Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > iMac

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jun 30, 2013, 06:05 AM   #1
snapdragonx
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
iMac internal SSD vs external Thunderbolt SSD

Hey guys,

I'm about to buy myself a 27" iMac. I need the best possible performance for video editing, so I don't want the Fusion Drive as a pure SSD is still faster. But I don't want to pay Apple's crazy prices for a 512GB SSD.

So, my question. I've heard that it's possible to hook up an external SSD via Thunderbolt and install OS X on it? Would this method be any slower than using the internal SSD? Would seek time be affected?

I need maximum performance for video editing, so don't want any bottlenecks.

Any info appreciated!
Cheers!
snapdragonx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2013, 07:17 AM   #2
mmcgann11
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: West Chester, PA
Yeah, I had the exact same concerns. But looking around, I wasn't entirely thrilled with the options, so I sucked it up and got a 768GB on my BTO (which is now in process).

Ultimately, I'll be looking for a larger TB SSD but I've seen enough concerns about some of the enclosures out there right now that I'm willing to wait for better drives to hit the market. In the meantime, I'll be looking at reworking my file management to keep my FCPX/Motion files on an external USB 3.0/TB drive, possibly set up in a RAID to avoid those bottlenecks.
__________________
"I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused."
mmcgann11 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2013, 09:37 AM   #3
Weaselboy
macrumors G5
 
Weaselboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by snapdragonx View Post
So, my question. I've heard that it's possible to hook up an external SSD via Thunderbolt and install OS X on it? Would this method be any slower than using the internal SSD? Would seek time be affected?
Here is a thread with a bunch of folks doing exactly what you described along with some speed tests.

Last edited by Weaselboy; Jun 30, 2013 at 10:56 AM. Reason: sp.
Weaselboy is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2013, 10:22 AM   #4
Chippy99
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
And to save you wading through the thead, the seek times are not affected. But that is not very important for video editing. What you need to be concerned about is the transfer rates, and these are affected, depending on the controller in whichever Thunderbolt adapter you go for. Some of them are SATA II only and becuase of that (and probably other reasons too) are not as fast as an internal SSD connected to the SATA ports directly.

That said, they can still be pretty fast and with the right controller, just as fast as internal. You need to shop around and do your homework.
Chippy99 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2013, 10:54 AM   #5
flynz4
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chippy99 View Post
And to save you wading through the thead, the seek times are not affected. But that is not very important for video editing. What you need to be concerned about is the transfer rates, and these are affected, depending on the controller in whichever Thunderbolt adapter you go for. Some of them are SATA II only and becuase of that (and probably other reasons too) are not as fast as an internal SSD connected to the SATA ports directly.

That said, they can still be pretty fast and with the right controller, just as fast as internal. You need to shop around and do your homework.
I suspect (based on MBA and Mac Pro announcements) that when the iMac is updated, the new SSDs will be PCIe attached... which also improves latency and transfer rate.

Like you, I also went with the 768GB SSD and I paired it with an external Thunderbolt HDD array (8TB Pegasus R4). I can edit videos on the 768GB SSD, and then migrate the completed projects to to the Pegasus array.

/Jim
flynz4 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2013, 11:21 AM   #6
KaraH
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: DC
I am on the fence about getting one now. The SSD has a shorter lifespan than how long I keep macs. While the ideal use case for an SSD is OS and applications I am not wild about putting those on an external device (one more thing to get unplugged at the wrong time). If the iMac was easier to open an internal SSD just MIGHT be an option.

I am thinking about waiting a generation or two for the internal ... both for prices to go down and for lifetimes to go up. Possibly an external for applications but not the OS.
__________________
through the years: Apple ][ eventually upgraded to a //e (and it never really died), Centris 660AV, PowerMac 7600, Macbook, iPod 5G, eMac, a couple of aluminium iMacs, STILL hoping for a 2013 MP
KaraH is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2013, 12:18 PM   #7
flynz4
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraH View Post
I am on the fence about getting one now. The SSD has a shorter lifespan than how long I keep macs. While the ideal use case for an SSD is OS and applications I am not wild about putting those on an external device (one more thing to get unplugged at the wrong time). If the iMac was easier to open an internal SSD just MIGHT be an option.

I am thinking about waiting a generation or two for the internal ... both for prices to go down and for lifetimes to go up. Possibly an external for applications but not the OS.
Like you, I dislike using an external drive for a boot/system device. Inadvertent removal is just too easy. Even in datacenters with trained staff and strict procedures... the wrong cable getting unplugged is one of the leading causes of failure.

However, I disagree about the lifespan of SSDs. They are certainly longer now than HDDs, and will likely last decades. Longevity is a reason to buy (not avoid) SSDs.

/Jim
flynz4 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2013, 09:33 PM   #8
snapdragonx
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Thanks for the advice all.

I'm tempted to just go for the Fusion Drive to be honest. A BTO 512GB SSD is an extra $960 here in NZ which is just crazy.

But I'm just worried that with the Fusion Drive, I'll be going backwards in performance compared to my old rMPB.
snapdragonx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2013, 04:22 PM   #9
KaraH
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by flynz4 View Post
Like you, I dislike using an external drive for a boot/system device. Inadvertent removal is just too easy. Even in datacenters with trained staff and strict procedures... the wrong cable getting unplugged is one of the leading causes of failure.
Yes, I am all too familiar with how things can go wrong in a datacenter accidentally. These are people who certainly know tech issues but accidents happen. Which is why I prefer something like a tower form factor (which apple no longer makes) as that keeps as many connections as possible away from where they can get bumped.



Quote:
Originally Posted by flynz4 View Post
However, I disagree about the lifespan of SSDs. They are certainly longer now than HDDs, and will likely last decades. Longevity is a reason to buy (not avoid) SSDs.
It seems to be a mixed bag. Some people quote under 2 years, some decades. It depends on quality and usage. Apple uses two different ones last I knew and one is better than the other. Plus there is fusion and how that uses the drive (constantly moving blocks between the SSD and the HDD can not be good for your write count). If it were not for fusion I would reformat the drive to not use 27% of the space.

An internal SSD would be nice but I am leaning to an external one for frequently used applications (possibly also the OS but keeping an internal copy too). It is a bit early in the technological cycle to have it be in what is literally a glued up box. Plus I can get a good quality one for less expense.
__________________
through the years: Apple ][ eventually upgraded to a //e (and it never really died), Centris 660AV, PowerMac 7600, Macbook, iPod 5G, eMac, a couple of aluminium iMacs, STILL hoping for a 2013 MP
KaraH is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2013, 03:07 PM   #10
Insar
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
I bought the macmail lacie little big disk sata 2 ref for $ 160 I am very pleased with my purchase. After hdd replacement on the ssd Vertex 4 128gb in RAID0 speed is very good

I also replaced the internal hdd to ssd samsung 830 256gb and SSD Apple 256gb in RAID 0 speed is excellent. The difference in the speed of work of the iMac, I have not noticed.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	2_Vertex_4_Lacie_LBD.png
Views:	267
Size:	880.9 KB
ID:	422089   Click image for larger version

Name:	iMac_2xSamsung256_RAID.png
Views:	203
Size:	878.5 KB
ID:	422092  

Last edited by Insar; Jul 8, 2013 at 10:18 PM.
Insar is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2, 2014, 12:32 PM   #11
whooleytoo
macrumors 603
 
whooleytoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cork, Ireland.
Send a message via AIM to whooleytoo
Quote:
Originally Posted by flynz4 View Post
Like you, I dislike using an external drive for a boot/system device. Inadvertent removal is just too easy. Even in datacenters with trained staff and strict procedures... the wrong cable getting unplugged is one of the leading causes of failure.

However, I disagree about the lifespan of SSDs. They are certainly longer now than HDDs, and will likely last decades. Longevity is a reason to buy (not avoid) SSDs.

/Jim
Ditto on the worries about external drive. Bought a 2013 iMac recently and though I'm happy with it the hard drive is sloooow. Definitely considering installing the OS & apps on an external TB SSD.

I'm not sure if there's a disadvantage in having the pagefile on an SSD (in terms of reducing the lifetime) - but this test is very encouraging - they stress tested several SSDs continuously for 10 months before any started failing - well beyond the manufacturers' recommended lifetime write limits.

Now it's just a matter of finding a good, fast, reliable, cheap one!
__________________
Mac <- Macintosh <- McIntosh apples <- John McIntosh <- McIntosh surname <- "Mac an toshach" <- "Son of the Chief"
whooleytoo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 3, 2014, 08:22 AM   #12
yjchua95
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Queenstown, NZ and Melbourne, VIC, Australia (current location)
Send a message via Skype™ to yjchua95
Quote:
Originally Posted by snapdragonx View Post
Hey guys,

I'm about to buy myself a 27" iMac. I need the best possible performance for video editing, so I don't want the Fusion Drive as a pure SSD is still faster. But I don't want to pay Apple's crazy prices for a 512GB SSD.

So, my question. I've heard that it's possible to hook up an external SSD via Thunderbolt and install OS X on it? Would this method be any slower than using the internal SSD? Would seek time be affected?

I need maximum performance for video editing, so don't want any bottlenecks.

Any info appreciated!
Cheers!
Only an internal SSD will give maximum performance.

A single external Thunderbolt SSD won't even give full SATA3 speeds, due to overhead.

External Samsung 840 Evo 500GB - 430MB/s read/write (mounted in a Buffalo HD-PATU3 TB enclosure)

Internal SM0512F 512GB PCIe SSD - 750 MB/s read and 720MB/s write.

In normal usage you won't notice any difference. In I/O intensive tasks like heavy video editing.

I'd suggest you to just save up for a bit longer and go for a 512GB option.
__________________
2 13" late-2013 rMBPs (base+maxed), maxed late-2013 rMBP 15", maxed early-2011 15", 2010 17", 2 maxed Haswell iMacs (21.5" and 27"), maxed 2012 mini, 2 12-core nMPs, maxed 2013 13" MBA
yjchua95 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 3, 2014, 08:41 PM   #13
SaSaSushi
macrumors 68030
 
SaSaSushi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Takamatsu, Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by yjchua95 View Post
I'd suggest you to just save up for a bit longer and go for a 512GB option.
The post you were replying to is a year old, so I have to assume he's probably made his decision by now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whooleytoo View Post
Ditto on the worries about external drive. Bought a 2013 iMac recently and though I'm happy with it the hard drive is sloooow. Definitely considering installing the OS & apps on an external TB SSD.
Even though I got my Late 2013 iMac with a 1TB Fusion Drive this is exactly what I've done, booting OS X off a 500GB Samsung 840 EVO SSD (split half and half with BootCamp) in a Delock 42490 Thunderbolt enclosure.

I couldn't be happier with it.
__________________
27" Late 2013 iMac i7 3.5GHz GTX780M 32GB/1TB Fusion
32GB iPhone 5s | 32GB iPad 3 LTE
16GB iPad 2 3G | Canon EOS 450D
SaSaSushi 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
sammy 840 pro 128gb internal ssd vs external TB ssd wkw iMac 2 Oct 14, 2013 09:15 AM
2011 imac ssd with external HDD or 2012 with internal HDD and thunderbolt ssd Black Tiger iMac 2 Jan 26, 2013 10:17 AM
2012 Mini 2.6 Internal SSD and USB3 External SSD speed test propower Mac mini 44 Jan 21, 2013 03:29 PM
Is Internal SSD Faster than an external Thunderbolt SSD? EricBrian MacBook Pro 3 Nov 20, 2012 01:04 PM
Is External Thunderbolt SSD as fast as Internal SSD? Nandifix iMac 1 Nov 19, 2012 03:09 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:36 PM.

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

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