that card and they all read at full speed independently.

Its pricey, but a great solution to use multiple x4 SM951s on one PCI slot.

Oh right, thanks for the reminder. At $300 (per this) it's a working solution. For anyone interested, details at Amfeltec.

 

[eos1x]

That's interesting PowerMike G5.

So the problem is with the card and not the machine itself or the SM951 for that matter.

If only someone made a single or double M key card that addressed the issue.

 

[krishnaM]

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...e-ngff-pcie-ssd.1685821/page-58#post-22388918

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...e-ngff-pcie-ssd.1685821/page-58#post-22390069

Who doesn't want a faster mac. I was thinking to get the SM951+ Lycom combo for my 2009 cMP (4,1 flashed to 5,1) but my friend mentioned that I'll not notice big difference and for regular use (Photoshop is heaviest app. I use) I'll be better off getting the Sata III SSD & Apricon Solo instead as I'll get bigger SSD for the money. I did google search and also read the whole thread and I am still confused. I read lot of posts where people migrated from Apricon, Sonnet (or similar) + Sata III SSD to SM951. I am sure not every body has similar needs. I really want to understand the benefits of pcie based SSD over SATA III. If I am not wrong, both have delayed startup times compared to SATA II interface. If the only benefit is for reading/writing huge files then I'll go with Apricon+Sata III ssd combo as I don't do any video editing. I am not here to start up a fight. I just want honest opinion.

Krishna

 

[flowrider]

^^^^I have both all three at the present time. I have two Samsung SSDs in the HDD Bays. 2 Samsung SSDs on an Apricorn Duo x2 and an SM 951 on an Angelbird Wings PX1. The SM 951 was mounted Lycom card, but when I saw the Angelbird card with a heatsink, I bought it.

Anyway, I am aware of the arguments about synthetic benchmarks et all. All my SSDs are bootable. But, IMHO, my 5,1 with X5677's, when booted with the SM951 just feels snappier to me. I've run all the disk tests and of course the SM951 scores much higher then the two SSDs on the Apricorn card which in turn scores higher the the two SSDs in the drive bays which score higher than my two spinners in my other 2 drive bays. I too use PS (CS6).

Again, IMO, i made the right choice when I bought the SM951. I'm happy with my choice.

Lou

 

[krishnaM]

^^^^I have both all three at the present time. I have two Samsung SSDs in the HDD Bays. 2 Samsung SSDs on an Apricorn Duo x2 and an SM 951 on an Angelbird Wings PX1. The SM 951 was mounted Lycom card, but when I saw the Angelbird card with a heatsink, I bought it.

Anyway, I am aware of the arguments about synthetic benchmarks et all. All my SSDs are bootable. But, IMHO, my 5,1 with X5677's, when booted with the SM951 just feels snappier to me. I've run all the disk tests and of course the SM951 scores much higher then the two SSDs on the Apricorn card which in turn scores higher the the two SSDs in the drive bays which score higher than my two spinners in my other 2 drive bays. I too use PS (CS6).

Again, IMO, i made the right choice when I bought the SM951. I'm happy with my choice.

Lou

Thanks, that is definitely reassuring. I'll wait for few more votes before making the decision.

 

[h9826790]

I think it's depends on your budget and what you are looking for.

If you want lower the cost and maximise the size of your high speed storage as much as possible. Modern SSD plug at the native SATA 2 port is the way to go. The SATA 3 card is not cheap (compare to the Lycom adaptor). If you go for the SATA 3 solution, you are paying for the adaptor, but not the SSD speed. Which gives you faster sequential speed, but not that useful for OS operation or photoshop. I have a SATA 3 card, TBH, I can't feel any difference when I move from SATA 2 to SATA 3 (apart from the longer initialisation time during boot). And since this is the only SSD I have, and my biggest RAID 0 array is just 3 old HDDS combination which gives me around 220MB/s. So, even copying large file, I can't get anything more than 250MB/s, which means SATA 2 is enough for me. End up, I free up that slot for another GPU, and just go back to the SATA 2 port (which not just gives me less boot up delay, but also a connection that can upgrade the SSD's firmware).

I never use the SM951, but if I need extreme fast SSD, I will defifntely go for this. I prefer to pay for the really fast SSD and a cheap adaptor, but not an relatively expensive converter and slower SSD. However, I still doubt how much will you gain from this setup. There is another member here proved that the boot time from SATA 2 port to SM951s in RAID 0 are all the same (17s). Even though, booting the machine is not the main workflow for most of us. But IMO, it's a pretty good index for real world OS operation's performance.

I won't say that you can't benefit from the SM951, but I will expect something like this.

e.g. HDD - boot time > 1min, opening photoshop > 15s.

Then SSD (SATA 2 port) - boot time < 15-20s, opening photoshop <3s

SSD on SATA 3 card - boot time < 15-20s, opening photoshop <2.5s

SM951 - boot time 15-20s, opening photoshop <1.5s

It's just my estimation, the SATA 2 and 3 timing from my subjective feeling on my 4,1, not objective test result. And SM951 performance estimation are from the members report here.

So, you may still benefit from the SM951, but is that really matter if the SSD on SATA 2 port can finish the same task in seconds? I guess this is what your friend want to tell you.

In general, for photoshop, assuming you have enough RAM, the bottleneck usually is the CPU single core performance, but not the storage speed. If you always deal with extreme large project, and the scratch disk performance will contribute a lot to the overall performance, then the SM951 is the way to go. From my observation here, quite a few members here agree that the SM951 is good to be the scratch disk due to it's performance, but not much benefit (compare to SATA SSD) for general use (OSX operation etc).

 

[krishnaM]

I think it's depends on your budget and what you are looking for.

If you want lower the cost and maximise the size of your high speed storage as much as possible. Modern SSD plug at the native SATA 2 port is the way to go. The SATA 3 card is not cheap (compare to the Lycom adaptor). If you go for the SATA 3 solution, you are paying for the adaptor, but not the SSD speed. Which gives you faster sequential speed, but not that useful for OS operation or photoshop. I have a SATA 3 card, TBH, I can't feel any difference when I move from SATA 2 to SATA 3 (apart from the longer initialisation time during boot). And since this is the only SSD I have, and my biggest RAID 0 array is just 3 old HDDS combination which gives me around 220MB/s. So, even copying large file, I can't get anything more than 250MB/s, which means SATA 2 is enough for me. End up, I free up that slot for another GPU, and just go back to the SATA 2 port (which not just gives me less boot up delay, but also a connection that can upgrade the SSD's firmware).

I never use the SM951, but if I need extreme fast SSD, I will defifntely go for this. I prefer to pay for the really fast SSD and a cheap adaptor, but not an relatively expensive converter and slower SSD. However, I still doubt how much will you gain from this setup. There is another member here proved that the boot time from SATA 2 port to SM951s in RAID 0 are all the same (17s). Even though, booting the machine is not the main workflow for most of us. But IMO, it's a pretty good index for real world OS operation's performance.

I won't say that you can't benefit from the SM951, but I will expect something like this.

e.g. HDD - boot time > 1min, opening photoshop > 15s.

Then SSD (SATA 2 port) - boot time < 15-20s, opening photoshop <3s

SSD on SATA 3 card - boot time < 15-20s, opening photoshop <2.5s

SM951 - boot time 15-20s, opening photoshop <1.5s

It's just my estimation, the SATA 2 and 3 timing from my subjective feeling on my 4,1, not objective test result. And SM951 performance estimation are from the members report here.

So, you may still benefit from the SM951, but is that really matter if the SSD on SATA 2 port can finish the same task in seconds? I guess this is what your friend want to tell you.

In general, for photoshop, assuming you have enough RAM, the bottleneck usually is the CPU single core performance, but not the storage speed. If you always deal with extreme large project, and the scratch disk performance will contribute a lot to the overall performance, then the SM951 is the way to go. From my observation here, quite a few members here agree that the SM951 is good to be the scratch disk due to it's performance, but not much benefit (compare to SATA SSD) for general use (OSX operation etc).

Wonderful explanation and precise answer I was looking for. I think I'll go with SM951 route as I do have a Samsung SSD on sata II port. If the booting is really annoying then I'll get used to leaving the mac turned on and may be reboot once a week (difficult to break old habits) or use the SM951 for scratch and large file storage.I wish Samsung made bigger than 512GB AHCI drives.

 

[flehman]

Wonderful explanation and precise answer I was looking for. I think I'll go with SM951 route as I do have a Samsung SSD on sata II port. If the booting is really annoying then I'll get used to leaving the mac turned on and may be reboot once a week (difficult to break old habits) or use the SM951 for scratch and large file storage.I wish Samsung made bigger than 512GB AHCI drives.

I have 3 SSDs installed in the stock SATA II drive bays and it made a world of difference over the traditional hard disk drives. The PCIE route is undoubtedly faster, but to me the SSDs running at saturated SATA II speeds (about 260 MB/s) feels plenty fast.

 

[KevWind]

^^^^I have both all three at the present time. I have two Samsung SSDs in the HDD Bays. 2 Samsung SSDs on an Apricorn Duo x2 and an SM 951 on an Angelbird Wings PX1. The SM 951 was mounted Lycom card, but when I saw the Angelbird card with a heatsink, I bought it.

Anyway, I am aware of the arguments about synthetic benchmarks et all. All my SSDs are bootable. But, IMHO, my 5,1 with X5677's, when booted with the SM951 just feels snappier to me. I've run all the disk tests and of course the SM951 scores much higher then the two SSDs on the Apricorn card which in turn scores higher the the two SSDs in the drive bays which score higher than my two spinners in my other 2 drive bays. I too use PS (CS6).

Again, IMO, i made the right choice when I bought the SM951. I'm happy with my choice.

Lou

I have just ordered a Samsung SM951 and the Lycom card . I will be putting it in either slot 3 or 4 on my mid 2010 mac pro 5.1 Have you noticed any significant difference with the PX1 card ?

 

[flowrider]

^^^^^Nope, they feel and score the same. I still have my Lycom card if your interested.

Lou