Slashdot Mirror
Apple Doubles MacBook Pro R/W Performance
Lucas123 writes Benchmark tests performed on the 2015 MacBook Pro revealed it does have twice the read/write performance as the mid-2014 model. Tests performed with the Blackmagic benchmark tool revealed read/write speeds of more than 1,300MBps/1,400MBps, respectively. So what's changed? The new MacBook Pro does have a faster Intel dual-core i7 2.9GHz processor and 1866MHz LPDDR3) RAM, but the real performance gain is in the latest PCIe M.2 flash module. The 2014 model used a PCIe 2.0 x2 card and the 2015 model uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 (four I/O lanes) card. Twice the lanes, twice the speed. While Apple uses a proprietary flash card made by Samsung, Intel, Micron and SanDisk are all working on similar technology, so it's likely to soon wind up in high-end PCs.
You mean like any other technology purchase :(
It'll, no doubt, be even more impressive as soon as the tech finds its way into computers that grown-ups use.
So now its on-par with a equivalent hardware in a PC laptop?
1300MBit/sec = measely 162MB/sec. Good rotational devices could do that.
On sequential reads, sure. If your data is perfectly laid out and your reads happen in the correct order.
These m.2 SSDs can do that on random reads, because, hey, no seek time.
They said MBps which is MegaByte per second. You misread it.
B=byte
b=bit
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2866858/samsung-mass-produces-laptop-ssd-with-21gbps-speeds.html
Not necessarily. Sure speed bumps are common, but usually incremental. Doubling performance over a single generation is not too common in desktop computing these days. I was going to buy another laptop next month since I always have a spare and I just retired my spare. But was planning on going with the new Macbook or an Air for their slightly smaller form factor. Now it looks like I'll might be opting for another 13" MBP.
I know it's a little late, but for your next apple purchase (if there is one) be sure to check:
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
They generally stay on top of most of the rumors surrounding new product launches. Well enough to know if it's worth waiting for a few months before buying the new model or holding out till the next big Apple event.
You bought a Haswell-based MBP knowing full well that Broadwell had been released and would work its way into the MBP line shortly.
You also ignored the fact that Apple has been updating the Retina MacBook Pros like clockwork.
If you're miffed, be miffed at yourself. Nobody hid this from you.
What a missed opportunity for a semicolon after "Samsung", and what a confusing sentence as a result.
So buy another one next year after the next jump, and then it will someone who bought the 2015 MBP will be all sad they are missing whatever.
As it stands, I have a late 2013 MBP. I accepted when I bought it, that things would advance without me... eventually I will get a new laptop, and the balance will be restored.
Personally I'm really looking forward to a Force Touch version of the MBP, so I would be kind of sad to buy a 2015 MBP knowing that very soon I'd have a strong reason to buy a newer version. At least you will get a good bit of use out of your MPB before the next one with that and other nice features comes out.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Samsung doubles Apple's MacBook performance.
That's what it should have read.
Apple didn't do squat to improve performance except buy faster parts from Samsung, the company that it is constantly suing.
Go figure...
Happened to me a long time ago, but even worse. Just two months after buying my first new MacBook Pro, Apple switched from PowerPC to Intel. I still feel slighted about that, but I got 6 years of good use out of it. Still works fine as long as it's plugged in. And the software is horribly out of date, of course.
I'd check the benchmarks on real work you might be doing. Unless you're doing some very specific unusual tasks, doubling the continuous write and read speeds over an already fast SSD won't gain much.
face it. tech has the shelf life of fresh fruit.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Doubling performance of one subsystem only counts as 'doubling performance' against specific workloads(of which there are some, hence the enthusiasm among users of Big Serious Databases for buying SSDs that cost substantially more than this laptop, or even a pallet of these laptops, once you get the whole storage system up and running); but your usual laptop activities probably won't be quite as dramatic.
What is somewhat notable about this change is that these days are the first time in ages that storage systems(outside of contrived scenarios involving hanging gigantic fiber channel arrays off the lousiest PCI-X HBA you can find, then adding a cheapie PCI device to the same bus just to cut the bandwidth further, or similar silliness) have actually been bottlenecked by their connection to the rest of the system, rather than by their own inadequacy.
With HDDs, and the earlier SSDs, the alleged link speed was a mostly theoretical value that determined little except how fast you could access the drive's cache RAM. Now, it seems, adding a couple of extra PCIe lanes can actually double performance. Not bad at all.
Are you 20? This has been the case with technology since the dawn of technology.
I consider a 13" laptop to be small form factor....I wouldn't be able to use an 11" laptop.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
>The 2014 model used a PCIe 2.0 x2 card and the 2015 model uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 (four I/O lanes) card. Twice the lanes, twice the speed.
This is inaccurate - PCIe version improvements also increased the speed capacity. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCIE, PCIe 2.0 transfered at 5GT/s for an effective data rate of 500MB/s per lane. PCIe 3.0 upped this to 8.0GT/s and reduced the encoding overhead for an effective data rate of 1000MB/s per lane. So, the 2014 theoretical max would be 1000MB/s, the 2015 would be 4000MB/s. So, four times the speed.
Don't worry, after a year Apple will release a new OS upgrade which makes your existing machine so slow that you need to buy another mac.
Hi, I bought a base 2014 MBP 13 inch also and bought and upgraded to a 1TB PCIe x4 drive off Ebay. Works perfectly at the faster speed, and was cheaper overall after the educational discount.
It doesn't matter if it's "faster", but it doesn't matter if it's a proprietary solution. The more standard solution will win out at Apple's expense.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
When ever did they do something good, or a first in the tech world?
If you're miffed, [libertarian bromide redacted]
On the other hand, other manufacturers (like Lenovo) are better at letting you make a return(within 30 days) for those kind of conditions.
That, and they're engineered to use standard parts, not exotic and maintenance-hostile ones.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
MB/s is megabyte per second.
Mbps is megabit per second
MBps is unconventional gibberish. For all anyone knows it could be MiniBuses full of thumbdrives Per Season.
I bought my MBP at Best Buy and I could also return it within 30 days. Whoopie-fucking-do. Not that it matters because he bought his two months ago. Additionally, it would not have been possible to for Lenovo to provide an upgrade to an existing model with this new tech since it's an entirely different part that uses a PCIe 3.0 interface rather than a standard SATA interface. In short, none of your arguments apply.
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
So you can hook up to an external monitor OR charge your Iphone OR make a powerpoint presentation! In 2016, it will be even lighter when they reduce the number of letters in the alphabet for the keyboard.
Gently reply
Considering the price of an apple computer and the speed of technical improvements, the best way to avoid this feeling is to buy it when ready and not care/look for the planned duration of the investment (ex. three years) until the next cycle. To do that you have to pre-plan the duration and stick to it. A sort of mental "capitalization" of the non-commodity goods. It works better if you don't buy the lowest specs so that you don't get the urge to buy a year later because you ran out of disc space or you don't have enough non-upgradable RAM to run Photoshop.
Of course, this is applicable to upgraders and not to people who buy the bare minimum every 10 years to read emails ;)
PCIe-connected flash drives have been around in the PC space for years, and M.2 slots (which for high-end storage devices are nothing but connectors tied to X lanes of gen Y PCIe) have been increasing in popularity significantly over the past year.
:wq
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Unless you can't possibly help it, never buy a new Apple product more than 2 months after it's introduced. If it's later than that, just get it on the used market.
It went from "faster than matters" to "even faster than matters". All SATA drives are fast enough, you don't notice the difference between normal ones and ultra fast ones.. I have a Samsung XP941 (the "proprietary" drive that you can easily buy) and a regular 840 Pro in my desktop. You can benchmark the difference easily, but you don't notice it, at all, in day to day operation.
I am pretty miffed to read this. Nothing like paying a load of cash for a shiny new laptop only to find out a couple months later that you'd have been way better off waiting.
OK, that's like being butthurt after buying a new 2014 car and hearing there's a better 2016 model out. If you didn't get what you thought was a good deal on it, why did you buy it? Time marches on...
For those who don't know, "mid 2014" is not someone's estimate, that's what the hardware is officially billed as in the OS About screen. Note there have been nine updates in the past six years...
Traded my bank account reward points for several BestBest gift cards. I did my homework, the dollar amount was fair. Anyways, popped them down on a MBP for a big saving :)
Life is not for the lazy.
It depends on where your bottleneck is. Hard drives are typically the lowest performing pieces of hardware, mostly because they're spinning media. You can have the fastest CPU in the world, but if you're waiting on a 5.25" full height MFM drive, your performance is going to suffer.
That is why I stopped buying the (lat/new)est stuff. I just get the older models for being cheaper, more stable, etc.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
That's exactly what he was saying:
What is somewhat notable about this change is that these days are the first time in ages that storage systems(outside of contrived scenarios involving hanging gigantic fiber channel arrays off the lousiest PCI-X HBA you can find, then adding a cheapie PCI device to the same bus just to cut the bandwidth further, or similar silliness) have actually been bottlenecked by their connection to the rest of the system, rather than by their own inadequacy.
Stupid M.2 is why it's harder for me to get good toys for may mSATA. My 256GB boot drive will have to suffice.
Learn to love Alaska
Since when did we start calling SSDs Flash Modules or Flash cards? (The article uses both). Can I now call platter hard drives magnetic modules?
The blackmagic benchmark they did, I would assume, is from BlackMagic, the company that makes video recording/production products.
So I am guessing it is benchmarking how fast you can write uncompressed video to your SSD, which, outside of that task, is probably not a relevant workload test.
I am pretty miffed to read this. Nothing like paying a load of cash for a shiny new laptop only to find out a couple months later that you'd have been way better off waiting.
How do you ever buy anything if you're upset that technology keeps improving and you want to wait until the next leap in performance? If you're looking for the best performance, you're *always* better off waiting, but if you need a computer in the meantime, you have to draw a line in the sand and declare that the price/performance is good enough where it is now.
Though for most uses, you won't see a significant difference between a 650MB/sec SSD and a 1300MB/sec SSD.
Well, considering that one of the areas I'm not entirely happy with is media transcoding times between various audio and video formats on some fairly sizable files, with this I think I'd see a profound effect on FFMPEG's performance.
Good question - does the bus speed match the ram convention, or the hard drive storage convention and all other communication speed conventions?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
According to this: http://blog.macsales.com/25878... OWC put a 4x PCIE SSD from a mac pro into a 2014 MBP and got the extra performance gain. i.e. the 2014 MBP has 4x PCIE wired to the connector, but by default ships with a 2x PCIE SSD. They expect to ship SSD upgrades for MBP "soon", so you're not out of luck if you have the previous model.
-- "This world is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel."
LOL, it's raid by any other name. Apple is finally getting something right in the storage arena.
Why the hell did it take so long???
Define recent. IIRC you still have the option of returning it to an Apple store and paying the restocking fee if you bought it less than 30 days ago.
Just make sure you copy all of your data onto something you own zero the hard drive before you return it.
Yes. Either buy a new one right at introduction, or buy the older ones at a slight discount. Found that out with the mini I bought, but it had more USB ports, which I run short of.
More of these M.2 SSD drives on the way, some 2-3 times faster than this one. http://www.thessdreview.com/ou... http://www.intelgamingpromo.co... http://www.zdnet.com/article/c... http://forums.hardwarezone.com...
Nope, I can pretty much say you would get no benefit from the faster drive for transcoding. The cpu will be the limiter. You would see benefit for non-linear video editing where you are working with massive raw files but the conversion is going to be limited in other ways.
You can always wait until advances in technology have slowed down enough for your taste.
What is why you check the Mac Buying Guide to see if a new release is imminent so you don't end up with buyer's remorse:
http://buyersguide.macrumors.c...
Future proofing doesn't exist in tech. EVERYTHING eventually becomes obsolete. :-(
--
PHP: A language designed by a noob for boobs
So it was a powerbook then.. macbook is an intel naming convention.
There's a bit of confusion, but essentially there is a big difference to flash memory that is presented as a replacement hard disk and talks over SATA, and a flash card that talks to the computer over PCIe through a motherboard PCIe slot.
Essentially, PCIe is a darn sight faster than SATA, so when you hook up a flash drive to it, it goes at ludicrous speeds.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
"Twice the lanes, twice the speed"...man someone doesnt understand the PCIe standard or how to do simple math. Its actually twice the lanes, FOUR* times the (theoretical) speed. 2x500MB/s vs 4x985MB/s * rounded up
Sell it, you will get a very good price for it, and buy the 2015 version if you really need this update.
Perl Programmer for hire
I can tell you I have a faster processor than anything in any MBPs, and disk I/O is not the bottleneck in transcoding. What you're really looking for is a much faster CPU, or multiple faster, preferably many cored CPUs as a preference.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
but it had more USB ports, which I run short of.
Look into a USB hub....
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
You have to look at how transcoding works to understand this.
Transcoding, at most, benefits from 2 CPU cores, because depending on the codec, the extra cores aren't really doing much of anything. The bottleneck is the file i/o which was traditionally a blocking call, so you could literately not write to two parts of the file at the same time. When you take things multicore, in a live transcoding sessiuon (eg livestream/twitch/picarto) you will never use more than two cores, and since the machine only has two cores, that's the perfect match up. However if you are trancoding something that is already on disk, you can quite literately transcode it from both ends (burning the candle at both ends) or slice the file up into the number of cores available, or slice the vertical/horizontal space by the number of cores available. But the point is that without the ability to read/write to two or more parts of the file, the file i/o is the blocking part of the process.
Streaming is 3500Kbit, Blueray is 20-50Mbit. The quality difference is substantial.
But you would never be mastering Bluerays out on the field with a laptop. No no, you would be pre-editing the files on the road so you can dispose of footage that you don't need, or bad takes.
Whenever anyone asks me if they should buy a computer now or wait for a new model, I tell them to wait until 2025, because those machines are going to be INCREDIBLE!
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Actually, when it comes to transcoding, the GPU is the limiter. Apple's codecs use it heavily.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
They've been dead in a lot of our worlds for years.
I guess you must be the modern equivalent to the Amish, shunning useful technology because it is the work of something you designate arbitrarily to be the Devil.
How sad for you and your kind, though I look forward to buying whatever the equivalent is of fine wooden furniture from your group of castaways at some point in the future.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Basiclly, this is just a bulk transfer rate benchmark of the SSD.
Like most other SSDs, the fastest ones will not actually result in quicker real-world performance, because your brain cannot see the files load on screen any faster.
Enjoy your overpowered 4x PCIe crap. I'll be just fine here with my SATA6 SSD I've had for four years.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
The new Macbook enjoys the same increase, though of course there might be other reasons to not choose it.
Agree.
I swapped my old Core 2 Duo E7200 (2.53) O/Ced to 3.8 with an OCZ Agility2 SSD for an i3 with a Kingston SSDnow 300 (*old* retired machine that was given to my dad). Altough the new machine boots way faster, and the new SSD is about twice as fast in benchmarks (even if low-end), I find it faster, but not *blew me out of my chair* faster.
Once you go from HDD to SSD, even the cheapest lowest performing SSD is gonna be much faster than anything with spinning platters.
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
The raw bandwidth available for transfers isn't doubled, it's quadrupled. PCIe 3.0 is twice as fast as PCIe 2.0, channel for channel, so the bandwidth would have doubled even if they had not added two more channels. They doubled it in two different ways at the same time.
That said, the old flash was probably not being that badly constricted by the older standard, and the current generation is only capable of twice the throughput. However, adding even more bandwidth than that is a nice bit of future-proofing and quite welcome.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
I see you've been reading the press release.
Do you believe ever piece of BS you read in PR? There's a buttload of crap where that one came from. It's the salesman's job to sell you fancy NEW MOAR BETTER CRAP, so I guess if it's working, he's gonna keep his job :D
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
This is why I am a PC. Not a Mac (paraphrased in the commercials)
When something goes obsolete I replace.
In 2013 I got my first SSD in my 2010 AMD phenom II. Then a dual SSD in raid. Then an i7 4770k. Then a another SSD raid. New video card and last a new workstation class computer.
With a mac it is soldered on. Throw away and buy anew.
The old argument it halves performance every 12 months at an exponential rate is so 1990s and those with very obsolete Pentium IVs with 512 megs of ram with XP just keep rocking as who cares if things are better. Word 2003 and Firefox still run fine etc So no biggie anymore. But still like the option
http://saveie6.com/
Gamers need them.
IN Star Wars the Old Republic MMO Correlia took almost 4 to 5 minutes to load. I blamed my CPU at the time. Got an SSD. It loaded in 35 seconds.
Newer games all take 50 to 70 gigs like Wolfenstein and others. Having a Raid 0 SSD with a 1 gig transfer rate over SATA (not even .m2) makes a difference but it is the loading of 50,000 assets a level in parallel make an SSD as fast as 100 disk array more than the transfer rate.
I do VMware like many other slashdotters studying CISCO and MCSE and Linux certifications. No one I would bother with a mechanical disk to load 5 virtual machines at the same time to emulate an enterprise network. I remember shutting them down at 7pm and by 7:20 they would finish if I had 6 or more. With an SSD raid 0 this takes about 45 seconds.
http://saveie6.com/
Not referring to the drive in the article, but if you think it's all marketing bull, measure it yourself. In NVMe's case, getting rid of the SATA and SAS translation layer has cut out over 60% of the CPU overhead, and cutting out the max 6Gbps or 12Gbps speed means the drives can go insanely fast. That's a lot of real change by using NVMe. Now, I am one of those marketing guys who work for one of these companies, but I can tell you it's not all BS.
Meant to be logged on as I posted this, not an anonymous coward. That was me who said that...
I'm keeping by late issue 2009 MBP 10.6.8 and telling Mrs Cook and Mrs Ivy to KISS MY ASS and EAT GAY SHIT.
Ha ha
I am pretty miffed to read this. Nothing like paying a load of cash for a shiny new laptop only to find out a couple months later that you'd have been way better off waiting.
You were expecting that any manufacturer should stop improving their products the moment you buy in?
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Good question - does the bus speed match the ram convention, or the hard drive storage convention and all other communication speed conventions?
Um, the test - is it moving bits serially, or multiples of bytes?
These M.2 drivers are PCIe. It is a different slot form factor, but it is just PCIe.
USB would not be desirable for internal system use, too much overhead. It is well designed for the purpose it has but you wouldn't want it for everything.
There are reasons to want multiple transports, different ones are good at different things.
This will have a great impact on starting and suspending virtual machines. Which i do a lot, benchmarks or no benchmarks.
Maybe but Lenovo simply gives you much slower ssd and cpu FOR THE SAME OR EVEN BIGGER PRICE (x1 carbon).
It was technically impossible to buy a powerpc macbook pro just before they went to intel. Since macbook pros have ALL been intel...
Most of ASRocks high end motherboards including the X99's and Z97's have the 4x PCIe msata card already. I'm running one of these boards with a Samsung XP941 and getting the same speeds as the new MacBooks. http://www.asrock.com/mb/intel... plus http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-... and you're done. 1300+ mb/s SSD speeds on a desktop.
The terminology police hereby fine you for incorrect terms. There is no "SATA6". You probably mean SATA3, which is 6 Gbps.
Which in no way detracts from your point, which is entirely correct.
Using a USB hub is like distributing a garden hose to many nozzles. When you turn them all on, the spray from each one slows to a trickle.
No. If he had bought a Dell, they would have put out a new laptop with a different random model number that was only 5% faster.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Don't forget about transcoding software that support the use of GPUs.
No longer true, ddr3 has been around for years, an i7 from a couple of years back is still good, upgrading a SSD from a SSD of a couple of years back won't make much system performance difference for a normal desktop.
The increments are tiny these days, you're lucky if you get 5% speed boost from the latest CPU or GPU.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Hopefully it doesn't have ar coating malfunction like the previous models. Check the stain gate website http://www.staingate.org and the damaged ar coating retina group.
I was quite surprised by the numbers they had for the old model. On my 2014 MBP, I recently did some tests doing sha calculations of VM images. These were multithreaded and not CPU-bound, but they ended up getting almost 2GB/s reads from the SSD. The benchmark is interleaving reads and writes, so that may account for it, but if you're just loading game data from disk then the old model can fill the whole of physical RAM in 8 seconds, so I doubt that's the bottleneck.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I have no idea why this comment was modded down. It is very relevant to the discussion...please do not mod on opinion. As for the answer to lounge boy. I was planning in buying a new one in a huge black friday promotion, but hold out because the high end models already were using this technology, and it was a given it was a matter of time for it to trickle down. Next time, you should do better your research.
Have you ever bought a laptop before?
I am pretty miffed to read this. Nothing like paying a load of cash for a shiny new laptop only to find out a couple months later that you'd have been way better off waiting.
Nothing like paying a load of cash for a product you failed to research beforehand...
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Mac
Guides like this have been around for years. Wise up, you're already spending a premium on Apple anyway.
Which is why I have to acknowledge, Apple's given a nice uplift in speed there.
Those write speeds are frankly impressive. I'd be sorely tempted, if I could think of a decent use case :)
There was even no need for that. The higher end 15'' models were already using the technology by the time he bought his machine. It was expected to trickle down, as Apple usually launches the new technologies in the higher end models to boost sales.
Agree.
I swapped my old Core 2 Duo E7200 (2.53) O/Ced to 3.8 with an OCZ Agility2 SSD for an i3 with a Kingston SSDnow 300 (*old* retired machine that was given to my dad). Altough the new machine boots way faster, and the new SSD is about twice as fast in benchmarks (even if low-end), I find it faster, but not *blew me out of my chair* faster.
Once you go from HDD to SSD, even the cheapest lowest performing SSD is gonna be much faster than anything with spinning platters.
True, that is simply "diminishing returns". Just going from a HDD to ANY SSD will make your computer incredibly faster, but then going to any faster SSD will not give the same benefits, because that one only will be faster on continuous access (like copying large files). Booting the OS or accessing small random files will not benefit much anymore. So going for a super expensive SSD will only be worth it if a.) you read/write lots of LARGE files (e.g. movie editing) or b.) need the long-term reliability of a SSD designed for multi-year writing of tons of data.
You can say whatever you want but Apple is taking the front runner role again with these new PCi-Express based SSD interfaces.
Which other Laptop has +1000 MB/s sequential writes on its systemdisk ?
Hell this bests high-end STEC Zeusram and Toshiba SAS SSD's.
I am still holding out for the technology to level out and have yet to buy a computer because I don't want to get burned. I started looking in 1994 with the DX2 series processors and the PCI bus.
I was close to buying one in 2001 because there was not much going on and I thought leveling was happening and the only real changer was the Duron and video cards like the Radeon series showed up and then I had to start all over.
Some day I will buy that computer!
In fairness to Enry, I (in retrospect, not very clearly) tried to make two somewhat similar points and kind of mushed them together). My intent was the following:
1. Only for certain, fairly specific, tasks does doubling 1 subsystem's performance = 'doubling performance'. In the case of mass storage, databases seem to be the particular sweet spot. For most of what laptops are used for, the near-zero latency of an SSD makes a huge difference; but the difference between 'near zero latency, 2 PCIe lanes of bandwidth' and 'near zero latency, 4 lanes' is very unlikely to double performance across the board.
2. What is remarkable, even if 'double the performance' of the storage subsystem doesn't double the performance of the tasks you use it for, is that we now have (and relatively cheap, at that, unlike DDR-based hardware RAMdisks) storage hardware that is good enough that doubling its interface bandwidth genuinely does double its performance. With pretty much any mechanical storage, and some of the earlier SSDs, it barely mattered what the nominal performance of your interface was, because the storage device would let it down. You wanted to avoid PIO, because losing DMA meant more CPU load; and SATA has cables that are less annoying than PATA; but only with big, expensive, HDD arrays or contemporary SSDs does the speed of the interface actually make much difference in terms of performance.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of SSDs, and use them myself for everything except backup/NAS stuff where I don't have nearly enough disposable income to cover my demand for capacity. However, the biggest improvement is not absolute throughput speed(if you can actually keep a read or write nice and linear, a high density platter HDD is pretty damned fast); but the fact that you'll get almost the same speed under a pathologically random access condition as you will under a nice linear access condition. HDDs, by contrast, absolutely fall off a cliff if you do that to them.
When was the last time you replaced a "standard" laptop GPU ?
Apple stuff is fairly predictable. Unlike everyone else, Apple generally releases on a set schedule the same time every year. Enough so that there are many "buyers guide" for Apple products.
http://buyersguide.macrumors.c...
If you're ever contemplating an Apple purchase, check that out first. Anything beyond midlife is a caution - if you can wait, then wait. Anything marked as "Don't Buy" is basically meaning it's going to come out in the next 3 months.
This is so wrong in so many ways.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Your existing m.2 SSD is on a slot with 1GB (8gb) of bandwidth. I really dont think you're going to be maxing that out with any non-enterprise SSD, so you're probably OK-- and even if you somehow did, I seriously doubt you would notice.
And what software would this be, other than perhaps FCPX?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
But but but... USB 3.0 is the snizzle! Or so everyone says.
I personally think USB should be retired to the same place as IDE, RLL, ATA and all those other bad idea shared bus solutions. The only ones that worked well, IMNSHO, are SCSI type solutions, including SATA, which can now be overwhelmed by a couple of top end SSDs running in RAID0.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Transcoding, at most, benefits from 2 CPU cores...
Really? So when I start Handbrake (or iriverter, or mencoder, or Transmageddon, or WinFF, or XCFA, or almost any other transcoder) on my old 4-core system, all 4 cores are maxed out. Previously, the cores were near zero, so what are two of them doing? Unless you're full of shit, of course.
It is perhaps more useful now : for years, you could install linux (debian, buntu) on a ppc mac, but you got no binary for the adobe plugin Flash. So, it was shit, but now you can try to look at the HTML5 video, or try some software that loads the video in a regular video player.
While it may not necessarily be he case depending on your device, you realize that many of the USB ports on a computer are on an internal USB hub right? Some desktop PCs usually do maybe 2-4 ports to a hub and have a couple of different root hubs.
My point being, don't count on multiple built-in ports meaning they don't share resources exactly the same way as an external hub.
When working with nonlinear video editing, compositing, and color grading, the GPU is the biggest bottleneck in most laptops. The CPU is a secondary limiter, but most of the high end professional video software out there use the GPU heavily.
There are a few exceptions, a small number of high end applications like Edius and Clarisse are primarily optimized around using the CPU instead of the GPU, but they're getting increasingly rare these days.
Isn't it already in high-end PCs? Like the 2015 MBP?
I gave my first gen MBP Retina to my brother when I refreshed it . It's three years old but he still considers it a pretty fast computer. Admittedly, I maxed out the specs when I bought it.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
No, it was me! /sarcasm
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
*Samsung* Doubles MacBook Pro R/W Performance ?
seems to play. Just kidding. I'm sure Sir Jon Paul engineered and designed everything, rounded edges and all. It does have rounded edges, right?
...and I just attended at talk at CanSec West that showed them first remotely flashing UEFI and then doing a quick 30 second "plug this in and press a button" to a separate computer, after which both devices started sending all data entered while TAILS was loaded back to a third computer via serial-over-TCP baked in to the UEFI and outside the OS.
Let me reiterate: they demoed something two guys cobbled together in 4 months. Something we have proof that many national governments have been doing for years.
TAILS doesn't even recognize that it's being skimmed, let alone provide any protections against this type of attack.
So while TAILS is better than many of the alternatives out there, if it is run on a computer that's been targeted by some third party (like a repressive government or megacorp), TAILS will do nothing to prevent data exfiltration. here.
Be miffed at yourself, and the fool who thinks that properly researching your own major purchases is a "libertarian bromide."
So sayeth this democrat to the fool.
Agree.
I swapped my old Core 2 Duo E7200 (2.53) O/Ced to 3.8 with an OCZ Agility2 SSD for an i3 with a Kingston SSDnow 300 (*old* retired machine that was given to my dad). Altough the new machine boots way faster, and the new SSD is about twice as fast in benchmarks (even if low-end), I find it faster, but not *blew me out of my chair* faster.
Once you go from HDD to SSD, even the cheapest lowest performing SSD is gonna be much faster than anything with spinning platters.
True, that is simply "diminishing returns". Just going from a HDD to ANY SSD will make your computer incredibly faster, but then going to any faster SSD will not give the same benefits, because that one only will be faster on continuous access (like copying large files). Booting the OS or accessing small random files will not benefit much anymore. So going for a super expensive SSD will only be worth it if a.) you read/write lots of LARGE files (e.g. movie editing) or b.) need the long-term reliability of a SSD designed for multi-year writing of tons of data.
I bet you stuck to ATA for your hard drives, because you were used to floppys, and those ATA dries were soooo much faster, everything beyond was just diminishing returns.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
This is why I am a PC. Not a Mac (paraphrased in the commercials)
When something goes obsolete I replace.
In 2013 I got my first SSD in my 2010 AMD phenom II. Then a dual SSD in raid. Then an i7 4770k. Then a another SSD raid. New video card and last a new workstation class computer.
With a mac it is soldered on. Throw away and buy anew.
Yeah, buying everything but the case, floppy (I bet you still have a floppy) and the big, inefficient power supply new makes for such a cheaper buy.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Using a USB hub is like distributing a garden hose to many nozzles. When you turn them all on, the spray from each one slows to a trickle.
In the case of of USB 3, the trickle would burst your USB 2 hoses, and fill several mass storage hoses. Wasn't that the point of USB 3? Or were all the USB fanboys lying?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Most PCs only have 2 or 3 USB controllers tops, which explains the absolutely abysmal performance you get as soon as you start plugging in lots of USB devices, since each controller serves as a hub to 2-4 ports.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
True, it was a Powerbook G4, I've just gotten used to saying MBP over the years.
Apple announced the transition to Intel more than half a year before actual machines with Intel shipped...