[GSixZero]

Is the performance difference between the quad 2.0 and the quad 2.2 (or 2.3) a linear difference, or are there other instructional differences between the chips that make it more than a 10% (or 15%) difference?

Thanks!

[Big Mac]

If they're both Core i5s or Core i7s then there's most likely no difference other than clock speed. On the low-end the chip model names have slightly different meanings, but from one MBP to another of this same revision there won't be any architectural difference within the same model family chip.

[GSixZero]

Thanks.

Another question... if my plan is to remove the superdrive and replace it with another HDD, is there any particular reason that it makes sense to buy the machine with SSD from Apple vs getting the machine stock with a magnetic disk and adding SSD myself?

[SierraDragon]

Your question in the topic heading ("Difference between the 15" MBP configs") seems different than in your text. The performance difference among the configs can be huge for some apps due to the very different graphics support even though the CPU differences are small.

Also note that the cost of (IMO essential) SSD is $100 on the better MBP versus $200 on the lower end MBP.

Personally I bought the Apple SSD in my 2011 17" MBP because $100 was at the time very cheap for an SSD, and I get full Apple warranty support of a technology that I have not used in a laptop before. I will soon replace the optical drive with a large fast HD from OWC. Today third party SSD prices have fallen a lot so adding an SSD post-purchase may also make sense.

I like the Apple SSD operation so much that if SSD prices fall enough I may put a second SSD in the optical drive slot rather than a HD.

-Allen

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by GSixZero 

Thanks.

Another question... if my plan is to remove the superdrive and replace it with another HDD, is there any particular reason that it makes sense to buy the machine with SSD from Apple vs getting the machine stock with a magnetic disk and adding SSD myself?

Pros of third party SSDs:

- They're generally faster

- They're generally cheaper

- They're generally better overall

Cons of third-party SSDs:

- Apple only includes TRIM support for Apple-provided ones

So there you go. The Apple SSDs have a large, although completely artificial, advantage.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by GSixZero 

Is the performance difference between the quad 2.0 and the quad 2.2 (or 2.3) a linear difference, or are there other instructional differences between the chips that make it more than a 10% (or 15%) difference?

The 2.3 GHz model apparently has a different cache structure, which gives it a disproportionate advantage for DSP work and media processing.

In short: If it's to be a media production machine*, the 2.3 GHz version is probably worth it.


*) meaning audio/video, not Photoshop.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Pros of third party SSDs:

- They're generally faster

- They're generally cheaper

- They're generally better overall

Cons of third-party SSDs:

- Apple only includes TRIM support for Apple-provided ones

So there you go. The Apple SSDs have a large, although completely artificial, advantage.

Apparently, TRIM support isn't necessary for all third-party SSDs (that depends upon the controller), and can actually be detrimental (?).

If you want an SSD, I'd go with Apple OEM or wait until the dust has settled on the technology.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The 2.3 GHz model apparently has a different cache structure, which gives it a disproportionate advantage for DSP work and media processing.

Seriously? That's very strange. Is it named differently from the other chips in the family that are less capable of performing those functions?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Seriously? That's very strange. Is it named differently from the other chips in the family that are less capable of performing those functions?

Apple - MacBook Pro - Technical specifications of the 15-inch model.

2.0GHz or 2.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor with 6MB shared L3 cache; or optional 2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor with 8MB shared L3 cache

Similar case between the i5 2.3 GHz 13" and the i7 2.7 GHz 13" models.

I don't keep on top of Intel's naming schemes, sorry. As far as I'm concerned, T3 was a Schwarzenegger movie, and T4 my last car (a VW van), and that's it.

[GSixZero]

What model SSDs do the BTO MBPs ship with?

[P]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The 2.3 GHz model apparently has a different cache structure, which gives it a disproportionate advantage for DSP work and media processing.

In short: If it's to be a media production machine*, the 2.3 GHz version is probably worth it.


*) meaning audio/video, not Photoshop.

Linky for that statement? AFAIK, the only difference is that the i7 model has the 8 MB of L3 cache while the i5 has 6 MB. The L3 cache design on Sandy Bridge is new in the sense that each core has a preferred slice of the L3 cache, but that is orthogonal to the nerfed cache. RWT has some dieshots of this.

[Spheric Harlot]

They're both i7.

And no, not "different cache structure" — apologies for the imprecision.

The 2.3 GHz model has a larger cache (as per Apple tech specs page, linked above), which by all accounts makes a noticeable difference in media processing applications, as described.

[Big Mac]

Ah, I see. Thank you for the explanation.

[GSixZero]

So I'm thinking about getting the lower end 15" MBP with the BTO high res matte display and then adding this SSD and upping the RAM to 8GB through Crucial.

Newegg.com - Crucial M4 CT128M4SSD2 2.5" 128GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

Thoughts?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Pros of third party SSDs:

- They're generally faster

- They're generally cheaper

- They're generally better overall

I'm not sure I agree with that. The well-respected brands of SSDs are not necessarily always cheaper, unless you get them on sale or something.

As for speed, a lot of the most recent ones are faster, but they're often higher power too. I think Apple likes safe and reliable, without super high power requirements, and prefer those to speed. For a laptop, so do I, esp. considering SSDs in general are so much faster than platter drives that even "slow" ones feel blistering fast in OS X. Furthermore, Apple does upgrade the SSDs as the technology improves. For example, the SSDs in the current MacBook Airs are reportedly much faster than the ones in the first Airs.

The common fast cheap ones are often the Sandforce SSDs, but there are a plethora of reported issues with them. I find it curious that Apple has so far refused to put any Sandforce-based SSD in any Mac. And even if one were to argue that the reporting of the issues might be a bit overblown, consumers are steaming mad about them because some of the companies selling them have some less than up-front business practices.

A prime example of this is OCZ selling one of their models based on performance specs... and then changing the design to a slower but cheaper one while continuing to report the higher performance specs.

Cons of third-party SSDs:

- Apple only includes TRIM support for Apple-provided ones

So there you go. The Apple SSDs have a large, although completely artificial, advantage.

TRIM enabler solves that.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I'm not sure I agree with that. The well-respected brands of SSDs are not necessarily always cheaper, unless you get them on sale or something.

The price to upgrade the base 13" MBP to a 256 GB SSD is $650. 256 GB SSDs on Newegg range from $391 to $525, meaning you'll pay anywhere from $125 to $259 more if you buy the SSD from Apple. That's not even factoring in the fact that you get to keep the original hard drive with the Newegg option, and could theoretically eBay it to recoup a bit more of the cost.

As for speed, a lot of the most recent ones are faster, but they're often higher power too. I think Apple likes safe and reliable, without super high power requirements, and prefer those to speed. For a laptop, so do I, esp. considering SSDs in general are so much faster than platter drives that even "slow" ones feel blistering fast in OS X. Furthermore, Apple does upgrade the SSDs as the technology improves. For example, the SSDs in the current MacBook Airs are reportedly much faster than the ones in the first Airs.

On the same note, though, even the most power-hungry SSDs are less power-hungry than platter drives, so if you're upgrading from a platter drive, you'll likely notice an improvement either way.

As for me, if I'm going to pay $125 more than the most expensive SSD on the market at that size, I'd expect it to be fast.

The common fast cheap ones are often the Sandforce SSDs, but there are a plethora of reported issues with them. I find it curious that Apple has so far refused to put any Sandforce-based SSD in any Mac. And even if one were to argue that the reporting of the issues might be a bit overblown, consumers are steaming mad about them because some of the companies selling them have some less than up-front business practices.

There's also the Marvell SSDs, sold by Crucial and Corsair, and of course the Intel SSDs. All of them should be faster than the Samsung, except when you don't have TRIM support.

TRIM enabler solves that.

If you're comfortable trusting all your data to unsupported third-party disk driver software. I'd much rather Apple enable TRIM officially.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

The price to upgrade the base 13" MBP to a 256 GB SSD is $650. 256 GB SSDs on Newegg range from $391 to $525, meaning you'll pay anywhere from $125 to $259 more if you buy the SSD from Apple. That's not even factoring in the fact that you get to keep the original hard drive with the Newegg option, and could theoretically eBay it to recoup a bit more of the cost.

On the 15" i7 MacBook Pro, to upgrade to a 128 GB SSD, it's only $100. To upgrade to a 256 GB SSD, it's $500. For me, 128 GB is perfect. My main machine is an iMac, and I've got a 2 TB hard drive in that.

Of course, for a that you get the Apple warranty and native TRIM support.

On the same note, though, even the most power-hungry SSDs are less power-hungry than platter drives, so if you're upgrading from a platter drive, you'll likely notice an improvement either way.

That's not really true. Many of the fast and even many of the not so fast SSDs are as power hungry as platter drives, and some are more power hungry. In fact, the power utilization of some of the higher power SSDs is nearly 2 times as high (!) as a stock Apple 5400 rpm drive. Strange but true. Thus, switching to a SSD but not paying attention to the power specs can mean you can drop your battery life by say 15%.

For example:

Hitachi 5K500 (5400 rpm platter drive)
Idle: 0.9 W
Active: 2.6 W

Crucial C300
Idle: 0.7 W
Active: 4.1 W

Intel X25-M
Idle: 0.6 W
Active: 3.0 W

Kingston V
Idle: 1.2 W
Idle with TRIM in progress: 3.4 W
Active: 4.5 W

The V is an older model, but the current model V100 is rated even higher power than the V by Kingston themselves. To get a lower power Kingston model you'd have to know to get the V+100.

You may think of the Crucial m4 which has much better power specs than the C300, but some people have had some serious issues with this model in the MacBook Pro. Same goes for other SATA 3 drives in Macs with SATA 2 interfaces. I guess it must be some sort of unexpected firmware incompatibilty or something. The news though is they just released a new firmware for the m4 yesterday. Perhaps this will address the issues.

Actually, the Crucial m4's power characteristics aren't really anything to write home about either. Reasonable, but not stellar:

Idle: 0.6 W
Active: 2.9 W

There's also the Marvell SSDs, sold by Crucial and Corsair, and of course the Intel SSDs. All of them should be faster than the Samsung, except when you don't have TRIM support.

Early Samsung SSDs are slow. Current ones are not. They may not be the fastest, but they aren't the slowest either.

If you're comfortable trusting all your data to unsupported third-party disk driver software. I'd much rather Apple enable TRIM officially.

Me too, but FWIW it's not actually a 3rd party driver. All it does is tell the existing OS X driver to recognize the 3rd party drive.

In a way, it reminds me of the spanning hack for iBooks. It wasn't a 3rd party driver either, but existing OS X functionality that was artificially blocked on the iBook. The hack simply removed the block.

BTW, I run a Kingston SSDNow V+100 128 GB in my mid-2009 13" MacBook Pro. The power specs of this model are reasonable, but more importantly it has very aggressive garbage collection should I decide in the future that I don't want to use TRIM, and I hadn't seen any reports of incompatibilities with it like I've seen with the Crucial m4. That shouldn't be surprising though, since some Apple SSDs use the exact same controller as the SSDNow V+100, which is another reason I'm comfortable activating TRIM for it in Lion.

[P]

Sandforce (and OCZ) recommends against using TRIM enabler when using their drives, stating that they were made designed without TRIM in mind and that they work just as well without it.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by P 

Sandforce (and OCZ) recommends against using TRIM enabler when using their drives, stating that they were made designed without TRIM in mind and that they work just as well without it.

Benchmarks suggest otherwise.

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/...andomwrite.jpg

It works fairly well without TRIM, but TRIM still adds a significant improvement.

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/...write-TRIM.jpg

Ironically, drives like the V+100 with a Toshiba controller work much better than Sandforce drives to maintain normal speed without TRIM.

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/...+100/dirty.jpg

Despite this, Apple enables TRIM in both Snow Leopard and Lion with their own SSDs using the same controller (ie. MacBook Air). I don't know why, but with the caveat that I know nothing about drive design and engineering, I wonder if keeping TRIM active will actually reduce power utilization and write amplification compared to just allowing a drive with super aggressive non-directed garbage collection to do its thing.

As for why Sandforce / OCZ recommend not using TRIM, I have my suspicion it's because there is a risk of compatibility issues. No Macs ship with Sandforce drives, and I note that some Windows 7 users have reported odd bugs or performance issues when using TRIM specifically with some Sandforce drives.

[GSixZero]

Other than looking at benchmarks, is there a perceivable difference between the higher speed third party SSDs and the apple supplied versions? Are the differences only going to be noticed only in specific instances like writing single large files, etc?

In other words: Does it make sense to figure out exactly which drive suits my needs best, or will I pretty much not notice a performance difference between getting the apple SSD vs getting a third party one?

[Eug]

I'm using a moderately "slow" 3rd party SSD which has the same controller as the one in the MacBook Air, and consequently runs at about the same speed as that one.

It feels blistering fast. Bootup takes 13 seconds. To put it another way, for average OS type stuff and business apps, my Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro with SSD and 2 GB RAM feels much faster than my iMac Core i7 with 7200 rpm 3.5" drive and 12 GB RAM.

IOW, any half-decent SSD should feel super quick in most usage, but as you suggest, there can sometimes be a small subset of usage where a faster drive will feel noticeably faster.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by GSixZero 

Other than looking at benchmarks, is there a perceivable difference between the higher speed third party SSDs and the apple supplied versions? Are the differences only going to be noticed only in specific instances like writing single large files, etc?

In other words: Does it make sense to figure out exactly which drive suits my needs best, or will I pretty much not notice a performance difference between getting the apple SSD vs getting a third party one?

Unless you A-B test you will not notice the difference because any SSD is so superior to a 2.5" laptop hard drive. I have the Apple 128 GB SSD in my 2011 17" MBP, 8 GB RAM, and I am blown away by the performance. Boot time (10.6.8) is about 20 seconds. Photoshop CS5 loads in less than 3 seconds, etc.

No doubt many more modern 3rd party SSDs would be faster (maybe that is why Eug boots in 13 seconds and my MBP boots in 20), but for $100 and covered by Apple the Apple SSD can be a throwaway, replace it in a year with the latest and greatest 2012 alternative.

HTH

-Allen

[Eug]

I'm curious, which SSD do you have? I have essentially the same SSD as some of the Airs. See this review:

"The standard V+ is gone and replaced by the new V+ 100, which is what we're here to take a look at today. This drive uses the T6UG1XBG controller but with updated firmware. The new firmware enables two things: very aggressive OS-independent garbage collection and higher overall performance. The former is very important as this is the same controller used in Apple's new MacBook Air. In fact, the performance of the Kingston V+100 drive mimics that of Apple's new SSDs:"

Code:
Drive 	 	 	Seq Write 	Seq Read 	Ran Write 	Ran Read
Apple TS064C 64GB	185.4 MB/s 	199.7 MB/s 	4.9 MB/s 	19.0 MB/s
Kingston V+100 128GB	193.1 MB/s 	227.0 MB/s 	4.9 MB/s 	19.7 MB/s

However, mine's a new install, and I decided to keep the install relatively lean - no junk, so that may explain the difference.

GSixZero, if you look at the numbers, you'll see that this model is "slow" by 2011 SSD standards. It's true that the 5 MB/s random write is actually not very impressive. Nonetheless for general OS usage it still feels extremely fast. So fast that despite its comparatively slow speed, I bought another one for my Windows 7 laptop. Why? Because the price and size is right, and it's reasonably low power. Some of the faster ones don't come in the 96 GB size (which is perfect for my Windows machine), they cost considerably more, and they often use more power.

[SierraDragon]

My March 2011 17" MBP:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Intel 6 Series Chipset:

Vendor: Intel
Product: 6 Series Chipset
Link Speed: 6 Gigabit
Negotiated Link Speed: 3 Gigabit
Description: AHCI Version 1.30 Supported

APPLE SSD TS128C:

Capacity: 121.33 GB (121,332,826,112 bytes)
Model: APPLE SSD TS128C
Revision: CJAA0201
Serial Number: 213S10CHTLMZ
Native Command Queuing: No
Removable Media: No
Detachable Drive: No
BSD Name: disk0
Medium Type: Solid State
TRIM Support: Yes
Partition Map Type: GPT (GUID Partition Table)
S.M.A.R.T. status: Verified
Volumes:
Capacity: 209.7 MB (209,715,200 bytes)
Writable: Yes
BSD Name: disk0s1
Macintosh HD:
Capacity: 120.99 GB (120,988,852,224 bytes)
Available: 20.94 GB (20,937,588,736 bytes)
Writable: Yes
File System: Journaled HFS+
BSD Name: disk0s2
Mount Point: /
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I believe the APPLE SSD TS128C is the earlier slower version, newer models technically 20-30% faster. But to me what matters here is the comparison to a 2.5" hard drive, especially latency.

Another benefit of SSD is that page outs are less problematic. Aperture will typically bog (SBBOD) on a hard drive box with 2 GB RAM, but it typically will simply run slowly on an SSD box with 2 GB RAM.

-Allen

[Eug]

I believe your TS128C (128 GB) and the older TS064C (64 GB), as well as the newer 2011 11" Air and my Kingston SSDNow V+100 128 GB all use the same Toshiba T6UG1XBG controller.

"The Toshiba T6UG1XBG SSD controller is a 43nm part with native TRIM support, and offers a maximum rated read speed of 230MBps and write-to performance peaking at 180MBps."

That is the exact spec of my Kingston V+100 drive.

For the faster drives you mention, are you talking about the Samsung drives? One Samsung is the SM128C. The Samsung is indeed faster, but I believe both the Toshiba and the Samsungs are shipping. BTW, if you haven't already noticed, the first two letters tell you the brand.

[SierraDragon]

Yes, the Samsung was the faster SSD I was referring to.

[Waragainstsleep]

The OCZ Vertex 3s are the fastest of the bunch at the moment I believe.

[P]

Originally Posted by GSixZero 

Other than looking at benchmarks, is there a perceivable difference between the higher speed third party SSDs and the apple supplied versions? Are the differences only going to be noticed only in specific instances like writing single large files, etc?

In other words: Does it make sense to figure out exactly which drive suits my needs best, or will I pretty much not notice a performance difference between getting the apple SSD vs getting a third party one?

Tom's Hardware had a nice analogy on that recently. While I don't know what the exact file operation int he example was, it goes like this: If you switch from a fast HDD to the slowest SSD on the market, you will be done in 15% of the time. If you instead switch to the fastest SSD, you're done in 12% of the time.

[SierraDragon]

A quote from the Tom's Hardware link from P says it all:

"Over the past five years, CPU performance has hit new and unforeseen heights, and processors are increasingly spending time waiting on data from hard drives. This is what makes storage today's most glaring bottleneck. Overcoming it requires an SSD."

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The OCZ Vertex 3s are the fastest of the bunch at the moment I believe.

Unfortunately, they're Sandforce drives, and they're from OCZ.

OCZ Sandforce BSOD

[Waragainstsleep]

Something wrong with OCZ?

I installed a Vertex 2 in a Mac Pro without issue. Does that BSOD issue happen with Macs too?

[Eug]

No BSOD in Macs, because the BSOD is a Windows thing.

However, some of the Sandforce drives don't work consistently with Mac laptops.

MacBook Pro 2011 Models and SATA 3.0 (6.0Gb/s) - Update - 5/27/2011 | Other World Computing Blog

Also, reports are that OCZ is very difficult to deal with for RMAs.

[P]

I have an OCZ Vertex 2. The first one died after about a week, but there was absolutely no problem doing an RMA on it. Before that, I had tried for hours to try to make the firmware update, but it failed. I would not recommend them for that reason. I think that they have got the point and are working on an improvement, but right now, their system is "boot into Windows 7 with networking support to update your SSD". There is hacky tool for doing it in Linux, but you need to make your own bootable disk and it still requires a live network. No bootable disk, no updating from OS X or even Win XP.

The replacement drive I got had the latest firmware and worked better from day one (it was 34nm Flash instead of the 25nm Flash in the broken drive - apparently the new process is not so stable yet), but I would probably not recommend OCZ until they fix their firmware updating procedure.