SSD option for 2010 mac pro (5.1)

[eVasilis]

Hi all,

I need some advise from you guys. I want to get an ssd to host the os and apps and I am thinking of buying either a Samsung evo 850 or a pcie controller with an m2 card (something like this http://www.raidsonic.de/products/accessories/ac_controller/index_en.php?we_objectID=3602 and this http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/ct525mx300ssd4). What I want out of it, is fast boot times and app launching. Which route do you think would be the best in my case?

Thanks for your time!
V

PS. I am running MacOs 10.13.1

 

[hwojtek]

PCIE is much faster. Remember your SATA is capped @ 3 Gbps so a single Evo 850 will saturate the available bandwidth, so much of the SSD performance will actually go to waste. PCIE doesn't have this issue, the solution is more expensive, however.

Also, you'd perhaps prefer this thread to be put in the proper Mac Pro section and not High Sierra, as it is not OS-specific but machine-specific. Ask a moderator to move it for you. There's a zillion threads regarding your inquiry there.

 

[ashleykaryl]

Go for a PCIE. I have one on my 2010 Mac Pro and it works brilliantly. This is with High Sierra.

 

[h9826790]

For boot time and apps loading, all you need is just a SATA SSD, any brand, any model, the cheapest one and the most expensive one perform more or less the same. And all you need is just plug it into the optical bay SATA port.

If for any reason (obviously, other than boot time) you want to go PCIe SSD. Please make sure you get the PCIe AHCI SSD (if you may boot from it), NOT the NVMe SSD, and NOT the m.2 SATA SSD. Despite the form factor is m.2, a m.2 SATA SSD is still just a SATA SSD, won't magically match the real PCIe SSD's performance.

I have a $500 Samsung 1TB 840Evo on a PCIe SATA III card, and a super cheap $30 120GB DMG SSD on the optical SATA II port. They perform virtually the same for boot and apps loading.

I didn't own any real PCIe SSD, but since their 4k random read speed cannot even saturate a SATA II connection. I didn't expect there will be any noticeable difference on boot time or apps loading (unless there is a huge library associated with a particular app). Also, form the above graph, you can see that the connection type (or bandwidth) is practically irrelevant to the boot time and apps loading time. As long as you are using SSD, the loading performance are more or less the same.

So, if you have lots of money to burn, then go for a PCIe SSD, Kingston HyperX Predator 960GB AHCI is a good option, 100% OOTB solution. Samsung SM951 512GB AHCI is a good option as well, however, only OEM drive available, no warranty, and you need to buy an adaptor for it.

If you want something more cost effective. Then just get the cheapest SATA SSD that you can buy, and look for a size that you need plus at least 20% buffer. e.g. If you need 230GB for OS and Applications, than you should NOT go for the 256GB option, but 480GB option (or above).

Anyway, the post above mine show you the PCIe SSD SEQUENTIAL speed, which is totally irrelevant to the boot time, and very irrelevant to apps loading time. What you really need is the 4k random read speed. Which usually about 30MB/s for most SSD you can buy (including the SM951). And a normal HDD's 4k random read is about 1MB/s, that's why the boot / apps loading time is significantly faster on the SSD. IOPS does matter, but not the sequential read speed in this aspect.

I made this "apps loading" video some time ago. It's the 840 Evo plunged into the optical bay's native SATA II port. Obviously, a "6x faster" PCIe SSD won't really make the apps loading time 6x faster. Even yes, I don't think it's a matter to normal human being. It's still "very fast".

 

[kohlson]

FWIW if you have a spare SSD lying around, depending on what you want to stuff into your drive bays you may want to consider something like the Accelsior from OWC, or Apricom. Once you start putting things into a Mac Pro, it seems there is some thinking required for the 6 SATA bays and 4 PCIe slots! PCIe can be used for GPU (sometimes 2 slots), USB3, eSATA, as well as boot card. As h9826790 states above, it doesn't make any sense from a boot/app performance perspective for either PCIe or SATA. But depending on storage resources/needs, it may matter.

 

[eVasilis]

Thank you all for the eye opening info!

Currently, I am using a WD black, stupidly formatted as APFS, as my boot drive. Having to wait for more that 1.5 minutes for the boot up process to complete, i think it's high time I replaced the mechanical boot drive with an ssd one.

 

[h9826790]

Thank you all for the eye opening info!

Currently, I am using a WD black, stupidly formatted as APFS, as my boot drive. Having to wait for more that 1.5 minutes for the boot up process to complete, i think it's high time I replaced the mechanical boot drive with an ssd one.

IMO, any OS since Mavericks are highly optimised for SSD. Running them with HDD will be painfully slow. So yes, if you want to keep your Mac up to date (run the latest OS), you better upgrade it accordingly.

 

[MarkC426]

Arn’t boot times irellevant, my pro only ever shuts down for updates or hardware add ins.
Once you go ssd, hdd speeds are annoying.
I recently installed hs on a hdd to test, and the speed reduction is very noticable, after being used to ssd speeds daily.
I use Samsung evo/pro ssd’s on owc drive sleds.

 

[kohlson]

I agree that boot times can be irrelevant. But I shut down my 2009 MP a few times a week - mostly because this thing is a power hog. The fact that it boots up pretty fast makes it more likely that I will shut it down, even for just overnight.