I ordered another one when I saw the link posted above, expecting delivery on Tuesday.
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.
SATA Express meets the '09 Mac Pro - Bootable NGFF PCIE SSD
- Thread starter handheldgames
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is where I've bought them from in the past.
No stock currently but worth asking them...
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/sams...state-drive-mzhpu512hcgl-00000-hd-205-sa.html
1 : 63585 : 512GB Samsung XP941 M.2 (22x80) PCle 2.0 (x4), Read 1170MB/s, Write 930MB/s
£150 00 ex VAT : £180 00 inc VAT
No stock currently but worth asking them...
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/sams...state-drive-mzhpu512hcgl-00000-hd-205-sa.html
From Scan.co.uk invoice:
1 : 63585 : 512GB Samsung XP941 M.2 (22x80) PCle 2.0 (x4), Read 1170MB/s, Write 930MB/s
£150 00 ex VAT : £180 00 inc VAT
Last edited:
Amfeltec Squid x16 Quad M.2/NGFF PCIe adapter
(shown with 2 M.2 SSD's - image from BareFeats)
Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the 2009 Mac Pro. Its mission: to explore strange new storage technologies, to seek out new PCIe interfaces and new SSD's, to boldly go where no Mac has gone before.
Happy Thanksgiving Everyone. What a year! As a long time MacRumors member, I'd like to start off this technology overview first by thanking EVERYONE at MacRumors for their participation in discussing the adaption and adoption of PCIe SSD technology on the Classic Mac Platform.
After blowing up my '09 Mac Pro in March with a faulty PCIe PLX adapter, I'm back with some initial observations on the Amfeltec Squid Quad M.2 adapter.(SquidM2) Let's get to discussing my self-funded technology before Q pops in from the continuum and derails the episode.
Test Setup
2009 Mac Pro 32GB, i7 990x Hexacore @ 3.46Ghz
Slot 1: Flashed AMD 7950
Slot 2: Amfeltec Squid Quad M.2
M2 Slot 1: Sintech M.2 -> Apple PCIe SSD adapter -> Apple/Samsung SSUBX 512
M2 Slot 4: Samsung XP941 128GB
Slot 3: USB 3.0 Adapter
Slot 4: Sintech PCIe Apple SSD Adapter - > Samsung SSUAX 1024
SquidM2 Features
- up to 4 M.2 PCI Express SSD modules (M.2 key M)
- supports any M.2 PCI Express modules (M.2 key M)
- x4 PCI Express Gen2 connection to each M.2 circuit
- compliant with PCIe Specification 2.1
- compliant with M.2 Specification 1.0
- standard one-slot-wide half-height half-length PCI Express board
- x16 PCI Express upstream interface (Gen 2) with x16 PCIe adapter
- x8 PCI Express upstream interface (Gen 2) with x8 PCIe adapter
- x4 PCI Express upstream interface (Gen 2) with x1 PCIe adapter
Adapting Apple PCIe SSD's for the SquidM2
View attachment 602915 View attachment 602916
- Our favorite ODM Manufacturer Sintech has delivered once again with their M.2(NGFF) to x4 Apple PCIe SSD interface . Today's $10.25 adapter is available on Amazon, arriving for fast delivery with Prime.
- M.2 device clearance on the SquidM2 is tight. Although it's been designed to hold 4 standard M-Key PCIe M.2 SSD's, it can be adapted to work with the Apple PCIe SSD interface.
- Two Apple PCIe SSD Adapters can be sandwiched to fit on the top side of the SquidM2.
- Apple-Style 1TB Blade's are huge. One per side can be supported along with a standard M.2 Device, as long as you have the proper clearance.
Mac Pro Installation
- Installing the SquidM2 in x16 PCIe slot #2.
- Clearance between the SquidM2 and my 7950 appears to be too tight to support the Apple PCIe SSD Adapters on the lower side of the board.
- Clearance on the top side of the SquidM2, between the SquidM2 with Sintech adapters and the USB 3.0 PCIe adapter is tight but workable.
Boot-up and Performance
- Unless the PRAM is zapped, the SSUBX still has the dreaded cold-boot delay.
- The SSUBX does indeed run at a x4 link and 5.0 GT/S in PCI2 slot #2.
- The M.2 -> Apple PCIe slot adapter has a red light that compliments the green light on the PCIe to Apple PCIe slot adapter.
Final Thoughts...
Happy Holiday's
- I Paid $330 for my SquidM2. Bottom line, It works. It's a no-frills / adaptable / rather-industrial style device that brings 4 M.2 slots to the cMP.
- There is no other solution available on the market today that enables what Amfeltec has brought to market. My hat's off to the CEO of Amfeltec.
- Is there room for improvements in the PCB layout? Definitely. NGFF Extends well beyond small M.2 devices. I look forward to future products from Amfeltec.
- Warp speed is faster than impulse, unless were talking about OS/2.
- I never thought we would see the day when Rominator was replaced as our forum's primary Antagonist.
View attachment 602806
View attachment 602807
I think this is more designed for a 4x raid 0 of the ssd's. If you do that you would be getting about 5000MB/s down and up.
http://barefeats.com/hard210.html
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I actually order an XP941 plus PCI card from Overclockers. They eventually decided that they didn't have stock but sent the PCI card anyway which was obviously useless to me without the XP941. The card got delivered to another address so I couldn't send it back & they refused a refund even though their courier had delivered to the wring address so in the end I had to get my money back through PayPal. Needless to say this has put me off ordering from them again.
Real world results of the crazy SM961
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-sm961-ssd,4608-4.html
It's going to be a long time before PCIE shows real world improvements. Even in heavy Photoshop and After Effects tests the software can't make full use of that bandwidth. The issue here is that even if you have big media files, the apps themselves can't write caches that consume that bandwidth constantly and if they could you would probably throttle the drive. It's hard enough to make full use of SATA3. The best RED cameras still use SATA2 to record to flash mags.
So for now it's still better in terms of value and real world performance go for high capacity SATA SSDs.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-sm961-ssd,4608-4.html
It's going to be a long time before PCIE shows real world improvements. Even in heavy Photoshop and After Effects tests the software can't make full use of that bandwidth. The issue here is that even if you have big media files, the apps themselves can't write caches that consume that bandwidth constantly and if they could you would probably throttle the drive. It's hard enough to make full use of SATA3. The best RED cameras still use SATA2 to record to flash mags.
So for now it's still better in terms of value and real world performance go for high capacity SATA SSDs.
^^^^So DO NOT AGREE!!!!! My SM951 feels snappier to me than my Sansung SSDs on Apricorn cards which in turn feels much more snapper than my SSDs mounted in the SATA bays. I'v got the benchmark scores to back up my claim. And, as I said, I can FEEL and SEE the differences.
Lou
Lou
Last edited:
Sure but what will you be transferring at those speeds when you don't have I/O to match.
That's irrelevant because it's a synthetic benchmark. The question is, can you make use of this bandwidth in real life? There are people editing the biggest and most complicated media in the world who can't do it. Download an I/O meter application or study the disk activity in a task manager while you do your work and then you'll have an accurate idea how much disk speed you actually need.
Why do you care if i have more than i need? I will put it to use the best i can and it will hold it's weight until it's obsolete which will be a long time. If i bought a computer to just keep up with my current demand it would be obsolete within a year or two...
Sure you can buy a Veyron if you want. I'm just talking about whether workflows can use that kind of bandwidth.
I was with this mindset. And now realise that I should only buy something that I can fully utilise now (true for most of the computer stuff). e.g. SSD, if I pay too much for further proof, most likely I end up pay for nothing. Because the future SSD should be cheaper and perform better. This is especially true if you want to buy the top product. e.g. How much you have to pay for a TitanX when it was introduced? And now, how much the 10xx card cost?
Also, the computer parts become obsolete not necessary because of it's performance, but may be it's function, connector, etc. e.g. If the new SSD in 2017 has some functions that can replace TRIM, the current SSD can become obsolete because just lack of that function, but not the speed.
This is just like the XEON lack of QuickSync, graphic card lack of H265 support / HDMI 2.0, etc. That's not about it's raw performance, but something else.
I am not saying your purchase is not good. I just want to share my point of view now. In fact, I used to pay more for something that I don't really need. e.g. I buy the W3690 but not the W3680. I buy the 128G iPhone but I never use more than 64G. TBH, I paid the extra most likely end up is just to keep myself happy (and my happiness is priceless)
Sata 3 is already obsolete for high speed main drives. It's a good investment to go with the m.2 spec as its about 32 gb/s vs sata 3's 6gb/s max. Not to mention the mac pro 2012 has onboard sata 2 which is 3 gb/s. It's a waste of money to blow money instead on a bunch of sata 3 ssd's which are already becoming trash. The 2013 mac is already using m.2 if you noticed. Going with the latest NGFF will just make sure that i can still utilize these drives for many years to come. $0.64 a GB is not bad at all. It's the current price for 256GB m.2 SSD's. If you go with higher GB drives you can get even better deals.I was with this mindset. And now realise that I should only buy something that I can fully utilise now (true for most of the computer stuff). e.g. SSD, if I pay too much for further proof, most likely I end up pay for nothing. Because the future SSD should be cheaper and perform better. This is especially true if you want to buy the top product. e.g. How much you have to pay for a TitanX when it was introduced? And now, how much the 10xx card cost?
Also, the computer parts become obsolete not necessary because of it's performance, but may be it's function, connector, etc. e.g. If the new SSD in 2017 has some functions that can replace TRIM, the current SSD can become obsolete because just lack of that function, but not the speed.
This is just like the XEON lack of QuickSync, graphic card lack of H265 support / HDMI 2.0, etc. That's not about it's raw performance, but something else.
I am not saying your purchase is not good. I just want to share my point of view now. In fact, I used to pay more for something that I don't really need. e.g. I buy the W3690 but not the W3680. I buy the 128G iPhone but I never use more than 64G. TBH, I paid the extra most likely end up is just to keep myself happy (and my happiness is priceless)
Last edited:
SATA 3 is barely being saturated in most real world workflows. Anyone who suggests otherwise has...no...clue.
I'm with you Lou. Performance on Windows != Performance on Mac OS. If anything the benchmarks show how MS has issues scaling to work with multi-core PCIe SSD storage in an effective manner.
You buy all the s3 sata drives you want then. To each his own. I work with 5GB movie keyart psd's and large After effects projects that take 2 hours to render on a s3 drive used as a scratch disk so i will put it to use. I don't want to argue with you anyways. Sata 3 is a old redundant form factor, the chips in a sata 3 sdd are pretty much the same as a m.2 AHCI ssd NAND chip. So why bottleneck the chip if you don't have to? At 0.64 dollars a GB what do you have to lose? To compare it to a Bugatti and continue to ******** is just making you look ignorant and whiny.
Last edited:
I work with big files too.
Prove you have a bottleneck with the suggestions I made above (IO Meters, Disk Activity meters). I ran and linked to dozens of intensive tests. I was the first person to RAID the SM951. Made no significant difference over SATA3. I posted test after test after test, charts, images, photos, videos.
And if you wanted the best out of these peripherals then OSX and cMP isn't the way to go in the first place.
Just tested your theory. My current setup maxes out at 800MB/s and so i went ahead and opened activity monitor and rendered out an after effects project i rendered last week. Here is the speed the ssd was going at. As you see its going at 786MB/s and is peaking so a higher speed drive would in fact be utilized. You must be doing something wrong. What's your carrier card and how many ahci ports are you using in your raid? What were your raid's overall transfer rate after install using benchmarks?
May I know do you have the figures how a faster SSD help rendering? (e.g. 2hr vs 1.5hr etc)
I am not challenging you, but just want to know the fact. I am still with the SATA SSD at this moment. I also work with multi GB 4K video (in my leisure time), and I suppose the rendering time was limited by CPU / GPU etc, but not SSD speed. So I want to know how the faster SSD help on your system. Thanks!
Sorry my Amfeltec Carrier Card and ram and every other part for the computer is still coming in the mail. Actual MP comes in the mail tomorrow. Will be awhile before i can assemble everything and compare.
I had XP941s, SM941, Samsung 850s. I tested all these on this forum and in RAID.
Your own 'maxed out' tests have 25 MB/s write speed, and read speeds can't come close to a single XP941 let alone a PCIE RAID. The write speed is far more important here, that's the caches and file saves that we rely on for immediate feedback in our apps. You're not going to see those numbers climb up magically just because you made a super fast RAID set up. Your apps and processor are the limiting factor.
Even if your apps could utilise such crazy bandwidth, the cMP's RAM will never exceed around 2GB/s. Create and test a RAM disk and you'll see the limit there.
Your own 'maxed out' tests have 25 MB/s write speed, and read speeds can't come close to a single XP941 let alone a PCIE RAID. The write speed is far more important here, that's the caches and file saves that we rely on for immediate feedback in our apps. You're not going to see those numbers climb up magically just because you made a super fast RAID set up. Your apps and processor are the limiting factor.
Even if your apps could utilise such crazy bandwidth, the cMP's RAM will never exceed around 2GB/s. Create and test a RAM disk and you'll see the limit there.
No worries. If you don't mind, I want to know how just change the SSD helps the system (same Ram, CPU, GPU, etc). Million thanks in advance.