Mac Pro :: New Hitachi 1TB Versus Stock And (Benchmarks)?
Mar 15, 2008
Ok... so... tonight my most badass girlfriend actually BOUGHT me another 1 TB drive as a surprise for the Mac Pro!!! God, you gotta love that girl! This replaced the stock 320 Gig drive which I HAD previously been using for Media only (Itunes library and the like) with a 1TB Western Digital Green drive (Best buy w/ coupon for $206).
Well, I thought I'd devise a little benchmark to test just how crazy fast the Hitachi 1TB that I use as a boot drive is vs the original drive that Apple shipped (320 Western Digital) and others in my system...
So this is what I did. Might be right, might be wrong, don't really care... but I THINK this is a great representative of total, complete "speed and throughput" of a hard drive.
I created a folder called "Test Folder" on my Hitachi 1TB (Boot Drive). I added to this folder the following subfolders / files:
1 Folder Entitled "Movies" containing 12 Large Files = 8.5 Gigabytes
1 Folder Entitled "Guns n Roses" containing 67 Medium Files = 455 Megabytes
Copied / Added the OS X "Extensions" Folder containing 271 Small Files = 208 Megabytes
Copied / Added the OS X "Frameworks" Folder containing 57,263 Tiny Files = 1.49 Gigabytes
This gave me a total of 57,617 Files of VARYING Sizes totaling 10.64 Gigabytes.
I then proceeded to DUPLICATE this folder on each of my drives... which I believe shows a great overall speed indicator...
"read/write/in-cache/out-of-cache/tiny to huge file size"
And as it is doing all of the reading / writing on the SAME DRIVE... that eliminates any drive compatibility problems, slow to fast drive copy speed interpretation, bus issues, etc.
And here are my results... pretty stunning if you ask me... I think Apple really stuck some DOG SLOW drives in there as stock. I honestly think they should be ashamed of themselves.
Time to Duplicate Folder on Stock Hard Drive: (Western Digital 320 Gig WD3200AAJS) = 9 Minutes, 08 Seconds
Time to Duplicate Folder on Hitachi 1TB Replacement: (Hitachi HDS721010KLA330) = 5 Minutes, 35 Seconds
Time to Duplicate Folder on Western Digital 1TB Drive: (Western Digital WD10EACS-00ZJBO) = 6 Minutes, 20 Seconds
Time to Duplicate Folder on Older WD 500GB Drive: (Western Digital 5000AAJS-32YFA0) = 7 Minutes, 18 Seconds
Time to Duplicate Folder on Older WD 400GB Drive: (Western Digital D4000KD-00NAB0) = 8 Minutes, 52 Seconds
Diglloyd tested Snow Leopard in both 32 bit and 64 bit kernel modes and noticed that the 64 bit kernel was faster in many photo applications such as lightroom, aperture, photoshop and nikon capture. Anyone else notice any speed differences between 32 and 64 bit kernel modes?
[URL]
Many users on the forums have stated their is no difference between the two modes. If Diglloyd is correct then there is a noticeable difference.
I am planning on buying a 15 inch MBP in the near future, but I am waiting to see some gaming benchmarks to decide if I should shell out the extra money for the i7 for the extra VRAM or just stick with the i5. Have any of you seen any sites that compare the two systems? I know barefeats has benchmarks using different apps, and says it will have something on gaming benchmarks soon, but I didn't know if anyone has already done it. Barefeats just updated with their benchmarks, but they used 17 inch MBPs, so the i5 and i7 comparison used the same video card (512 MB) instead of comparing 256 vs 512. How disappointing.
Ok so recently I got a 500gb seagate 7200.4 and I loved it except for my high load cycle count. So I exchanged it for the hitachi. Now with this hitachi I am also experiencing high load cycle counts, more power consumption than my seagate and it's louder. Except the seagate did have a faint clicking sound while booting up where the hitachi doesn't. My seagate also seemed a bit faster.
Can someone sway me to either stick with the hitachi or go back to the seagate based on your own thougts and experiences as well as my input.
I just got my new MBP and it has a Toshiba MK5055GSXF 500gb inside. My old one has a WD Scorpio Blue 500gb. I know the Scorpio Blue is supposed to be fast for a 5400rpm. Does anyone have an opinion whether it would be worth it to switch them? Is the WD superior?
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.
[URL] releases the benchmark results of new imacs. [URL] There is no big difference between graphcis cards gt120 and gt130. I dont know, if I have to buy the iMac 2,93 GHz with gt130 or gt120?
just wondering if anyone had any cpu benchmarks on this imac.. Im stuck between getting this model or going for a quad core pc? How future proof is the core 2 duo and is this powerful enough for using the Adobe suite extensivley. along with lots of other windows open?
Just added an SSD Boot drive, with the optibay. It seems like alot of people are interested in doing this lately, so I thought I would post some benchmarks. Quite impressive!
The whole process (minus cloning drives and transferring data) took about 15 minutes. I would say it was worth it!
It was slightly faster than than the GeForce 8800 GT running our six 3D accelerated games.
In another session, we performed a RAM Preview render on 15 Motion 3 templates. The Quadro FX 5600 (and GeForce 8800 GT) were slower than the Radeon HD 2600 XT in 14 out of 15 tests. The Radeon X1900 XT beat the nVidia cards rendering all 15 templates.
Tomorrow we will post results on our Windows Vista 64 tests (Prey, Doom 3, 3DMark06, etc.). As a preview, the Quadro was faster than the Radeon HD 2600 XT but slower than the GeForce 8800 GT running Prey and Doom 3. In the 3DMark06 benchmark the Quadro was faster than the GeForce 8800 GT.
I have a 'aging' 2006 mac pro with dual 2.66 mhz cpu's. The system is snappy enough for most tasks on the mac side but when running windows 7 pro 64 bit and ripping some of my bluerays the cpu's peg at 100% and it takes a while. My question is how does my 2.66ghz dual cpu mac pro compare cpu wise against the new intel core i7 930 cpu family? I know I cannot drop one into my mac pro but I have been thinking about building a new pc with the i7 and picking up a mac mini for my wife who refuses to leave the mac camp then sell my old mac pro.
I would first like to start off with the disclaimer that I am not good at writing guides and I am also not a pro with overclocking but here is my attempt at both. Also I am not liable for damages to your computer and ask fobis has mentioned each gpu even if they are the same may overclock better or worse then the next. So take my overclocking numbers for what they are worth. Experiment and try it out on your own.
Note: This guide assumes your running Windows 7 64bit, and also it assumes that you are new to overclocking.
-------------------------------GUIDE------------------------------ 1.First make sure you have a copy of windows installed through bootcamp.
2.Then go ahead and install the drivers that came with bootcamp ( we won't be using the gpu drivers but the rest are going to be useful anyway so might as well go ahead and install them )
3.After you have all that you will want to go here to get a modified driver. This will give you better performance then the bad drivers that apple supplies it will also let you overclock the gpu
4.After you have downloaded both the driver and the INF file open up the driver and it will extract the files to the directory that you choose. It will also try to launch the install but it will fail saying something like " no compatible hardware found " ignore this for now.
5.Now take the INF file and copy it to the folder that the driver was extracted too. It will ask you if you want to overwrite the file just say yes.
6.Now open up the device manager by right clicking on my computer, selecting properties, this should open a new window and on the left there should be something that says device manager.
7.Under the tab that says "display adapters" select the only device that shows up on that tab. Right click it and choose uninstall.
8.After you have done that it will likely mess up your resolution and set it too 800x600 don't worry this is normal. Now just restart your computer.
9.Once you have restarted when it starts back up it will say new hardware found. Now you have to choose to install it manually choose the option that says something along the lines of " search for drivers in specified area "
10.Now it will take you to a new page and on that page there should be an option that says "have disk" choose this and select the directory that you extracted the driver too earlier in this guide. It should find one of the files that it can use and install it just fine.
11.You will need to restart again once this is done but when you start back up your resolution should be fixed if not just right click and hit screen resolution and just change it back to the native resolution.
12. Download Nvidia system tools found here
13. Go ahead and install this it should be self explanatory.
14. Once it is installed open the program and go to the performance tab on the left. ( It might ask you to agree to some terms of use )
15. Just put in these numbers and hit apply 646 for the first one 864 for the second one and 1314 for the third one
Now your done if your paranoid like me of overheating your computer you can also optionally download and install LubbosFanControl to max out your fans to keep it as cool as possible.
Enjoy your faster GPU!.
----------------------BENCHMARKS----------------------------- Before OC: Furmark Points:912 FPS: min=13 max=22 avg=15 Crysis: 24.89 Unigine Sanctuary Demo (run with everything on defuilt excapt resolution turned down to 1280x800 ) DX10:24.9fps (score:1057) OpenGL: 23.2 (score:982) Unigine Tropics Demo: (run with everything on defuilt excapt resolution turned down to 1280x800 ) DX10:18fps (scores 452) OpenGL:16.3 (scores 410) Unigine Heaven Demo: DX10:14.8fps (scores 372) OpenGL:12.6fps (scores 317) 3DMark06:5975 3DMark Vantage: P2294
After OC:
Furmark Points: 1081 FPS: min=16 max=26 avg=18 Crysis: 33fps Unigine Sanctuary Demo (run with everything on defuilt excapt resolution turned down to 1280x800 ) DX10: 31.2fps (scores: 1322) OpenGL: 28fps (scores: 1211) Unigine Tropics Demo: (run with everything on defuilt excapt resolution turned down to 1280x800 ) DX10: 21.7fps (scores: 546) OpenGL:19.8 (scores:498) Unigine Heaven Demo: DX10:15.7(scores:395) OpenGL: 16.2(scores:408) WTF? OpenGL wins? lol 3DMark06:6994 3DMark Vantage: 2922
Notes: Crysis was run at 1280x800 everything on medium excapt physics on very high
Another note: The highest GPU temp underload from Crysis got up to about 78C after about 15mins of running the game. Furmark got the temp up to 80C though after about 15mins also.
I have also played TF2 at max settings @ 1920x1200 for over 2 hours to test stability and it ran fine without any hiccups
Also I feel that this card can be pushed further then this ( I have not tried ) but from what I see it cools a lot better then I expected from a laptop I come from a world of desktop overclocking.
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?
I 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.
I 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.
Two short questions on which I really need an answer. This academic year, I'll be writing a lot of papers, but most specifically, I am forced to use SPSS (statistical software package for social sciences).
Will I really need the 2.93 over the 2.66 and notice the improvement?
Same goes for the gfx. I like full-hd 1080, I'll be in InDesign, and use Logic Pro. Will I need "slash" notice the 4850 over the gt130?
Also, are the "hang-ups" with the 4850 truly fixed and does it indeed run a lot hotter (inc. really that more noise) than the gt130?
I'm looking to replace my Hard Drive in my 2.4 Unibody Macbook and stumbled across this Hitachi drive on Newegg. I've read great reviews for the Travelstar 7k500 in Macbooks and other Hitachi drives, however the 7K500 isn't available on Newegg anymore.
Last week I recieved my 27" iMac i7 2,93GHz with the 2TB Hitachi Drive.
I ordered this drive because it was said in this forum that this one should be silent.
Now, during access it is not really silent, but thats no problem
What bothers me more is, that there is a permament silent hum. An I can fell this vibration even on the stand (hopefully this is the correct term, I am from Austria, so english is not my native language).
And this vibration is also forwarded onto the table, but it is not really feelable on the table.
So my question is: Some say that their iMac is "dead silent". Mine isn�t, I also can here the fans silently, but that doesn�t bother me either. But this humming is somewhat distracting or annoying.
Maybe I am just to "picky", but do you really have iMacs which are almost inaudible?
Because I do not have any other problems I am not sure whether I should ask for a replacement.
But he asked me to find out if it had the G sensor or not. Obviously Macs have there own sensor so he wants to get one without the sensor so it doesnt interfere.
I currently have the seagate 7200.4 500gb but i noticed my load cycle count is already at 8000 after only 3 weeks of use. So I think Im going with the hitachi 7k500. if this has the g sensor built in? if so does this interfere with my macbooks g sensor?
im wondering is it possible to install a hitatchi 1tb drive in my imac g5 because i think read somewhere that the hitatchi 750gb drive wasnt 1,5gbs Compatable i dont know if this applies to the 1tb drive
I've read all the horror stories about how the mid-09 MBP hard drive firmware update and non-Apple 7200 RPM HDDs don't get along. Most of these seem to be related to the use of a SATA 3.0 drive (which shouldn't matter, since mechanical hard drives can't even make use of the full SATA 1.5, but I digress).
I'm about to buy a new Mac, and, even though the Macbook, which doesn't seem to have these problems, would suit my needs just fine (my camcorder is USB and my digital cameras both use CF), I might spring for the MBP anyway (likely to get the additional 2" of screen space on the low-end 15", which has the closest resolution to what I am used to on my outgoing T60).
Obviously, I could pay Apple to upgrade to one of their 7200 RPM drives, assuming I get the 15". But that seems silly, since I can buy, for less than $100 (i.e., half the upgrade cost from Apple, plus I keep the old drive), a Hitachi Travelstar 500 GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0 drive. My questions are:
1) Has anybody successfully upgraded to such a drive (or its 320 GB little brother, which is otherwise speced the same) in a mid-2009 MBP?
2) If so, did you have to downgrade the firmware as suggested in these forums?
3) If so, did you have to "tweak" the drive in any fashion to make it work?
