early 2011 macbook pro thunderbolt to hdmi adapter

#Early 2011 macbook pro thunderbolt to hdmi adapter install#
#Early 2011 macbook pro thunderbolt to hdmi adapter upgrade#

I went with BTO Apple SSD, though, because it is the only drive that is currently supported by Snow Leopard's TRIM (added in the custom 10.6.6 SL running on the new MBPs) and, for now, Lion betas. Yes, I will do the same and put a spare 7k2 HD in the bracket.

#Early 2011 macbook pro thunderbolt to hdmi adapter install#

Keeping in mind that the optical drive is connected to a slower port, I assume this means I should move the traditional hard drive into the optical drive bay (and its slower connector) and then install the SSD into the traditional drive back to take advantage of its faster connector? Seems to me that having a 5400 RPM drive installed in a SATA 3 port is a bit of a waste. OWC has an awesome looking kit with a 120gb SSD and bracket for under $300.

So - I've just picked up the fully-loaded 15' and want to add a SSD. Note that only the hard drive supports SATA 3 the optical drive is still connected to a 3GBps SATA 2.0 interface. While Intel isn't as good at graphics as NVIDIA, Intel's SATA disk controller performance is significantly better than that of NVIDIA's the new models also now support 6Gbps SATA 3.0 for the first time, so the fact that the new MacBook Pros use Intel's chipsets again means that disk performance is improved, particularly when using a Solid State Drive.

#Early 2011 macbook pro thunderbolt to hdmi adapter upgrade#

Apple's online store seems to imply that the faster processor has a higher Turbo Boost speed when it says, 'You can upgrade the processor in your MacBook Pro to the 2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor, featuring 8MB 元 cache and Turbo Boost speeds up to 3.40GHz.' But they don't say anywhere was the limit is for the 2.2 GHz processor. If the 2.3 GHz processor also includes higher Turbo Boost speeds for non-parallelized tasks, that would help better justify the price increase.

After reading the descriptions of the tests in the links above, it does not appear their tests would include the performance of Turbo Boost since most of their tests seem to saturate all 4 cores in the CPU. I'll still be curious to see direct comparisons using actual systems on real-world tasks. Still of questionable value when you are adding at 10-15% premium. Oh, but your math is off, from their results it's a 4% difference. This, NO ONE has done a comparison yet except: