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

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by StardustOne, Jun 27, 2010.

  1. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    #1
    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?
     

    Attached Files:

  2. macrumors 68030

    Heilage

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    #2
    The drive might be failing. Try to run some disk checks on it, using TechTool and the like.
     
  3. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    #3
    Wow failing? But it's brand new? Oh well, I wished they had installed the Hitachi 320 GB instead.:confused:
     
  4. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2009
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #4
    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 )
     
  5. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    #5
    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
     
  6. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    #6
    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.
     
  7. macrumors 68040

    DewGuy1999

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    #7
  8. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    #8
  9. macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #9
    Given that SATA II 5400RPM drives max out at 70MB/s or about 0.5gbps, SATA I at 1.5gbps is more than sufficient. SATA II would bring no extra performance as the drive itself could not even saturate SATA I.
     
  10. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    #10
    i'm thoroughly confused by this statement. :confused:
     
  11. macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #11
    The drive (whether SATA I or SATA II) cannot supply data faster than SATA I so it doesn't matter.

    See my corrections! :O
     
  12. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    #12
    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.
     
  13. macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Cuidad de México
    #13
    5400 RPMs of love. My nearly 3 year old Western Digital drive is just as fast.
     
  14. macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #14
    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)
     
  15. macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #15
    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.
     
  16. macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #16
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
     
  17. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    #17
    your car analogy went over my head. what exactly is the "engine and transmission" in the mini that is limiting the SATA?
     
  18. macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #18
    The physical abilities of the hard drive to deliver the data. No 5400RPM laptop drives can saturate even SATA I. The interface is irrelevant after that.
     
  19. macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #19
    point and case ;)

    you dont have to understand it. the limitation is at the speed of the car, nothing else.
     
  20. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    #20
    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:
     
  21. macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #21
    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.
     
  22. macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #22
    unless you run lots of silly benchmark tests :cool:
     
  23. macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #23
    or are the marketing dept for a hard drive manufacturer....
     
  24. macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #24
    or work in retail...
     
  25. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page