The world’s fastest 13′ MacBook Pro

[DJ aka GDR DJ]

The world’s fastest 13′ MacBook Pro – win the hardwrk SSD 830 biturbo

 

The installation of SSD’s in MacBook Pro’s happens on a daily basis here at the hardwrk office. Therefore we have been playing with the idea of building the world’s fastest MacBook Pro with an SSD-Raid-0 for some time. We wanted to know how fast you could get the machine by using only standard components. After initial tests with different Raid setups and some failed attempts we bundled our know-how and built the ultimate killer machine: the hardwrk SSD 830 biturbo. The monstrous power of a 13″-MacBook Pro combined with 16 GB DDR3 RAM and a 1 TB-Samsung 830 SATA III SSD as the biturbo’s heart bundled in a Raid-0. To put it short: the ultimate rocket machine! And the best thing about it? You can win the world’s fastest MacBook Pro!

 

 

 

Building the fastest MacBook Pro really is not complicated at all You just have to buy a few MacBook Pro's, a whole bunch of SSD's and a hardwrk adapter kit to test it. After a few weeks of investigation and research, drinking coffee / Clubmate by the gallon and unnumbered installations of Mac OS X you finally get the SSD Raid MacBook Pro rocket! The biggest obstacle in all this was the unclear SATA III compatibility with Apple's MacBook Pros on the DVD drive's SATA port Since the use of this port is not intended by Apple we needed to painfully test this out and came to some interesting conclusions during this process (See info box SATA III in MacBook Pro).

 

 

hardwrk SSD 830 biturbo specs:

Currently fastest Apple MacBook Pro 13″ as base (2,8GHz i7, Status as of 04/2012)

Currently maximum possible RAM (2x 8GB Samsung Dimm = 16GB)

SSD-RAID-0 for maximum data throughput and access times (the Samsung 830 series already are within the range of the fastest SSD’s on the market – in a Raid-0 the speed while cutting videos or other bandwidth-intense processes is intergalactic!)

Engraving plus decent branding (matt black cover with white type labeling)

Absolutely suitable for the everyday grind (Battery and heat development on standard level → no dirty hacks / over-clocking,…)

Proudly manufactured by German nerds

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gBw0OgtiB4&feature=player_embedded

 

for more info

[rolf]

Well, with SSD's in raid you don't have TRIM* support, so that's why they don't use it. Secondly, only 16GB of memory? OMFGWTFFAIL

 

 

* SSD's write per block. However, you can't write a single bit easily. From 1 to 0 (IIRC, otherwise the other way round) is easy and allowed. However, to write 1 on a 0 is not possible. For that, you have to clear the entire block and then write it back. What TRIM does, is when the block is no longer used, the OS tells that to the SSD and the SSD clears it in it's spare time. Without TRIM support, it doesn't work that way, and only when it has to write it has to format. After using your SSD a lot you get performance degradation, I don't know how much for the Samsung 830 but for older SSDs (i.e., 2 years old) it was still very noticeable in real life tests.

[sixthman]

how can u not love mac!

[krAzy :)]

fast as my notebook...except mine costed 700€.... nearly 2 years ago....

[asp]

Aggreed @ krazy, I don't understand what's so special about this? You can get a PC with the same hardware which is way cheaper...

[ajnl]

Aggreed @ krazy, I don't understand what's so special about this? You can get a PC with the same hardware which is way cheaper...

 

And some how it just runs much better. Whether anyone wants to believe it or not, a macbook (with the same specs as a windows running laptop), will run better. I know this only because I've used both macbooks and windows 7 laptops with the same specs.

[rolf]

And some how it just runs much better. Whether anyone wants to believe it or not, a macbook (with the same specs as a windows running laptop), will run better. I know this only because I've used both macbooks and windows 7 laptops with the same specs.

I'm curious, do you have any reason why? Although I've heard it before, no-one could ever argue why (not a significant performance difference at least). Because a clean install would give the same performance.

 

MacBooks are more expensive than many other laptops, but if you don't compare only for cpu/mem specs etc, but also construction etc you might see the value. Why this laptop is so expensive can be read from the article link.

 

And no, a laptop of 2 years old couldn't be this fast. Laptops capable of 16GB mem only exists for a year or so (since Intel Sandy Bridge, 1 year old), unless you take mobile desktops into account. A 2 year old laptop might have an SSD, but not of this performance. A 2 year old laptop doesn't have an equally fast CPU. The only advantage is that Apple has never put a decent GPU in a 13" laptop, which can be the only thing faster than this macbook.

[asp]

It's true what ajnl said, but is because Apple creates their laptops themself. This way they can make sure every piece of hardware works perfectly together, so you don't get bottlenecks.

PC's are fabricated by "outsiders" like Asus, Acer, HP, ... They're not that careful by choosing the hardware.

 

This is the ONLY difference of performance between Mac and Windows, but one should also note that this doesn't make THAT much difference.

 

So, if you want to spend 500$ more for a laptop which is optimized, go ahead, it's nothing for me

[ajnl]

I'm curious, do you have any reason why? Although I've heard it before, no-one could ever argue why (not a significant performance difference at least). Because a clean install would give the same performance.

 

MacBooks are more expensive than many other laptops, but if you don't compare only for cpu/mem specs etc, but also construction etc you might see the value. Why this laptop is so expensive can be read from the article link.

 

And no, a laptop of 2 years old couldn't be this fast. Laptops capable of 16GB mem only exists for a year or so (since Intel Sandy Bridge, 1 year old), unless you take mobile desktops into account. A 2 year old laptop might have an SSD, but not of this performance. A 2 year old laptop doesn't have an equally fast CPU. The only advantage is that Apple has never put a decent GPU in a 13" laptop, which can be the only thing faster than this macbook.

 

Well, the reason I know this as a fact is because I owe a macbook and I owe a windows 7 desktop computer. And i'm the person in my family who pretty much fixes all the laptops and desktops. Which includes macbooks and win7 laptops and desktops. So I have experience with both, some who have same specs, some with different specs.

 

In the end, its true that a lot of the parts that happen uses in their products are made by other companies. But the parts within their laptop seem to be a lot more compatible with each other than a windows 7 running computer. There is more control over each component.

 

Bottom line, the computers are faster and smoother with the same specs and they are controlled more. And we are not only looking at hardware, the software is better too. OSX is based off of Unix, which is also the same thing linux is based off of. And that is also why it runs better with the same specs.

 

Its interesting to note though, that the operating systems from apple are much cheaper. Windows 7 is at least $200, while OSX Lion cost me only $30.

 

Look i'm not an apple fan boy or whatever. I use my desktop a lot more, which is a self built gaming rig, running win7 ultimate. And i love it. But I also love my macbook, which i use for other things besides gaming.

 

Apple laptops last longer too, if i had a windows running laptop I would replace it every 2 years or so. My macbook I wouldn't replace for at least 4 years. So maybe they are two times more expensive, but they run two times as long. IMO

Edited April 23, 2012 by ajnl

[asp]

haha ajnl, don't want to b***, but look 1 reaction above yours

[rolf]

I understand ajnl, but the differences between a macbook pro with an i7 2640M, HD3000, compatible chipset and 8GB memory and a regular windows-running pc with an i7 2640M, HD3000, compatible chipset and 8GB memory shouldn't give a different performance when you're running the same operation system. I've heard about the performance difference before, and I could understand that it exists, but I never understood why it should be significant. Of course there are worse configurations (I'll not name the system builders, but with exceptions those which offer high end CPU and GPU for ultra low price are in my mind), but there are obviously a number of laptops with a similar configuration which indeed is similar to those of the MacBooks. Consider the business lines of most manufactures (of course, higher price than 500$ generally and more in the line of Apple's prices) and compare those to the macbook pro (13"), many of them have a similar well balanced configuration on hardware. And that's why I doubt significant performance differences between those laptops.

 

For the differences between Windows and MacOS, yes, there is obviously a difference, but that works in two ways. There are things in which MacOS is better (easier/less layers from app to kernel best noticeable for end-users), and there are things in which Windows is better (mainly the support to more systems / applications / Libraries (e.g. DirectX)); however if we have the same OS that won't influence it. And yes, MacOS works more fluent in some ways, but Microsoft is at this moment busy reducing the overhead, Windows 7 is lighter than Vista and the expectations are that Windows 8 will be even lighter as well.

 

The costs of the license is btw not significant. If you buy a Dell or HP or Acer of whatever, the Windows license is usually (always?) included; in the Netherlands it is by law possible to change it back to see what that license really costs you, and that ranges per system builder in the range of 20 to 50 euro (for Home/Prof.). Yes, if you buy it as retail it'll cost you 200$, but on the other hand you're only allowed to run MacOS on Apple hardware (by EULA) which will cost you a lot as well. Also, very interestingly, it is only the last few versions that Apple brought cheaper versions, if you started upgrading every version since (and including) XP, retail!, MacOS was more expensive. It is only the last two (?) years that MacOS got cheaper. On the day Windows 7 was released, Apple had just started selling their current version of the OS cheaper, before that MacOS was more expensive. I read a nice blog about it once, but unfortunately I can't find it anymore. But alright, MacOS is now in retail price cheaper. Although not for me, Windows is free as part of MSDN:AA

 

Ow, and as you state, your macbook will last 4 years, my previous Windows laptop did 4.5 years as well, and I hope my current Windows laptop will hold it similarly long. It is not a matter of Apple, it's a matter of construction/usage which will make your laptop last longer. And as long as you've enough memory, you'll be able to run the current OS AND newer generations for a long time. For Windows and MacOS and Linux. Of course, your GPU will get outdated so running new games will become harder/impossible, but that's the first problem you'll notice on every laptop if it isn't that it breaks into multiple pieces. Since I choose business laptops, my laptops really last as long as Macbooks, however my laptops aren't in the 700$ range either

 

Don't get me wrong, I understand why people buy Apple's**, hell, if they didn't use AMD graphics*** I would probably have bought one myself as well, but I can't see why there exists a performance difference when running the same OS on similar hardware. I can't find a logical explanation for it and actually I can't deduce one from your post really, no offence

 

 

**: For me, because the construction quality is comparable to business line laptops. MacOS is not relevant for me personally.

***: Because I do CUDA development, which doesn't work on AMD graphics

[ajnl]

I understand ajnl, but the differences between a macbook pro with an i7 2640M, HD3000, compatible chipset and 8GB memory and a regular windows-running pc with an i7 2640M, HD3000, compatible chipset and 8GB memory shouldn't give a different performance when you're running the same operation system. I've heard about the performance difference before, and I could understand that it exists, but I never understood why it should be significant. Of course there are worse configurations (I'll not name the system builders, but with exceptions those which offer high end CPU and GPU for ultra low price are in my mind), but there are obviously a number of laptops with a similar configuration which indeed is similar to those of the MacBooks. Consider the business lines of most manufactures (of course, higher price than 500$ generally and more in the line of Apple's prices) and compare those to the macbook pro (13"), many of them have a similar well balanced configuration on hardware. And that's why I doubt significant performance differences between those laptops.

 

For the differences between Windows and MacOS, yes, there is obviously a difference, but that works in two ways. There are things in which MacOS is better (easier/less layers from app to kernel best noticeable for end-users), and there are things in which Windows is better (mainly the support to more systems / applications / Libraries (e.g. DirectX)); however if we have the same OS that won't influence it. And yes, MacOS works more fluent in some ways, but Microsoft is at this moment busy reducing the overhead, Windows 7 is lighter than Vista and the expectations are that Windows 8 will be even lighter as well.

 

The costs of the license is btw not significant. If you buy a Dell or HP or Acer of whatever, the Windows license is usually (always?) included; in the Netherlands it is by law possible to change it back to see what that license really costs you, and that ranges per system builder in the range of 20 to 50 euro (for Home/Prof.). Yes, if you buy it as retail it'll cost you 200$, but on the other hand you're only allowed to run MacOS on Apple hardware (by EULA) which will cost you a lot as well. Also, very interestingly, it is only the last few versions that Apple brought cheaper versions, if you started upgrading every version since (and including) XP, retail!, MacOS was more expensive. It is only the last two (?) years that MacOS got cheaper. On the day Windows 7 was released, Apple had just started selling their current version of the OS cheaper, before that MacOS was more expensive. I read a nice blog about it once, but unfortunately I can't find it anymore. But alright, MacOS is now in retail price cheaper. Although not for me, Windows is free as part of MSDN:AA

 

Ow, and as you state, your macbook will last 4 years, my previous Windows laptop did 4.5 years as well, and I hope my current Windows laptop will hold it similarly long. It is not a matter of Apple, it's a matter of construction/usage which will make your laptop last longer. And as long as you've enough memory, you'll be able to run the current OS AND newer generations for a long time. For Windows and MacOS and Linux. Of course, your GPU will get outdated so running new games will become harder/impossible, but that's the first problem you'll notice on every laptop if it isn't that it breaks into multiple pieces. Since I choose business laptops, my laptops really last as long as Macbooks, however my laptops aren't in the 700$ range either

 

Don't get me wrong, I understand why people buy Apple's**, hell, if they didn't use AMD graphics*** I would probably have bought one myself as well, but I can't see why there exists a performance difference when running the same OS on similar hardware. I can't find a logical explanation for it and actually I can't deduce one from your post really, no offence

 

 

**: For me, because the construction quality is comparable to business line laptops. MacOS is not relevant for me personally.

***: Because I do CUDA development, which doesn't work on AMD graphics

 

Well I don't know why apple laptops have a performance boost, all i'm saying is that they do have one. I've never seen Lion OSX run on a computer built originally for windows. But I've run vista on my macbook and it ran just as well as my desktop did (b4 win7 was out), and my desktop had better specs.

 

I'm not saying that macbooks only last 4 years, i'm saying that for me a macbook will last 4 years and a windows running laptop would last probably 2 years. I tend to push my computers. For example, back b4 win7 was out, I had vista running on my macbook (dual boot) and I would game on it during the summer. Since I usually didn't bring my desktop to the USA. Played games like Crysis 1 on it.

[rolf]

"just as well" means both pc's are overkill, so that isn't a comparison

 

 

And I'm curious why a windows laptop would be replaced after two years by you? For the price of a macbook pro, you can find a Windows laptop with better specs or a Windows laptop with similar build quality (not both, obviously), so to which of the two you would argue your replacement?

[matt.]

speedy