Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mac mini 2010: slow Toshiba MK3255GSXF 320GB drive shown as SATA 150?

S

StardustOne

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jun 27, 2010
5
0
I got myself a Mac mini 2010 and unfortunately it came with a very slow Toshiba MK3255GSXF 320 GB HD.

Booting Windows 7 takes 1 minute and 40 seconds. CrystalDiskInfo 3.6.4 sees the drive as SATA/150. I have no idea why.

Does anyone else got the slow Toshiba MK3255GSXF 320 GB drive?
 

Attachments

  • MacMiniAlu_320GB_Thosiba.PNG
    MacMiniAlu_320GB_Thosiba.PNG
    126.1 KB · Views: 515
  • MacMini_Alu_Toshiba320GB_SATA.PNG
    MacMini_Alu_Toshiba320GB_SATA.PNG
    38.2 KB · Views: 337
  • MacMini_Alu_wei7_rating.PNG
    MacMini_Alu_wei7_rating.PNG
    100.1 KB · Views: 477
Heilage

Heilage

macrumors 68030
May 1, 2009
2,592
0
The drive might be failing. Try to run some disk checks on it, using TechTool and the like.
 
S

StardustOne

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jun 27, 2010
5
0
Wow failing? But it's brand new? Oh well, I wished they had installed the Hitachi 320 GB instead.:confused:
 
C

chrismacguy

macrumors 68000
Feb 13, 2009
1,979
2
United Kingdom
It could also be that the drive is actually a bargain-basement, SATA-150 drive, I mean I bought one of those only 2 weeks ago to put in an aging DELL, so SATA-150 drives are definitely still avaliable, and Apple may have actually used it to save money, but I would definitely check the drive out, as there is a chance it may be faulty from new (I had a brand-new WD Drive fail on me once, luckily they replaced it for free :D )
 
S

StardustOne

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jun 27, 2010
5
0
Okay, I just ran the verify while the system is running Mac OS. Everything seems to be fine.

When I checked my Mac mini aluminum Serial-ATA information I found this:

Link Speed: 3 Gigabit
Negotiated Link Speed: 1.5 Gigabit

Therefore it is true, my Mac mini is indeed using only 1.5 Gigabit for the installed Toshiba drive, well bummer. Why does Apple save a few dollars on this? This system is so overpriced and then you don't even get 3 Gigabit SATA drives, oh well. Who was responsible for this price cut, I hope it was not Steve. This does not look good.

I really hope this Toshiba drive is not the standard and I just got unlucky by having it in my Mac mini 2010. It may be related to the Nvidia chipset? If someone else who owns the Mac mini 2010 please could check?

:confused:

This is the data that I copied from the hard drive:


NVidia MCP89 AHCI:

Vendor: NVidia
Product: MCP89 AHCI
Link Speed: 3 Gigabit
Negotiated Link Speed: 1.5 Gigabit
Description: AHCI Version 1.30 Supported

TOSHIBA MK3255GSXF:

Capacity: 320.07 GB (320,072,933,376 bytes)
Model: TOSHIBA MK3255GSXF
Revision: FH415B
Serial Number: 40NCP141T
Native Command Queuing: Yes
Queue Depth: 32
Removable Media: No
Detachable Drive: No
BSD Name: disk0
Rotational Rate: 5400
Medium Type: Rotational
Bay Name: Lower
Partition Map Type: GPT (GUID Partition Table)
S.M.A.R.T. status: Verified
Volumes:
Capacity: 209.7 MB (209,715,200 bytes)
Writable: Yes
BSD Name: disk0s1
Macintosh HD:
Capacity: 190.05 GB (190,052,302,848 bytes)
Available: 178.07 GB (178,069,204,992 bytes)
Writable: Yes
File System: Journaled HFS+
BSD Name: disk0s2
Mount Point: /
BOOTCAMP:
Capacity: 129.68 GB (129,675,296,768 bytes)
Available: 109.68 GB (109,684,355,072 bytes)
Writable: No
File System: NTFS
BSD Name: disk0s3
Mount Point: /Volumes/BOOTCAMP
 
I

indg

macrumors 6502
Feb 7, 2007
459
12
i have the same drive in my mini. was a little dissapointed last week when i discovered the negotiated link was only 1.5 gbit, but for what i do on the mini, it's not that big a deal. what i'm wondering though is if they also use sata I drives in macbook pros. now that would be a REAL bummer.
 
I

indg

macrumors 6502
Feb 7, 2007
459
12
I

indg

macrumors 6502
Feb 7, 2007
459
12
flopticalcube said:
Given that SATA II 5400RPM drives max out at 70MB/s or about 0.5mbps, SATA I at 1.5mbps is more than sufficient. SATA II would bring no extra performance as the drive itself could not even saturate SATA I.
Click to expand...
i'm thoroughly confused by this statement. :confused:
 
I

indg

macrumors 6502
Feb 7, 2007
459
12
flopticalcube said:
The drive (whether SATA I or SATA II) cannot supply data faster than SATA I so it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
but the link speed is SATA II (3 Gb/s) isn't it? so it should be able to handle a SATA II hdd, right? but the mini comes with a SATA I hdd, so that's what we're mildly bellyaching about.
 
flopticalcube

flopticalcube

macrumors G4
Sep 7, 2006
10,456
186
In the velcro closure of America's Hat
indg said:
but the link speed is SATA II (3 Gb/s) isn't it? so it should be able to handle a SATA II hdd, right? but the mini comes with a SATA I hdd, so that's what we're mildly bellyaching about.
Click to expand...
Two identical cars. One has tires rated to 300MPH, the other has tires rated to 150MPH. The engine and transmission can drive the cars to 50MPH. Which one is faster?

(answer: neither)
 
DoFoT9

DoFoT9

macrumors P6
Jun 11, 2007
17,586
98
London, United Kingdom
flopticalcube said:
Two identical cars. One has tires rated to 300MPH, the other has tires rated to 150MPH. The engine and transmission can drive the cars to 50MPH. Which one is faster?

(answer: neither)
Click to expand...

aahhh love it! nicely done :D

i wonder why apple is using such bad drives.

37.2MB/s seems a bit slow for me. my 3 year old 500GB Samsung 5400rpm drive goes that fast.
 
I

indg

macrumors 6502
Feb 7, 2007
459
12
flopticalcube said:
Two identical cars. One has tires rated to 300MPH, the other has tires rated to 150MPH. The engine and transmission can drive the cars to 50MPH. Which one is faster?

(answer: neither)
Click to expand...

your car analogy went over my head. what exactly is the "engine and transmission" in the mini that is limiting the SATA?
 
I

indg

macrumors 6502
Feb 7, 2007
459
12
flopticalcube said:
No 5400RPM laptop drives can saturate even SATA I.
Click to expand...
ok i understand what you're saying now. it was your .5mbps that threw me way off course. i didn't see your correction. for some reason i started thinking that there were 5400 rpm drives that could hit 150MB/s bursts (not constant). but clearly not the toshiba one mentioned in this thread. sorry for the confusion. :apple:
 
flopticalcube

flopticalcube

macrumors G4
Sep 7, 2006
10,456
186
In the velcro closure of America's Hat
indg said:
ok i understand what you're saying now. it was your .5mbps that threw me way off course. i didn't see your correction. for some reason i started thinking that there were 5400 rpm drives that could hit 150MB/s bursts (not constant). but clearly not the toshiba one mentioned in this thread. sorry for the confusion. :apple:
Click to expand...
There may be some but most likely desktops. The Toshiba is a very pedestrian drive, no doubt, but if you are looking for performance, SSD, Hybrid or 7200 is where you need to look. Burst speed is not nearly as important as sustained transfer rates.
 
S

StardustOne

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jun 27, 2010
5
0
Whether if 150 is still enough or not, fact is that the Apple mini has SATA 300. Therefore Apple should also install SATA 300 hard drives. What they saved on this deal with Toshiba ends up in their pockets but the Mac mini 2010 is way too expensive for what it really is.

It is quite shabby that Apple decided to go with an technologically outdated drive when everyone else is talking about USB 3.0 and SATA 600. A SATA 300 drive does not cost more than a SATA 150 one. Apple does not save much and all this is just lame in my opinion. I would never had expected this and it is disappointing, even though the drive may be fast enough. It is not SATA 300 and if SATA 150 would be well enough why did the industry invent SATA 300 and SATA 600?

No one would buy a SATA 150 drive if he or she would pick it for a new system, unless the drive would be incredibly cheap and being used in an external enclosure.

Apple is earning enough already on the new Mac mini, this SATA 150 deal does not make sense. Not that I could not upgrade the drive, yet why sell new systems with old technology, no this does not compute.

I was surprised to hear that they also did this SATA 150 deal back in 2009 with their notebooks, yet this was a year ago. The Mac mini 2010 is a brand new system, therefore it should also get SATA 300 technology. I wonder if the Hitachi 320GB or the 500 GB drives are at least SATA 300. Too bad mine had the lame Toshiba 320GB one.

To compare this, my very inexpensive and really cheap Packard Bell DOT M/U (similar to the 1410 Acer) boots Windows 7 faster with a stock 320 GB Hitachi SATA 300 drive, actually 20 seconds faster (1 min 20 seconds vs the Apple mini 2010 1 min and 40 seconds). It really does make a difference. And this tiny netbook sized Packard Bell notebook does only come with a Pentium Dual Core SU4100 1.3 GHz CPU vs the Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz that Apple uses in the Mac mini 2010.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom