USB 3 can go up to 640 MB/s... Can you point me to a single drive (non-raid SSD) that can go over that?
You`re wrong.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
LaCie Launches 'Rugged' Thunderbolt/USB 3.0 Portable Drives
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
USB 3 can go up to 640 MB/s... Can you point me to a single drive (non-raid SSD) that can go over that?
You`re wrong.
The RPM alone does not determine the data rate. You have to also look at how many bits are in each circlar track. Then you figure it can read off that many bits 5400 times per minute. It could be a very fast speed or not depending on how many bits they can pack in a track.
5400 is "slow" because on average you have to wait for 1/2 of a revolution to get to some random spot on the drive before you can even start reading data. But once you are there the bit rate is the tangental speed times the bit density.
Yes spinning faster can improve the tangential speed but maybe technology allows more bits on the slower platter?
But really your comment is correct for ANY single drive. Thunderbolt s not really required until you get into disk arrays or SSD.
Theoretical limits and real-world performance are two different things, especially with USB.
Next time try to provide a proof before claiming someone is wrong.
That way you will either
A) Have more credibility in your claim that the other is wrong
B) Find out he's not actually wrong and save yourself the embarrassment of mistakenly claiming he is
Here's mine:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6127/...iew-an-external-with-usb-30-and-thunderbolt/3
In Anandtech's tests, Thunderbolt was around 80% faster than USB 3 in sequential read/write speeds, with a SSD (OCZ Vertex 3) which max theoretical speeds are 550MB/s read, 500MB/s write.
Last edited:
All right then.
Anyway, the product is poor because it is huge and doesn't provide you a way to change the drive.
You can't use it for video editing (the space is low), you can't use it to dock other SSDs... and as a backup device, the space is once again too low.
I wonder what use the poor customer will have for this? Would you know this?
That's not how things work. There is a good article on ttomshardware that shows how and why a single tb drive is faster than a USB 3 equivalent.
When is some manufacturer just going to give us what we actually want, just an external thunderbolt case that we can decide which drive we want to put in ourselves? (3.5")
a rugged external SSDobviously trying to profit from ignorant people.
Why? It looks pretty cool and the prices are reasonable.
----------
There is a 1TB option... (although it runs at 100MB/s instead of 300+), but still.
Slightly different. I have a Seagate Goflex that came with USB3 (MBA is only USB2) and has 5400 drive. I run virtual machines and thought this would be great. No so - too slow. Got the TB adapter and it made a significant difference. Then managed to open the GoFlex and installed an Intel 256GB SSD and I can't tell that the data isn't on the internal drive. USB+5400 - Lada/Skoda; TB+SSD - ferrari with nitro
It does say in the specs that the HD version runs at speeds of up to 110MB/s. That sounds very interesting, at that price point. Looking forward to seeing some test reports on it.
Looks promising and definitely more affordable than those LaCie 240GB SSD 'Little Big Disks' @ $499.95 (without TB cable).
Nope, scroll further than the first table. It's more like a 10x increase over USB 2 anyway.
The 5400rpm drive certainly wouldn't max out the bus and with the end of the chain single TB port issue, it comes across as a little silly. Unless we make the assumption there are numerous Pegasus Promise units on the TB chain in front of the 5400rpm drive.
The drive can still outpace the connection at FW800 speeds. I have the FW800 version and you get full 70-80Mb/sec throughput. If this pulls off the 110Mb/sec it claims then that's a big increase for file transfers in the field.
Plus less macs with FW800 now, so it's just another connection choice. That's why it's priced the same as its esata or FW800 counterparts.
These are the norm in video production. We shoot on cards, and have to transfer the files to hard drives during the shoot. Since there are often multiple cameras shooting at once, you can actually be shooting faster than you can transfer. The more speed the better, because at the end of the day you don't need to be telling the camera ops that it'll just be another 45min of transfer til you can give them their cards back. And at overtime rates, that would be bad!
Once a drive like this is files, it will likely be shelved for a long time. We consider them our tape masters. Another copy will often be made and then the files are also transferred to the edit suite. The cards get reused. Sometimes during the shoot after transfer.
Forgive me if this is a stupid question.....
Could you boot off the SSD version of this drive to avoid opening the case to install an SSD and expect decent performance?
I realize for roughly the same price I would be close to purchasing a 256GB SSD plus 2nd drive kit, I am not sure I am comfortable dismantling my Mac Mini....
Could you boot off the SSD version of this drive to avoid opening the case to install an SSD and expect decent performance?
I realize for roughly the same price I would be close to purchasing a 256GB SSD plus 2nd drive kit, I am not sure I am comfortable dismantling my Mac Mini....
That makes a bit more sense then. Plus a 2.5" is obviously denser, so it should be faster than an equivalent 1TB 3.5" drive with the same number of platters inside. I'm guessing it's just one at this thickness
i'm confused, sorry.
But on this review they clearly state the disk is 7200 ???
http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/external-hard-drives/278275/lacie-rugged-usb-3-0
But on this review they clearly state the disk is 7200 ???
http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/external-hard-drives/278275/lacie-rugged-usb-3-0
I've booted my MBP over TB many times and it was just as fast as the internal drive. Faster when I used an SSD. USB 3 would be a little slower than that, but I don't think a normal user* would notice.
*"Normal user" meaning not doing pro/prosumer audio/video/image editing.