Mac Pro :: 320gb 8mb Versus 500gb 16mb Speed Read?
Feb 28, 2008Maybe Iam confused, the 500gb 16mb are a double speed read of the 8mb of 320gb? or its the same speed read?
View 1 RepliesMaybe Iam confused, the 500gb 16mb are a double speed read of the 8mb of 320gb? or its the same speed read?
View 1 RepliesNow, I am in the market to replace my stock 160GB HDD in my MB, as I want a bigger hard drive in my PS3 and was thinking I could put the MB one in there, and buy a larger one for the MB.
I am debating between a 320GB 7200rpm and a 500gbrpm drive. I currently have this external drive:
[URL]
I HATE it. It takes a super long time to start up(close to 3-4 minutes) and then opening up videos takes a good 2-3 seconds. But, I have a 5400rpm drive inside the MacBook and was wondering if 7200rpm with 16mb cache would really make a significant difference in day-to-day use.
Anyone here have one and truly love it, I was watching some video on Tiger Direct where they put it to a test with a 7200 RPM, SSD, and 10K Drive and the Hybrid HDD was right behind the SSD.
Looking to get one or a Hitachi 500GB 7200 16MB Cache?
I am planning to purchase a 13" Macbook Pro base model (first Mac by the way), and I want to upgrade from the stock 160Gb HDD.
I don't really see myself needing 500Gb, but I have read that a higher density drive outperforms a lower density drive. Newegg currently has the 500 WD Scorpio Blue drive listed for $30 over the 320Gb edition. Will I see significant performance increase by going with the 500Gb model instead of the 320Gb one?
What about power consumption? Is one better than the other?
The standard HD that came with my Mac Pro was a 320GB which I thought would be big enough. I also added a 500GB in bay two for all of my work files. As I migrate all of my files onto the Mac now, I'm realizing that the 320GB is quickly running out of space with all the photos, music, etc. and my work files currently take up about 50GB so the 320Gb would have been better for that. Is there an easy way to swap my 320GB boot disk files with the 500GB data drive?
View 2 Replies View RelatedSo I've just purchased a mid 2011 Macbook Pro 13" used via eBay. Was advertised as having 500gb hard drive and 6gb ram. I checked the ram and it was all legit, checked the hd capacity and it was all correct as well. So I made a new login for myself and deleted the previous owner's. Now my hard drive shows up as 320gb. Even in disk utility and terminal.
View 2 Replies View RelatedThe thing is I dont really need 500gb of space. But from reviews Ive read that the 500gb is faster in some cases because of its higher platter density.
Vibration /noise issues on the scorpio black 7200rpm sway me towards the scorpio blue 500gb as well.
Anyone had experience of either hard drive or both? (this will be for a 2.2Ghz MBP)
Can anyone provide advice on whether i should get the 7200rpm drive? Is there a noticeable difference in boot time between each?
Do they normally have MBPs already built with the 7200 drives or do you have to order them?
I am experiencing read errors on my roughly 2 year old macbook pro 15" on its built-in apple 500gb SSD.
Should I run to get a replacement? Where and which?
I used SMARTUtilities and the long run test confirmed the read error. It showed in a large windows 7 vmware vm (about 45gb), or in one of its hd-file sections of 2gb size.
Info:
MacBook Pro, Mac OS X (10.7.3)
I just switched out my 160GB hard drive on my 13" MBP for a 500GB. I do notice that things are a little slower now as far as opening up apps and such. Would upgrading to the 4GB of RAM instead of the 2 I have make a difference or is that the trade i get for running a 5200 500GB HD.
View 3 Replies View RelatedHow much speed difference is there? Battery I take it is almost double in real life, actually using the MBA. I get barely 3 hours with moderate use on my Rev B and I take it most people get close to 7 with similar usage?
View 1 Replies View RelatedJust wondering what the speed difference would be if i upgraded from 5400 to 7200 RPM? Is it worth it or perhaps is an external drive the way to go?
View 4 Replies View RelatedBrand new iMac 27" 2.7GHz 16GB Ram running 10.7.3. CD read speeds are very slow...something like 5x. Importing audio CDs to iTunes is extremely slow. Error checking is turned OFF.
Info:
iMac, Mac OS X (10.7.3)
There's been a large emphasis on the sequential read/write speeds of SSDs, but in many day-to-day usage patterns, the random read/write speeds are a better benchmark of performance. I'd like to make a chart summarizing all the different SSDs out there and available. But I need your help. Can those of you with SSDs run a benchmark and report the numbers here so that I can compile everything? Here are the steps:
1. Download Xbench 1.3 at [URL].
2. Open the program and run the "Disk Test" for your SSD drive.
3. Note the numbers under the Random test, for all four parameters of small and large writes and reads.
4. Repeat the test a second time to make sure that the numbers do not change. Accept the second test if the values are <10% different from the first test.
5. Screen capture the window by holding down command and shift and 4 and the spacebar. Click on the result window and that will save as a png file on the desktop; the default is Picture 1.png.
6. Report the values here with by attaching the screenshot of the result window. This will give us other needed information like computer and SSD model.
I realize that there are weaknesses to this survey. Xbench is only one benchmark. SSD speeds will vary based on usage. Etc. In the end, however, the variability should be sufficiently small that I think we'll be able to compare different SSDs well.
I'm going to get us started by posting my results with an Intel X-25M on a previous generation MacBook Pro. Ironically, my result will probably get thrown out because the SATA 1.5 GB interface actually limits the SSD read speed...
My Mac Pro came with a 500GB boot drive when I ordered it 3 years ago. It has been used most days and now runs Snow Leopard (for scanners and a canopus video box that don't work with Lion) and Lion. I did a write & write test on the drive recently at both were approx 60 - 65 MB/s. I have another drive in my machine I bought last month, replacing an WD drive that failed in less than 18 months. This new drive (complete same as replacement is a WD Caviar (Black) 1TB 64Mb drive. This drive tests at speeds for 110MB/s. This may seem an obvious question, but will I notice much difference if I swap the drives around and have the newer drive as my boot drive. Also, does having two OS on a HD slow the drive down also?
Info:
Mac Pro, Mac OS X (10.7.3)
Will I notice much difference if I upgrade to the seagate m xt 500 gb with 32cache?
Baring in mind I havnt got my 17" i7 2.8 in the post yet..
I'm thinking I can install the new drive as soon as I get the Mbp and do a fresh install as I'm assuming I'll get the iLife disks with the laptop so I can install it? Aswell as the OS cd's too?
I have an early 2009 macbook, with 320 GB hard drive and running OS Lion, after i upgraded my os to lion, the computer ran perfectly normal, although a little bit slower than running snow Leopard. However, recently I notice my mac become very slow, got rainbow wheel even when i open the safari. then I use the black magic to test the hard disk speed, it appears the read and write speed is only a little over 30mb/s.
i have recently change my keyboard at apple store, I notice my mac slow down after that, do you think it would related?
Info:
MacBook, Mac OS X (10.7.1)
For almost the last year I have been using an Airport Extreme on 2.4b/g and and Airport express in my room to extend my wireless network. I also have a usb hdd configured to back up my macbook using time machine. Well I have a new roommate moving in and he has his own extreme and two expresses.
I have some questions on what would be the best way to consolidate our networking devices. I considered us selling our extremes and getting the new time capsule so both of our macs can use 5ghz while my girlfriends dell uses the 2.4.
Is there a noticeable speed difference between time capsule backup vs hard drive to extreme connected via usb?
Made a quick comparison video when it comes to boot times between the macbook pro vs the macbook air, both are 2010 models.
Macbook Pro 13" HDD vs Macbook Air 13" SSD 2010 Speed Test
check out my video comparison between Leopard and Snow Leopard. Boot up time, shut down time and launching apps.
[URL]
I'm finding my MBA rev b to be quite slow opening apps, I bought the 1.6 ghz 120gb model.
It seems like everything's rather slow to open. I have 30gb free on the hard drive, iTunes, Safari (5 tabs) TextWrangler and mail open all day.
If I ever need to go into Firefox it takes a fair while to get up and running. I ran some xbench scores and it seems very slow on the random reads, oddly it was much quicker writing to the disk than reading.
Is their anyone in the know who can confirm that this is normal? Or if not, is there anything I can do to give it a boost?
I'm looking for a new monitor to go with my MBP, and I'm stuck trying to choose between the ones listed above.
The 2407WFP is a couple of years old now I guess, but it's the rev A04 version, which supposedly fixed the (few) problems with what was otherwise meant to be a great screen. It's an sPVA screen.
I've heard good reviews of the G2410, with its LED backlighting. It's still a TN panel and I hear so much bad stuff about them.
The 2209WA is an eIPS panel which I like the sound of, but it's smaller and lower resolution.
The F2380 is a cPVA panel, the image quality looks better but I've heard bad things about blacks on this panel.
I'm pretty satisfied with the Marware cover, although it can be a little frustrating when typing quickly..I'm wondering if I should go back, return the Marware cover and pick up the iSkin.
So, for those of you that have any of these in comparing..which do you think is the best?
And yes, I did search and am aware threads like this exist..but I couldn't find any comparing all three, only iSkin vs. Moshi.
I'm trying to decide which product to buy and I was hoping for some advice.
First and foremost I want a device so that I may transfer my VHS tapes to DVD.
Live TV recording is secondary but for the price, I'd like to find the device that suits me best so I can continue to use it after i've transferred all my VHS.
Here are my concerns:
1) I'm going to be moving from the US to Ireland in a couple of months (not sure for how long, could be years+) Obviously there's the whole NTSC vs. PAL, ATSC vs. DVB.
I know with EyeTV 250 it's either or, any ideas if buying some sort of converter is an option (prices, quality)? If I bought just a PAL one, would I still be able to convert VHS or would it be completely unusable in the US?
2) I'd like some sort of HD/Digital abilities. From what I can tell TVMax is analog only and Blackmagic may also be but I can't find more specs on that.
Does this mean they'll be useless once the US undergoes the conversion?
So as of now I'm leaning towards EyeTV 250 but the question are there any forseeable problems with using a PAL to NTSC converter or using a PAL EyeTV in the US just to convert VHS.
So I have a 1.8ghz dual G5 with 3gb of ram for work. I mainly work in Adobe CS and do a far amount of Photoshop work. At any given time I may have all of Adobe CS plus Office and a few other apps running -- and a gazillion fonts. Went to the store and saw the new 24" iMac. How would a new iMac compare to my late '04 1.8DP G5? On that same note, how would a new MacBook Pro compare to the above?
View 5 Replies View RelatedI am planning on purchasing a new display for use (currently) with my imac. I am completely torn between these two models, and cannot make a decision. Any thoughts? I like the Dell because it is LED backlit, thus good blacks and little to no backlight bleed. But I like the Samsung because of the (supposedly better panel and (supposedly) better color reproduction. I like the simplistic look of both of them (though they could look a little better ) so I'm not sure which one to buy.
View 5 Replies View RelatedI ran some tests on my 2009 Quad Nehalem to try and determine what was up with the triple Vs dual memory "brouhaha".
I posted the results as a new thread because I think it will be useful information for a lot of quad owners, but it was originally going to be a reply to this thread: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=735845
Here we go. Tesselator suggested 3 tests that could show the differences in speed between triple and dual channel bandwidth.
Quote:
As one idea I would maybe try creating a few very large images (16-bit, blank white, blank black, gradient fill) and then duplicating and deleting that layer repeatedly a few hundred times.
So I did them, 10 times each. I could have gone on, but the results were very very stable after the first 2 attempts.
Set-up: a 40Mpx, 16bit image (8000*5000). First test it was simply filled white; second test: black; and third test a black to white gradient. I added a fourth test, using a real (photo) 12Mpx RAW image from my Nikon D300.
I created (took a while!) an action with 350 repetitions of "duplicate layer" and "delete layer", followed by a red fill to let me know the action was done. The same action was used in all four tests.
The computer was restarted before each of the four tests, which may explain the irregularities on the first 1-2 attempts. Nothing else but PS4 was launched.
The results are interesting:
We can clearly see that the simple white and black fills show a speed difference of around 10%.
We can also clearly see that this difference disappears when a more complex image is used. The use of more complex images represents a much more realistical use of PS.
To make things even more realistic, I also tested RetouchActions's speed test on my own 12Mpx image. I use nearly all of the operations of that action on a daily basis, so it's a lot more representative of the work I do on PS.
Here are the results:
The results are clear: 11% increase in performance using 8GB of ram (Vs 6GB) when working on a 12Mpx image.
Added info: number of page-outs after running the 10 test series (after about 45 minutes of intense PS work):
-17K when using 6GB (1.7K page-out avg).
-10K when using 8GB (1K page-out avg).
For me the results are definitive: unless I plan on working only with full black or full white images (not even black and white!), having 8GB is better, even when working on smallish 12Mpx files. I imagine the differences would have been even greater using bigger file sizes of actual complex images.
What would now be interesting: someone with a 2009MP Octo doing the same tests at 12GB and 16GB.
So I decided to upgrade to this 7200.4 RPM 320 GB Seagate
[URL]
I wanted to know will I have to take off the enclosure off my current HDD and put it on the Seagate or do I just connect the SATA connector and that's it?
i been reading up on the drive limitations of a powermac g4 gigabit models and it seems the most it can handle with out any user intervention is a 120gig hdd. now i wanna put a 320gig in that sucker how would i go about doing it?
View 6 Replies View RelatedI don't know about your MP, but my stock Seagate 320 GB HD was very noisy. It would whine when spinning up from sleep and give lots of ticks and clicks when accessing data. I pulled it out and installed four different HD's:
2 WD Caviar 500GB and 2 Seagate 320GB 16MB cache. Those four HD's produce collectively less noise than the original single Seagate 320GB HD. I installed the original HD in an external USB 2/eSATA case and use it for archiving.