Mac Pro :: OCZ Vertex 250 SSD On MP 2008 8-core Vs Stock 320 HDD
Mar 17, 2009
Just installed my Vertex 250 using the MaxUpgrades 3.5 to 2.5" sled that arrived today (works perfect): Here are the XBench results. 560% score increase over previous stock 320GB HDD. Massive increase overall. So far so good:
Disk Test51.02
Sequential120.11
Uncached Write125.7077.18 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write121.1968.57 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read97.9428.66 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read145.2472.99 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random32.39
Uncached Write10.881.15 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write76.3824.45 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read89.160.63 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read137.8825.58 MB/sec [256K blocks]
View 24 Replies
ADVERTISEMENT
Oct 22, 2009
So the older Mac Pro's from 2008 have 2 2.8ghz Quad Core Intel Xeon processors, without hyperthreading, for a total of 8 cores, and the top of the line iMac has a Quar Core i7 2,8ghz with hyperthreading for a total of 8 (virtual) cores.
With the ghz being the same but less "real" cores, but probably newer CPU architecture, which CPU will actually be faster?
View 3 Replies
View Related
Aug 5, 2010
I have been offered a 2008 3.2GHz 8 Core with 10GB RAM, ATI 4870, 320HD, no warranty/applecare left.
Or, I can buy a new 2009 2.93GHz 4 Core, 3GB RAM, 640HD, GT120
Both about the same price: $2850.00 USD
Which would you choose, and why?
View 3 Replies
View Related
Mar 3, 2009
I decided to run a few geekbench tests on my Early 2008 Octo 2.8ghz Mac Pro w/ 16gb of RAM against my daughter's Core i7 920 DIY Hackintosh with 6gb of DDR3 RAM. Both are running Leopard 10.5.6 with nothing else running.
View 24 Replies
View Related
Jan 5, 2011
In my quest for a Mac Pro ...I have now found a 2008 8 core 3.2ghz that is in the price range of what you can buy a 2.93ghz quad core for now ....if there is any minus other than the warranty to considering that 2008 8 core 3.2ghx 8 core over the 2.93 Ghz quad?
View 11 Replies
View Related
Mar 9, 2008
I have recently purchased the new Mac Pro 3.2Ghz 8 Core Mac Pro (2008 Version). I decided to upgrade all the parts myself. I have upgraded the hard drive from 320GB to 2x 2TB. The memory from 2GB Fully Buffered to 8GB Fully Buffered. Now I am having issue with the graphics cards.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Dec 4, 2010
I see the numbers of everything from Core 2 Duo, to the slightly faster and cooler Core i3, to the supposedly faster core i5s and i7s. The benchmarks go up accordingly, but I found this does not always equate in a faster experience on most tasks.
Here's my experience so far on processor upgrade:
In one computer trade school re-certification class I am in, we are working with Windows Server 2003 on a Quad Xeon platform and it's incredibly slow.
But in a previous class we had the previous generation server edition on older Xeons, and while not fast, it was much better. On paper the newer multi-core Xeons should have made a difference, but could 2003 server software be that much more bloated than the previous Windows server edition that it would stall like that and make us wish we had the older setup?
I am going to try out the Adobe CS lab and put the new high end Dells to the test there and see if they work better than when we had an older CS version on older Xeon equipped Dells.
I don't know if this is something to do with Dell, or if Apple's increasing processor bumps/generations are going to similarly not make a difference in the speed things appear to go at, whether it's Adobe stuff, server stuff, or anything else that needs power.
I know somebody who plans on a Core 2 Duo, i5 or i7 MBP and I was wondering if the higher end processor is worth it in that case (iMovie being the main program of use).
View 6 Replies
View Related
Aug 3, 2009
Just curious as to how much of an improvement in performance I would see upgrading my system as it states above, since my 2006 machine is 3 years old and getting close to the end of my apple care, figured I would trade it in and upgrade.
View 8 Replies
View Related
Oct 21, 2009
I do alot of photography with a canon dslr, I also plan to edit short HD videos as well as some photoshop and flash animation work.
Will I benefit greatly from the Quad Core Imac over the Dual Core Imac?
View 5 Replies
View Related
Oct 4, 2010
Has anyone that know if it's possible to upgrade MacPro Nehalem 2.26 to 2.66 Ghz Westmare with the following processors : Intel Hexa Core Xeon? Processor X5650 12M Cache, 2.66 GHz, 6.40 GT/s Intel? QPI part #:BX80614X5650 ? Could you help me telling if it?s possible to upgrading MacPro Nehalem octa core 2.26 Ghz to Mac Pro Westmare hexa core 2.66 Ghz ?
View 5 Replies
View Related
Mar 6, 2008
I have an opportunity to get a single 3.0 GHz quad core Clovertown.
Should I go for it? There's no advantage to having two cores in two sockets versus having four cores in one socket, right?
View 6 Replies
View Related
Apr 1, 2008
is it even possible to upgrade an old dual core powermac g5 to a quad core or even an 8 core.
I have a dual core one and i really need to upgrade to a quad or even 8 but it is so expensive to buy a whole brand new one and i was wondering if there was a way to just get a new processor and more ram or what not.
View 12 Replies
View Related
Feb 2, 2009
[URL]
What you say guys?
I know the same article is on main page
View 2 Replies
View Related
Apr 18, 2010
There's a lot of people wondering if the 13" MBPs would have been a lot better with a Core i3 processor, but everything has been just hangups over perceived old vs. new technology, and really the only thing the Core i3 adds is Hyper-Threading, but it doesn't have Turbo Boost, which helps the Core i5/i7s tremendously. Let's compare using Geekbench since it is cross-platform and one of the few available sources of info...
Core 2 Duo P8600 2.4GHz (~3362)
[URL]
vs.
Core i3 330m 2.13GHz (~3472)
[URL]
Core 2 Duo P8800 2.66GHz (~3700)
[URL]
vs.
Core i3 350m 2.26GHz (~3680)
[URL]
As you can see in both cases, the difference is pretty minimal indeed, and in single threaded applications, the C2D will easily outdo the Core i3 which lacks Turbo Boost and runs at lower clock rates.
And you get a 320M instead of Intel HD graphics with the new 13".
The Geekbench results from the old 15/17" to the new 15/17" are quite an order of magnitude better.
So unless people are expecting Core i5 processors in the 13", sticking to the C2D was actually a good decision, and given the differences between 2.4 and 2.53 isn't so large, one is far better buying the base 13" and then putting the money saved towards a good 7.2k HDD or SSD.
Note - I took averages of the 32-bit numbers and added them.
Note 2 - The C2D Pxxxx are 25W TDP processors, which are more efficient than the Core i3 which are 35W TDP processors. Less heat, better battery life from C2Ds.
View 24 Replies
View Related
Apr 29, 2010
I've been debating whether or not to upgrade my 3 year old 15" Macbook Pro that has a 2.2Ghz Core 2 Duo (Santa Rosa) to the new 13" 2.4Ghz Macbook Pro. FYI... My current system also has 4GB of RAM. Since both systems are Core 2 Duo, what kind of speed bump am I going to see? Would this be a substantial upgrade?
View 15 Replies
View Related
May 28, 2012
I'm buying a new MacBookPro but can't decide, due to lack of knowledge, wich one to choose and if there's a noticeble difference between, 15.4" MacBook Pro Notebook Computer 2.2GHz Intel Core i7 Quad-Core4GB of DDR3 RAM500GB 5400rpm Hard DriveAMD Radeon HD 6750M 512MB Graphics15.4" LED-Backlit Glossy Display1400 x 900 Native ResolutionSlot-Loading SuperDrive802.11a/b/g/n Wi-Fi, Bluetooth 2.1+EDRFaceTime HD Camera, Built-in MicrophoneMac OS X 10.7 Lion (64-bit)
and the 13.3" MacBook Pro Notebook Computer 2.8GHz Intel Core i7 Dual-Core8GB of DDR3 RAM (2x4GB)750GB 5400rpm Hard DriveIntel HD 3000 Graphics13.3" Glossy Widescreen Display1280 x 800 Native ResolutionSuperDrive, Secure Digital Card SlotFaceTime HD Camera, Omnidirectional Mic802.11n Wi-Fi, Bluetooth 2.1+EDRMac OS X 10.7 Lion
Besides the screen size, one would be considerable faster?
I use Photoshop and beeing a photographer I deal with large files.
Info:
MacBookPro 2.66GHz 4GB 1067MHz DDR3, Mac OS X (10.6.2)
View 8 Replies
View Related
May 29, 2012
The ivy bridge processors are coming out soon (or may already be out). I have heard that macbook pro 13" models might be able to use the new processers due to their lower energy useage. I presume that I will be able to take my mac to an apple store and have it installed. Is this information true?
Info:
MacBook Pro (13-inch Early 2011), Mac OS X (10.7.4)
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jan 8, 2011
Just in case Apple surprise us with a Sandybridge Quad core, and even if they don't I was wondering the following.
1 ) During sustained use in 3D gaming does a Quadcore with lower clock speeds beat a dual core with higher clock speeds.
2) Can the quoted turbo speeds be achieved in sustained use (ie 3D gaming where maximal load can be applied for a couple of hours).
[URL]
i7-2630QM
Base Frequency 2.0GHz
Max SC Turbo 2.9GHz
Max DC Turbo 2.8GHz
Max QC Turbo 2.6GHz
i7-2620M
Base Frequency 2.7GHz
Max SC Turbo 3.4GHz
Max DC Turbo 3.2GHz
Max QC Turbo N/A
View 7 Replies
View Related
Jul 28, 2010
I know other threads exist, but they don't have responses specific to me so what's the harm in one more?
So, I am going to be selling my late 2008 15" MacBook Pro this week to get a new 27" iMac and I just need some legitimate advice from those "in the know" on processors.
I plan on having this iMac for about 3 years to do the following tasks:
1.) Record and edit HD cable (1080i) from an Elgato EyeTV HD - will include some encoding of 2+ hour sports game recordings
2.) Some light editing of 720p iPhone 4 clips in iMovie
3.) Surf the web, iTunes, iPhoto, Mail, and all the other standard stuff
Assuming budget is an issue, would you recommend me spending the extra money for a Quad Core i5 iMac or would I be ok based on the info above just going with the base Dual Core i3 model?
Like, will there be a considerable difference in the two machines (factoring in processor and graphics card) that will really be worth the extra $300 - $400 for 3 years of use?
View 11 Replies
View Related
Aug 10, 2010
I'm one of the many many people who are juggling mac pro options in my head.
is the 3.33GHz Westmere worth the extra 640? Probably not, but now much faster will be it? 20%....30%?
I think I'm set on either of these two options, mainly using FCP and photoshop and a bit of motion. maybe a bit of gaming
Also I can max out them four RAM slots and get a 5870 with the extra cash.
View 24 Replies
View Related
Jun 12, 2012
I've upgraded my iMac 4,1 to a core 2 duo processor in order to install Lion although I still get a message from App Store saying that Lion cant be installed on my computer - I have all the basic system requirments - RAM - free space - latest version of Snow Leopard and processor ...
Info:
iMac
View 4 Replies
View Related
Oct 26, 2010
I'm about to get the first SSDs for my MacPro, and the reviews and postings about the OWC look very good .
However, I'd like to use the SSDs in Raid0 arrays, and OWC recommends the RE models for this purpose, due to their 28% over-provisioning .
After doing a little research, I noticed that OCZ is offering the Vertex 2 in both 28% and 7% over-provisioning versions, the VTX and VTXE(xtended), and they are pretty much the same price - yet OWC is charging quite a bit more for the RE drives compared to the non-RE version.
While I'd rather buy from a trusted Mac vendor like OWC, I'm put off by the pricing policy; the additional warranty isn't of much concern to me, and the controller and other main components seem to be the same as in the Vertex 2 .
Is there anything in particular that makes the OWC RE drives more Mac friendly ?
View 9 Replies
View Related
Apr 8, 2009
Ok... I don't have a mac pro yet.
I am a heavy photoshop user and I want a really snappy machine !
My initial thinking to build it that way:
System disk X25-m 80g (possiblity the 160g to dual boot windows for gaming... but d.mn the 160g is expensive)
Having a set of Velociraptor in software RAID 0 with 2 partition, one scratch disk (~60G) and the rest as my storage for RAWs and photo edits.
Finally a fourth disk, like a standard 1gb 7.2k to use as time machine back up / additional storage.
Would anything be wrong with that setup ? (I have heard that it ain't really good to share the scratch disk with another partition ? But I feel that I need to store my large edited images (I have some 1gb file for panoramas...) so I want those to be opened fast...
But looking at the new OCZ vertex, that comes with higher space for a more moderate price (compared to the IBM), I may built the system some other way...
Could I use one of the "available" sata port in the optical bay to put the scratch ssd disk ? Leaving availble 2 sata slot for a software raid 0 of 2 300g velociraptor ?
How would compare the SSD vs RAID 0 velociraptor for the scratch disk ?
And I've read that the OCZ Vertex is slightly below the X25-M in read but trumps it on write ?? Any real life feedback in a Mac pro ? Any stuttering issues encountered with the Vertex ?
View 24 Replies
View Related
Jun 3, 2009
Do we have a few ppl using this SSD as boot volume?
If so, did the performance decrease noticeably after a few weeks
View 4 Replies
View Related
Apr 16, 2010
After I purchased my 2.66GHz Core i7 yesterday, the first order of business was to open it up and remove the 500GB factory drive and replace it with my OCZ Vertex 128GB SSD drive. I was hoping I could simply drop in the Vertex (which had been in use in my previous MacBook) and boot away. But, as I suspected might happen, the OS X already on the Vertex didn't have the necessary support for the new model/CPU. I had to format the Vertex, install a fresh copy of OS X from the DVD supplied with the Core i7, and then use Migration Assistant to move over my data from a backup drive. No biggie.
Anyway, this baby SMOKES with that SSD drive in there! Check out these boot times:
From the moment I press the power button to a fully loaded Finder/Desktop: 19 seconds
From the moment I hear the startup bong to a fully loaded Finder/Desktop: 13 seconds
From the moment the spinning wheel first appears below the Apple logo (the beginning of drive access) to a fully loaded Finder/Desktop: 7 seconds
Shutdown time is awesome as well:
From the moment I confirm shutdown by clicking "OK" (pressing Enter) to a fully shut down computer: Less than 3 seconds!
The 19 second figure is roughly equivalent to what I was getting with my previous MacBook Pro. However, on that older model, the time between pressing the power button and hearing the startup bong was about 3 seconds. The new MacBook Pro takes 6 seconds for that part of the boot process. So, the boot process from the startup bong is actually 3 seconds faster with the Core i7 model.
View 11 Replies
View Related
Nov 13, 2009
The first Core i7 and Core i5 benchmarks are available. Quite amazing to see how much faster the Core i7 is even compared to the Core i5. (via digg) I'll definitely go for the Core i7 now that I've seen these results.
View 20 Replies
View Related
Oct 7, 2010
As I see the new Speedmark 6.5 test scores come out, I''m taken back somewhat.
I'm buying an iMac for my office which is used for internet, email, heavy excel and word. I like to get 4 to 5 years out of my computer so I'm switching to an iMac. That being said I'm buying a refurbished unit, but am wondering if it's worth the extra 4-500 bucks to upgrade from the 3.06 Core i3 to the 2.66 Quad-core i5??
View 6 Replies
View Related
Oct 8, 2010
They're both Intel Xeon Westmere's, but I was planning on buying the 8-core today. However, another commentator mentioned the 3.33GHz 6-core Westmere being a faster/better choice than the 2.4GHz 8-Core Westmere. Is this due to the 1 6-Core processor versus 2 Quad-Core processors and how the system utilizes threading, etc of each?
View 8 Replies
View Related
Feb 13, 2007
If you have the guts and a few thousand dollars, why wait for Apple to release it?
[URL]
View 14 Replies
View Related
Jun 4, 2009
I'm considering upgrading my iMac to a Mac Pro using my ADC discount late this summer. I have to have a Mac for my major, as I use a lot of OSX-only programs. However, when looking at all the benchmarks available for the programs I'll use, it seems that half do better with the higher-clocked 2.66 4.core, and half do better with the lower-clocked 2.26 8-core. I'm a pretty big gamer, and so if I'm buying this computer anyway, it'll probably be replacing a PC as my "gaming rig."
And, so, I'm thinking of letting that be my deciding factor. Now, I know that the workstation processors aren't meant for gaming. But, that's not my question. What I'm wondering is, while it seems 99% of games out right now prefer a higher clocks to anything else, would it be wise to purchase the 8-core (thus, even more cores than the currently underutilized 4-cores) model to future proof my system for gaming? Other than GTA IV, will we start to see games in the next year or two that really start pushing 4+ cores?
View 24 Replies
View Related
