Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > iMac

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 23, 2013, 09:47 PM   #26
hfg
macrumors 68030
 
hfg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA. USA
So ... don't delete it ... it is only a tiny 300MB or so partition just for the boot loader.
hfg is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 10:00 PM   #27
wmy5
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: upstate NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfg View Post
So ... don't delete it ... it is only a tiny 300MB or so partition just for the boot loader.
Well, I can't sleep well if such a thing exists...
wmy5 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 10:49 PM   #28
Outrigger
macrumors 68000
 
Outrigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmy5 View Post
Well, you CAN and you MUST delete the Windows partition on internal disk after you copying it to your external disk, because only 1 Windows partition is allowed to be booted. What I mean is that if you install Windows directly to your external disk following that thread, http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1508618, you will have to keep a small NTFS partition on your internal disk, which contains some important booting files while the majority of your Windows OS files were installed onto your external disk. If you delete that small partition, your Windows won't work anymore.
How would I know what to keep and what to delete?
__________________
iMac | Intel i7 3.4GHz | 32GB RAM | 1TB Fusion | GTX 680MX
Mini | Intel i5 2.5GHz | 8GB RAM | 750GBSSD | AMD 6630M
rMBP 13 | Intel i5 2.6Ghz | 8GB RAM | 512GB SSD
Outrigger is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 10:49 PM   #29
bonedaddio
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: PA, USA
As several others have stated, your Thunderbolt Black Magic Disk Speed Test results (and real world experience) will vary widely depending on which Thunderbolt adapter you use, which SSD, etc..

I, Hfg and William G. all have posted test results with good results.
One issue is that you're using a bus-powered TB device, they're generally not as fast; there's testing out there, and even an article on how to rig an external power supply.
Another issue is that you're using the particular enclosure you have...IIRC, it isn't the fastest one of the current crop (I could be wrong, it could just be the bus-power thing).

The best results I seem to recall (other than the rather expensive OWC external PCIE bus/blade SSD solution) were from the Promise J4 (has issues with new iMac 2012; won't work in Windows at this time so I sent it back) and from the Seagate Desktop Backup Plus. I'm using the Seagate with a 500 Gb Samsung 840, split in half for OSX ML/Bootcamp Win7 64 bit, and it's a crazy fast setup. Photoshop CS6 64 bit opens in around 1-1.5 seconds on both Mac and Windows. I'm happy with my decision to go with a 1TB internal HDD and go external SSD with my 2012 iMac. This is an iMac forum, yes?
bonedaddio is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 11:10 PM   #30
wmy5
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: upstate NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonedaddio View Post
As several others have stated, your Thunderbolt Black Magic Disk Speed Test results (and real world experience) will vary widely depending on which Thunderbolt adapter you use, which SSD, etc..

I, Hfg and William G. all have posted test results with good results.
One issue is that you're using a bus-powered TB device, they're generally not as fast; there's testing out there, and even an article on how to rig an external power supply.
Another issue is that you're using the particular enclosure you have...IIRC, it isn't the fastest one of the current crop (I could be wrong, it could just be the bus-power thing).

The best results I seem to recall (other than the rather expensive OWC external PCIE bus/blade SSD solution) were from the Promise J4 (has issues with new iMac 2012; won't work in Windows at this time so I sent it back) and from the Seagate Desktop Backup Plus. I'm using the Seagate with a 500 Gb Samsung 840, split in half for OSX ML/Bootcamp Win7 64 bit, and it's a crazy fast setup. Photoshop CS6 64 bit opens in around 1-1.5 seconds on both Mac and Windows. I'm happy with my decision to go with a 1TB internal HDD and go external SSD with my 2012 iMac. This is an iMac forum, yes?
Can you post a benchmark (Blackmagic or AS SSD) of your setup? I want to have a look at how fast does the 840 work with a Seagate desktop adapter. Many thanks.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outrigger View Post
How would I know what to keep and what to delete?
If you install Windows directly onto external disk, you cannot delete the small partition on your internal disk. Otherwise you should delete anything on your internal disk after copying except your OS X.
wmy5 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 11:23 PM   #31
WilliamG
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmy5 View Post
Can you post a benchmark (Blackmagic or AS SSD) of your setup? I want to have a look at how fast does the 840 work with a Seagate desktop adapter. Many thanks.
I have the Samsung 830 256GB in a Seagate Backup Plus Thunderbolt enclosure 2.5" (not the Go Flex, which is the older model), and Blackmagic reports ~320MB/s writes and ~365MB/s reads. It's blazing fast for my needs, and OS X loads before I can blink.

Benchmarks are just silly 99.9% of the time, they really are. Does basically every application open in less than a second? Yes. That's all I care about.
__________________
iMac, MacBook Air, Mac mini, iPad, iPhone, 55-11
www.bighugenerd.com
WilliamG is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 11:25 PM   #32
wmy5
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: upstate NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG View Post
I have the Samsung 830 256GB in a Seagate Backup Plus Thunderbolt enclosure 2.5" (not the Go Flex, which is the older model), and Blackmagic reports ~320MB/s writes and ~365MB/s reads. It's blazing fast for my needs, and OS X loads before I can blink.

Benchmarks are just silly 99.9% of the time, they really are. Does basically every application open in less than a second? Yes. That's all I care about.
Yeah I know benchmarks are silly Just curious ho...
wmy5 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 11:29 PM   #33
WilliamG
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmy5 View Post
Yeah I know benchmarks are silly Just curious ho...
Well, there's some results for you, then. I absolutely understand people who want 60fps in games vs 45-50fps. 100%. But the SSD benches are just out of control. I've used some ridiculously fast SSD RAID arrays, and I honestly can't tell the difference EXCEPT when doing huge file transfers from SSD to SSD, which happens so infrequently.

I don't know.. the hysteria is a bit mental. The funny thing is that there's still this obsession with SSD speed. MOAR SPEED! Except the obsession at this point, in my ever-so humble opinion, should be FORGET the speed, and concentrate on bringing the price of these SSDs down. Stop trying to get more speed out of SSDs, manufacturers! LOWER the speed if necessary. I'd be perfectly happy with ~200MB/s read/writes with those wonderful SSD low access times and 4K speeds, but with larger capacities for less money.

How has this not happened more quickly?
__________________
iMac, MacBook Air, Mac mini, iPad, iPhone, 55-11
www.bighugenerd.com
WilliamG is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 11:45 PM   #34
wmy5
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: upstate NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG View Post
Well, there's some results for you, then. I absolutely understand people who want 60fps in games vs 45-50fps. 100%. But the SSD benches are just out of control. I've used some ridiculously fast SSD RAID arrays, and I honestly can't tell the difference EXCEPT when doing huge file transfers from SSD to SSD, which happens so infrequently.

I don't know.. the hysteria is a bit mental. The funny thing is that there's still this obsession with SSD speed. MOAR SPEED! Except the obsession at this point, in my ever-so humble opinion, should be FORGET the speed, and concentrate on bringing the price of these SSDs down. Stop trying to get more speed out of SSDs, manufacturers! LOWER the speed if necessary. I'd be perfectly happy with ~200MB/s read/writes with those wonderful SSD low access times and 4K speeds, but with larger capacities for less money.

How has this not happened more quickly?
I don't care about sequential throughput, either. I just want to see the 4K speed using different enclosures. OK, you are right, it's meaningless and sometimes silly. I should forget about benchmarks and enjoy my new iMac with SSD now.

Good news(?) is manufacturers have stopped trying to get top speeds. Their focus now is on reducing $ per GB. With the adoption of TLC flash and advances in photolithography (1x nm in 2013), costs will definitely drop a lot. Yet speed and endurance will be the major problems...
wmy5 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 12:27 AM   #35
WilliamG
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmy5 View Post
I don't care about sequential throughput, either. I just want to see the 4K speed using different enclosures. OK, you are right, it's meaningless and sometimes silly. I should forget about benchmarks and enjoy my new iMac with SSD now.

Good news(?) is manufacturers have stopped trying to get top speeds. Their focus now is on reducing $ per GB. With the adoption of TLC flash and advances in photolithography (1x nm in 2013), costs will definitely drop a lot. Yet speed and endurance will be the major problems...
Well here's my xbench 1.2 results from the Samsung 830 256GB in Seagate Backup Plus Thunderbolt enclosure connected to my 27" 2012 iMac. It's my boot drive. No idea how accurate it is. Like I said, Blackmagic reports 365MB/325MB read/write speeds (which, as mentioned, doesn't tell the whole story).

Results 476.67
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.8.2 (12C2037)
Physical RAM 32768 MB
Model iMac13,2
Drive Type SAMSUNG SSD 830 Series
Disk Test 476.67
Sequential 309.42
Uncached Write 548.10 336.52 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 472.56 267.38 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 134.51 39.36 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 644.26 323.80 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 1037.43
Uncached Write 1073.98 113.69 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 700.08 224.12 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 2231.24 15.81 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 954.22 177.06 MB/sec [256K blocks]
__________________
iMac, MacBook Air, Mac mini, iPad, iPhone, 55-11
www.bighugenerd.com
WilliamG is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 02:50 AM   #36
wmy5
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: upstate NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG View Post
Well here's my xbench 1.2 results from the Samsung 830 256GB in Seagate Backup Plus Thunderbolt enclosure connected to my 27" 2012 iMac. It's my boot drive. No idea how accurate it is. Like I said, Blackmagic reports 365MB/325MB read/write speeds (which, as mentioned, doesn't tell the whole story).

Results 476.67
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.8.2 (12C2037)
Physical RAM 32768 MB
Model iMac13,2
Drive Type SAMSUNG SSD 830 Series
Disk Test 476.67
Sequential 309.42
Uncached Write 548.10 336.52 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 472.56 267.38 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 134.51 39.36 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 644.26 323.80 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 1037.43
Uncached Write 1073.98 113.69 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 700.08 224.12 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 2231.24 15.81 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 954.22 177.06 MB/sec [256K blocks]
For comparison, here's mine.

Results 490.76
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.8.2 (12C3104)
Physical RAM 16384 MB
Model Macmini6,2
Drive Type Samsung SSD 840 PRO Series
Disk Test 490.76
Sequential 301.61
Uncached Write 635.67 390.29 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 488.61 276.45 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 124.60 36.46 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 618.54 310.87 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 1316.15
Uncached Write 1298.80 137.49 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 817.91 261.84 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 2789.09 19.76 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 1453.39 269.69 MB/sec [256K blocks]
wmy5 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2013, 03:36 PM   #37
Jeantro
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
I just tested the Samsung 840 Series 500 GB in 2 different enclosure in USB 3 on my new imac core i7 8go ram

I get better result for read speed with the lacie thunderbolt 128Go SSD

the first is an generic enclosure usb 3 with samsung 840 series not pro 500GB



the second silver river 5g with samsung 840 series not pro 500GB



the third lacie rugged thunderbolt 128 SSD



as you can see it's better to buy good enclosure usb 3 for best performance
Jeantro is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2013, 06:18 PM   #38
WilliamG
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonedaddio View Post
As several others have stated, your Thunderbolt Black Magic Disk Speed Test results (and real world experience) will vary widely depending on which Thunderbolt adapter you use, which SSD, etc..

I, Hfg and William G. all have posted test results with good results.
One issue is that you're using a bus-powered TB device, they're generally not as fast; there's testing out there, and even an article on how to rig an external power supply.
FYI, I had forgot to mention, but I get the exact same speeds using Seagate's non-bus powered Backup Plus 3.5" adapter. So in this case bus-powered is not the issue.

Jeantro, the Lacie TB adapter isn't very good anyway from all the reports. The Seagate Backup Plus and Buffalo Ministation seem to do better. And don't forget less CPU overhead from Thunderbolt...

Your test isn't conclusive since you also test a bad USB 3.0 enclosure! A good TB enclosure will give you about 390MB/s read and 330MB/s writes I'd guess, with that Samsung 840.
__________________
iMac, MacBook Air, Mac mini, iPad, iPhone, 55-11
www.bighugenerd.com
WilliamG is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2013, 12:40 AM   #39
jediDev
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Here's my XBench numbers -- using a 500GB Samsung 840 (not pro) with a Buffalo Ministation enclosure on a 2.9 21.5" 2012 iMac with 8GB RAM:


Results 371.17
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.8.2 (12C2034)
Physical RAM 8192 MB
Model iMac13,1
Drive Type Samsung SSD 840 Series
Disk Test 371.17
Sequential 231.80
Uncached Write 369.19 226.67 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 202.68 114.68 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 127.81 37.40 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 558.72 280.81 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 930.84
Uncached Write 1268.32 134.27 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 414.20 132.60 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 2740.16 19.42 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 1370.69 254.34 MB/sec [256K blocks]
__________________
15" Mid-2012 MBPr (2.3/8/256); 21.5" iMac late 2012 (2.9/8); iPhone 5s 64GB Space Gray; 4th gen iPad 64GB WiFi White.
jediDev is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2013, 10:23 AM   #40
Fishrrman
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
For comparison, below is an Intel 520 series 180gb SSD, running in a Plugable "lay flat" USB3 dock:
(http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00APP6694?...SIN=B00APP6694)

Very happy that I didn't spend 'way more than necessary for a Thunderbolt enclosure. Once the "early adoption bugs" are straightened out, USB3 is going to become the preferred choice over Thunderbolt, a few niche utilizations notwithstanding.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Speed Test USB3 Dock.png
Views:	17
Size:	365.0 KB
ID:	393131  
Fishrrman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2013, 11:26 AM   #41
Tanax
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishrrman View Post
For comparison, below is an Intel 520 series 180gb SSD, running in a Plugable "lay flat" USB3 dock:
(http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00APP6694?...SIN=B00APP6694)

Very happy that I didn't spend 'way more than necessary for a Thunderbolt enclosure. Once the "early adoption bugs" are straightened out, USB3 is going to become the preferred choice over Thunderbolt, a few niche utilizations notwithstanding.
Yes, but only for single-drive enclosures. USB3 is definitely awesome for that. But when it's multi-drive enclosures, Thunderbolt will be the way to go since it'll allow 1.2~ GB/s transfer-speeds, USB3 won't be able to handle that.
Tanax is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2013, 11:44 AM   #42
n-i-k-k-o
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Calne, Wiltshire, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by itsamacthing View Post
Or get a Fusion drive, and a 1TB external SSD for your Media...
That's the route I took. A 1TB internal fusion for boot, which I will partition and use the disk-only drive for iTunes. And a 1TB LaCie Little Big SSD RAID0 for all home directories & Aperture libraries connected via Thunderbolt.

My 2c.

N
n-i-k-k-o is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2013, 10:49 AM   #43
bsotak
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: US
wmy5, I was just wondering if you could still use parallels with the external installation via this method. I've got my 3TB fusion iMac ordered, and am trying to figure out the best way to get bootcamp on a fast drive! Most of the time I'll probably boot into bootcamp if I need to use Windows, but I really need the ability to quickly get into windows and access it via parallels as well. Thanks in advance!
bsotak is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2013, 10:24 PM   #44
wmy5
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: upstate NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsotak View Post
wmy5, I was just wondering if you could still use parallels with the external installation via this method. I've got my 3TB fusion iMac ordered, and am trying to figure out the best way to get bootcamp on a fast drive! Most of the time I'll probably boot into bootcamp if I need to use Windows, but I really need the ability to quickly get into windows and access it via parallels as well. Thanks in advance!
Yes, Parallels works fine.
wmy5 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2013, 05:39 PM   #45
mario24601
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Sorry to be a necro but seagate has the TB adapter for $49 right now on site, I'm not affiliated with them I just ordered one to do the same thing you guys have done - boot from external samsung ssd 840 pro via seagate thunderbolt. Just thought some might like to know if they have been on fence about getting one like I was.
mario24601 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2013, 07:40 PM   #46
ender78
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by mario24601 View Post
Sorry to be a necro but seagate has the TB adapter for $49 right now on site, I'm not affiliated with them I just ordered one to do the same thing you guys have done - boot from external samsung ssd 840 pro via seagate thunderbolt. Just thought some might like to know if they have been on fence about getting one like I was.
What speed are you seeing in BlackMagic ?
ender78 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2013, 08:56 PM   #47
Ak907Freerider
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Lacie has the little big disk 240 ssd refurbs for $229. Not 6g ssd but you can swap both out and run as a raid 0 once prices drop and use the old intel ssd for whatever. I will be throwing mine in some laptops. Just a thought also has dual thunderbolt so you can add more devihttp://www.lacie.com/us/products/clearance/products/?id=10007ces.
Ak907Freerider is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2013, 12:42 AM   #48
mario24601
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by ender78 View Post
What speed are you seeing in BlackMagic ?
I'll post once it arrives. Should have it end of week.
mario24601 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2013, 03:40 PM   #49
mario24601
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by ender78 View Post
What speed are you seeing in BlackMagic ?
Ok finally got both the bus powered seagate TB adapter, its actually a go flex one but according to seagate the same exact thing as the back up plus. Anyway using blackmagic here is what I see with new Samsung 840 Pro 256GB:

Write 354
Read 385

I's using the TB cable from my TB buffalo.

Just to compare, here is what I get with the internal ssd on my 2011 iMac 27':

Write 70
Read 142

I don't know why my internal ssd (TS256C) is so slow, any ideas? Is this typical perf for this model?

Overall seems like very good speed using the Samsung and the Seagate.
mario24601 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2014, 02:01 PM   #50
pizzapappa
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Im thinking of getting a 512gb samsung 840 evo to replace my 128gb SSD in My lacie rugged enclosure. Will it work?

In reading that larger ssds draw more power and therefore won't work since the thunderbolt port can't provide enough.. On the other hand I'm reading that the 256 and 512gb version of the 840 Evo draws almost the same amount of power...

Anyone got a 512gb SSD successfully working in a rugged enclosure?

Last edited by pizzapappa; Nov 1, 2014 at 02:05 PM. Reason: Formatting
pizzapappa is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > iMac

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
512GB SSD 840 PRO in Lacie rugged SSD R1PPER iMac 14 Jun 15, 2014 01:43 AM
Lacie Rugged Thunderbolt Bootcamp opium43 Windows, Linux & Others on the Mac 0 Apr 24, 2013 01:52 PM
Lacie Rugged VS Seagate Thunderbolt MasterLibrarian iMac 0 Feb 14, 2013 06:38 AM
Seagate Thunderbolt Adapter + Samsung 840 Pro vs. Lacie 120 GB Rugged SSD loscamos iMac 11 Jan 24, 2013 09:04 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:30 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC