Why not SSD options in the new iMac? Possible DIY?

[gianly1985]

Ok sorry for the no punctuation thing but why is it then when I go to a forum. Most can understand my typing fine then there are the few that dont. I guess its all the games I play online that make it so.

Actually I DO understand your typing (somehow..), it's just painful to read. It's a matter of respect for other users. Even I, as a stranger, try to write in a decent English.

About your previous post, you can't compare the cheap SSD in your EEE pc to a serious SSD. The Intel x25-m is on another level and is better than an HDD by any means. (except Gb/$ ratio)

And you can't compare heat dissipation in an EEE pc and heat dissipation in a 27" iMac.

 

[ljonesj]

I will give you that on the eeepc. Plus I can understand people using a ssd for the os but i want a harddrive for my videos and such as the size is bigger on a hd. The cost is way cheaper for the hd than a ssd i will reserve my judgment for when they are as cheap and have the same storage capacity to a hd

 

[NATO]

I think there's a couple of reasons why Apple doesn't want to offer SSD drives with the iMac:

1. It's a desktop machine and Apple envisage customers using it to store all their photos, videos etc. As such, there won't be enough space on an SSD for the average consumer's media collection and most won't want to have to connect an external HDD.

2. Once you buy the machine with an SSD drive fitted already, you're stuck with it (they don't want people opening up the machines to change the drive should their needs change). They offer it on the laptop line because they're easily changed whereas an iMac requires a certain level of disassembly in order to access the drive bay.

Don't forget that a lot of us are geeks and would understand the benefits of an SSD + HDD setup for boot volume / apps + HDD for media. Joe sixpack on the other hand isn't going to necessarily know the ins and outs of it all and will just want a big HDD for all their data. Apple seem to market the SSD option on the laptop line for reasons of robustness (immune to shock) rather than speed. That and most people tend not to keep massive amounts of data on a laptop compared to a desktop.

Besides, Apple never seem to use the best SSDs anyway, the Toshiba ones they used a while back were shown to be very poor performers yet cost a fortune as a BTO option. You're better off installing one yourself and using a drive from the likes of Intel, OCZ etc.

 

[BertyBoy]

I can't deny that in some MacBook Air review tests SSD can be significantly faster than the 4200rpm 1.8" HDD that comes in the HDD version. but how does this help the desktop ?

Faster boot times - but I boot my Mac Pro about once every 8-9 months. And then it boots in about 16 seconds - the first mac to ever boot quicker than my old IIci in System 6.0.8. So how much time will it "save" me ?

Random Reads - AppleInsider tested this with a quick launch of 17 apps in succession. The SSD blazed through them. The poor 4200rpm 1.8" HDD version struugled with all the random reads. But how often do you start 17 apps in quick succession ? I can only type into one app at a time. And I also question running 17 apps simultaneously in a puny 2 or 4GB RAM.

Random Writes - Oops, these came in at 60-80% speed of our puny 4200rpm 1.8" HDD. How would it stack up to my 10krpm disks, or even a 2TB 7200rpm ?

Sure, it's all about perceived increase in speed, saving battery life, consequently reducing heat and an element of coolness. But gizmodo questioned if there was any speed benefit at all. It compared the SSD MacBook Air to the HDD model, but also to a MacBook Pro. The MBP blew the SSD MBA away.

Just don't believe there is a general consumer desire for this. Geeks may want it, and they have the knowledge to make it happen.

 

[C64]

There is a significant increase in speed when starting up apps. Maybe less now because it's a brand new computer, but in time apps get heavier again, and you'll definitely notice the difference while working.

I agree with NATO that they'll probably want the iMac to have enough storage for their intended purpose of the machine. However, they still could've added a BTO option with an SSD for +500 or whatever. It's not like they'll lose any money. But like NATO says, if you're willing to pay extra for SSD, you might as well do it yourself and get the best Intel model available instead of whatever Apple may overcharge you for.

 

[doofoo]

Really - for us who want a SSD in the new iMac's, we'll do it ourselves. I would never pay Apple premium on a SSD - especially the crap drives they sell on the laptops.

I have a Crucial 64GB in my iMac, 128GB Patriot Torqx sitting here waiting for my iMac 27" and another Crucial 64GB in my Toshiba NB205 Netbook. These all use the Indilinx which is pretty close to being at the Intel speed and none of the stutter associated with the old crap SSD's.

You just can't imagine how much of a difference it makes on something like a Mac Mini or Netbook swapping to a SSD. It's like a whole new computer.

That said, even with the 128GB going into the iMac, it's not going to be enough to hold all my video, music and photos. That's why you get a NAS, 16TB QNAP TS-809 (8X2TB) here and loving it.

 

[andyOSX]

I can't deny that in some MacBook Air review tests SSD can be significantly faster than the 4200rpm 1.8" HDD that comes in the HDD version. but how does this help the desktop ?

Faster boot times - but I boot my Mac Pro about once every 8-9 months. And then it boots in about 16 seconds - the first mac to ever boot quicker than my old IIci in System 6.0.8. So how much time will it "save" me ?

Random Reads - AppleInsider tested this with a quick launch of 17 apps in succession. The SSD blazed through them. The poor 4200rpm 1.8" HDD version struugled with all the random reads. But how often do you start 17 apps in quick succession ? I can only type into one app at a time. And I also question running 17 apps simultaneously in a puny 2 or 4GB RAM.

Random Writes - Oops, these came in at 60-80% speed of our puny 4200rpm 1.8" HDD. How would it stack up to my 10krpm disks, or even a 2TB 7200rpm ?

Sure, it's all about perceived increase in speed, saving battery life, consequently reducing heat and an element of coolness. But gizmodo questioned if there was any speed benefit at all. It compared the SSD MacBook Air to the HDD model, but also to a MacBook Pro. The MBP blew the SSD MBA away.

Just don't believe there is a general consumer desire for this. Geeks may want it, and they have the knowledge to make it happen.

There is so much you don't understand about SSDs. Also you can't compare the piece or garbage samsung SSD in the MBA to a proper SSD like the X25-M, especially the G2. You really should give this article a read. It's 31 pages but you'll understand things a lot better after it.

The things that the X-25 M is really fast at are 4K random reads and 4K random writes. These types of reads/writes are done all the time by the OS and are when they are not fast they make the computer "feel" slow. That is, they are the most noticeable to the user.

The X-25 M is about SIXTY-ONE TIMES faster than a 10,000 RPM Raptor. So yeah, basically it not only makes your computer way faster, but faster in the areas that are most noticeable to you as the user.

Boot and App launch times are just icing on the cake. If you like seeing the spinning beach ball, then an HDD is perfect for you.

 

[andyOSX]

No. There's SATA 3.0 and SATA 1.5.

I thought that the optical bay had a slower SATA 1.5.

In other words: FAIL. Unless someone can verify - NOT SPECULATE - that the optical bay has SATA 3.0 connectors.

FAIL? Why the anger? And actually you're wrong, it's 3 GBps SATA for the optical drive as well, so I guess you FAIL.

 

[andyOSX]

Really - for us who want a SSD in the new iMac's, we'll do it ourselves. I would never pay Apple premium on a SSD - especially the crap drives they sell on the laptops.

I have a Crucial 64GB in my iMac, 128GB Patriot Torqx sitting here waiting for my iMac 27" and another Crucial 64GB in my Toshiba NB205 Netbook. These all use the Indilinx which is pretty close to being at the Intel speed and none of the stutter associated with the old crap SSD's.

Sorry, I hate to burst your bubble but the Indilinx drives just don't stack up to the Intel ones, especially once you consider the G2 and the performance degradation issue.

The Intel drives are so good because of their 4K random read/write performance. This is arguable the most important speed test if you are getting an SSD to use as your boot drive. After all, you are using it to have fast access to the OS and apps, right? Not to store large media files (where fast sustained transfer rates are the most important). Although the Intel drives are fast at this too.

Let's compare the X25-M G2 to the Patriot Torqx Indilinx drive. For 4K random writes the X25 M is 2.6x faster tan the Patriot drive out of the box. However, all Indilinx drives are susceptible to the nefarious performance degradation issue inherent to SSDs, which the G2 X25 Ms solve. So after being heavily used, the X25-M is 4.7x faster than the Patriot drive because the patriot drive takes about 60% performance hit after all the MLC cells have been written to.

For read used performance, the X25-M is still about 1.66x faster than the Patriot drive, and 91x faster than the 10,000RPM Raptor!!!!!!!

See for yourself:

Sorry, but the Indilinix drives are just not comparable to the Intel ones. Especially because of the performance degradation issue. Don't cheat yourself and get the real thing.

 

[doofoo]

Sorry, I hate to burst your bubble but the Indilinx drives just don't stack up to the Intel ones, especially once you consider the G2 and the performance degradation issue.

The Intel drives are so good because of their 4K random read/write performance. This is arguable the most important speed test if you are getting an SSD to use as your boot drive. After all, you are using it to have fast access to the OS and apps, right? Not to store large media files (where fast sustained transfer rates are the most important). Although the Intel drives are fast at this too.

Let's compare the X25-M G2 to the Patriot Torqx Indilinx drive. For 4K random writes the X25 M is 2.6x faster tan the Patriot drive out of the box. However, all Indilinx drives are susceptible to the nefarious performance degradation issue inherent to SSDs, which the G2 X25 Ms solve. So after being heavily used, the X25-M is 4.7x faster than the Patriot drive because the patriot drive takes about 60% performance hit after all the MLC cells have been written to.

For read used performance, the X25-M is still about 1.66x faster than the Patriot drive, and 91x faster than the 10,000RPM Raptor!!!!!!!

See for yourself:

Sorry, but the Indilinix drives are just not comparable to the Intel ones. Especially because of the performance degradation issue. Don't cheat yourself and get the real thing.

I am well aware of the differences between the Indilinix and Intel controller/drives. However, for my desktop solutions the Indilinix is lightyears ahead of the Samsung controllers. Good enough indeed.

Also, with the newer firmware for the Indilinix drives, they don't have nearly as high drop off after usage.

Good enough for me. Don't have to have the fastest. 50x faster vs 60+x faster than a hard drive is good enough.

I think we both agree that the Intel drives are the benchmark no doubt, and that the previous poster does not fully understand SSD's. (Btw, I've read that entire article as well.

 

[NATO]

Sorry, but the Indilinix drives are just not comparable to the Intel ones. Especially because of the performance degradation issue. Don't cheat yourself and get the real thing.

The latest firmware for the OCZ Vertex Drives (which use an Indilinx controller) have introduced TRIM or GC (Garbage Collection), depending on which firmware update you apply. Both of these systems work to minimise the performance degradation issue which was once a problem with these drives.

 

[andyOSX]

The latest firmware for the OCZ Vertex Drives (which use an Indilinx controller) have introduced TRIM or GC (Garbage Collection), depending on which firmware update you apply. Both of these systems work to minimise the performance degradation issue which was once a problem with these drives.

Yeah except that OS X doesn't support TRIM. And even without counting performance degradation, the X25-M is still 2.6 times faster right out of the box. Not that the Indilinx drives are bad per se, but they aren't nearly as good as the Intel ones.

 

[andyOSX]

I am well aware of the differences between the Indilinix and Intel controller/drives. However, for my desktop solutions the Indilinix is lightyears ahead of the Samsung controllers. Good enough indeed.
I think we both agree that the Intel drives are the benchmark no doubt, and that the previous poster does not fully understand SSD's. (Btw, I've read that entire article as well.

Yeah, agreed, they still eviscerate even the best HDDs!!!!

 

[NATO]

Yeah except that OS X doesn't support TRIM. And even without counting performance degradation, the X25-M is still 2.6 times faster right out of the box. Not that the Indilinx drives are bad per se, but they aren't nearly as good as the Intel ones.

You're quite right, OS X doesn't support TRIM (yet), but OCZ released an alternative firmware which uses garbage collection (GC) rather than TRIM to help keep the drive from losing performance over time. GC is OS-independent and operates when the drive is idle. Since Windows 7 is currently the only major OS to support TRIM, that's why they released the GC firmware.

I'm not arguing that the Intel drives are currently the best (they carry a significant price premium to match), but I was just pointing out that the performance degradation problem you mentioned before isn't a significant issue anymore due to the latest firmware.

 

[kenshin21]

Just got the 27" i5 last week. Interested in replacing the superdrive with an intel ssd. Can somebody please point me to where to get the brackets to mount the ssd in the superdrive bay? thanks.

 

[macchiato2009]

you guys should check the other thread

most answers are there