|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Dec 27, 2015 13:27:22 GMT -6
Anyone using one of these in a Mac Pro? It seems they are a multitude faster at data transfer than SATA SSD's, seems it would really allow some huge sessions with infinitely small buffer setting? anyone?
thanx
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Dec 27, 2015 13:45:22 GMT -6
New to me, however, I'm intrigued!
|
|
|
|
Post by mulmany on Dec 27, 2015 14:42:15 GMT -6
I really can't imagine needing more then Data III, 6G speeds. Now if your sata buss is not sata III, 6G, then yes the pcie SSD storage cards are going to be huge, and keep your machine running fast. But with proper disc caching now on PT12 I don't see a huge need.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Dec 27, 2015 17:14:02 GMT -6
I usually set buffer rates really high because i do everything i can to keep the quality of things up(linear phase plugs, oversampling blah blah), it causes a lot of delay when stop/start editing and mixing, but if i can up the speed that much on pcie SSD drives, it would more than likely take that away.. no? I am on SATA ll SSD's Nehalem mac, that's been upped to 5,1 firmware and 64 gigs of 1333 ram, that pcie SSD has ripping fast data throughput!! look at the well more than double the throughput!!  |
|
|
|
Post by mulmany on Dec 27, 2015 17:18:59 GMT -6
I usually set buffer rates really high because i do everything i can to keep the quality of things up(linear phase plugs, oversampling blah blah), it causes a lot of delay when stop/start editing and mixing, but if i can up the speed that much on pcie SSD drives, it would more than likely take that away.. no? I am on SATA ll SSD's Nehalem mac, that's been upped to 5,1 firmware and 64 gigs of 1333 ram, that pcie SSD has ripping fast data throughput!! look at the well more than double the throughput!! PT12 is now loading the entire mix into Ram so The advantage is going to be at recording. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,011 
|
Post by ericn on Dec 27, 2015 18:03:36 GMT -6
I usually set buffer rates really high because i do everything i can to keep the quality of things up(linear phase plugs, oversampling blah blah), it causes a lot of delay when stop/start editing and mixing, but if i can up the speed that much on pcie SSD drives, it would more than likely take that away.. no? I am on SATA ll SSD's Nehalem mac, that's been upped to 5,1 firmware and 64 gigs of 1333 ram, that pcie SSD has ripping fast data throughput!! look at the well more than double the throughput!! The specs look really good on paper, but my gut and experience tell me it won't be that big of deal because of OS and how PT and other DAWs use those resources. I'm sure those specs are best case senecio. |
|
|
|
Post by chasmanian on Dec 27, 2015 18:04:18 GMT -6
I heard about those a year ago.
I have a friend that knows a lot about computers.
yeah, they're way faster than the SATA III SSD's.
I don't know anything more about it though.
he had recommended a laptop to me that had one.
but it was way too expensive.
I do know enough to say, always check compatibility.
for example, my old Sony Vaio laptop has a USB 3 port.
but the rails (or some thingies), inside only support USB 2.
thus, when the original HDD died, and I replaced it with an SSD, it too was limited to the speed of SATA II, instead of the SATA III that the the new SSD was capable of.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Dec 27, 2015 18:10:48 GMT -6
I usually set buffer rates really high because i do everything i can to keep the quality of things up(linear phase plugs, oversampling blah blah), it causes a lot of delay when stop/start editing and mixing, but if i can up the speed that much on pcie SSD drives, it would more than likely take that away.. no? I am on SATA ll SSD's Nehalem mac, that's been upped to 5,1 firmware and 64 gigs of 1333 ram, that pcie SSD has ripping fast data throughput!! look at the well more than double the throughput!! The specs look really good on paper, but my gut and experience tell me it won't be that big of deal because of OS and how PT and other DAWs use those resources. I'm sure those specs are best case senecio. worst case scenario it moves 2wice as much data! pretty good deal no? |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,011
|
Post by ericn on Dec 27, 2015 18:18:05 GMT -6
The specs look really good on paper, but my gut and experience tell me it won't be that big of deal because of OS and how PT and other DAWs use those resources. I'm sure those specs are best case senecio. worst case scenario it moves 2wice as much data! pretty good deal no? Only if everything else can deal with that speed ! |
|
|
|
Post by winetree on Dec 27, 2015 18:27:44 GMT -6
They are expensive and they only get Half the storage with optimum performance settings.
|
|
|
|
Post by chasmanian on Dec 27, 2015 18:32:09 GMT -6
"worst case scenario it moves 2wice as much data! pretty good deal no?"
I sure don't know enough to answer that question.
I do know enough to say that compatibility of the system components.......well, you're gonna wanna know before buying anything, if what you have will support it.
if there's a bottleneck for speed because of some other component, it may limit you, and you gain nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Dec 27, 2015 21:37:29 GMT -6
So far attempts to make one work in my wife's 2010 Mac Pro are a bust, 2 have worked awhile (weeks) and then died. Nothing like the fun of doing a full install on a regular basis. YMMV, plenty seem very happy and successful. While it worked, the machine booted fast but she did not report astronomical performance improvements over the spinning disc it attempted to replace. Photoshop/Illustrator/etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Dec 27, 2015 22:26:15 GMT -6
Anyone remember SCSI and Nubus?? What about Firewire??? Man... I'm having trouble keeping up.
|
|
