2011 Thunderbolt iMac SSD Discussion Thread (Parts Identified)

Discussion in 'iMac' started by mrfoof82, May 26, 2011.

  1. mrfoof82, May 26, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2011

    mrfoof82 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Location:
    Lawton, OK
    #1
    I'm creating this thread to better cater to discussions about the actual SSD hardware shipping in the new 2011 Thunderbolt iMacs, rather than have it drown out other signals in the Shipment Tracker.

    supersid received his 21.5" SSD-equipped iMac this morning, and is the first known person to do so. (original post) He ordered on May 3rd, it shipped May 23rd and was delivered the morning of May 26th. odolphie recieved his 27.0" SSD-equipped iMac on June 13th, and is the first known person to do so (original post)

    System Profiler for 21.5" Thunderbolt iMac with 256GB SSD:
    [​IMG]

    System Profiler for 27.0" Thunderbolt iMac with 256GB SSD:
    [​IMG]

    System Profiler information will be posted as we get information regarding the 27" models, or if we find different parts as other new iMacs show up.
     
  2. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #2
    Same as in 2011 MBPs. Most likely Toshiba HG3

    220MB/s read
    180MB/s write
     
  3. mrfoof82 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Location:
    Lawton, OK
    #3
    It's certainly a Toshiba (TS). However whether it's a 2.5" form factor or even the HG3 is questionable. That same part and revision number is also applicable to MacBook Airs.

    Regardless, these aren't new parts. It really makes me wonder what caused the 21.5" SSD iMacs to ship after 20 days, and why the 27.0" models still aren't shipping.
     
  4. Codpeace macrumors member

    Codpeace

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    #4
    Hey foof,

    Minor suggestion: change the thread title to "2011 iMac Thunderbolt..." i.e. switch the order of the words. This looked like a thread discussing Thunderbolt, as opposed to iMac, when I first saw it. Might throw a few folks off whom we would VERY much like posting here.

    Cheers.
     
  5. Yorr macrumors member

    Yorr

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Location:
    Holland
    #5
  6. mrfoof82, May 26, 2011
    Last edited: May 26, 2011

    mrfoof82 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Location:
    Lawton, OK
    #6
    The point of SSDs is NOT sequential transfer rate. Sequential transfer rate is not what makes an SSD seem fast.

    What makes SSDs fast is seek latency. That's it. It's being able to randomly perform 20,000 - 50,000 read or write operations in a second instead of 200-300 (a hard disk).

    -----

    Sequential transfer rate only matters if you are moving large files around. This is not what your computer is doing 99.99% of the time. It's reading or writing tiny bits of information from all over the place. Configuration files. Caches. Memory paged to disk. Tiny bits of user data. This stuff is all over your storage device from a geographical standpoint.

    So hard disks get bottlenecked due to the fact that they function similarly (this is incredibly dumbed down) to a record player -- you have an arm, with a head on it, that needs to read from sectors in specific tracks on a platter. The sector went by before the arm got to it? The drive has to wait for the platter to do another revolution. Etc. Etc. SSD's don't have to deal with this sort of physical design issue. They work similarly to other forms of DRAM where they send a charge to a specific row/cell on a grid. Their latency is mostly an issue of how fast these signals can be sent and processed. In terms of general IO operations per second, SSDs are about 100 times faster that hard disks.

    Again, dumbed down, but for a reason (so everyone "gets the gist of it").
     
  7. nyukfui macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2011
    Location:
    Singapore
    #7
  8. Yorr macrumors member

    Yorr

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Location:
    Holland
    #8
    That is a biggg difference. But, if u compare this with the new SSD's that are for sale these days.. is this average?
     
  9. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #9
    The SSD in MBAs uses the same controller as Toshiba HG2 series (review). HG3 simply moved from 43nm NANDs to 32nm NANDs, the controller is the same. That would also explain the TS256C as the HG2 was reported as TS256B in System Profiler.

    In everyday usage, you won't notice the difference unless you do something that requires constant disk access. 500€ for 256GB SSD isn't that bad deal but then again, it's a new question whether you nee 256GB or not.

    Personally, I would get a Thunderbolt SSD later on. Computex is starting in matter of days and we will most likely see release of several TB devices, or at least additional information.
     
  10. Yorr macrumors member

    Yorr

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Location:
    Holland
    #10
    For me it doesn't matter anymore because i already purchased a iMac with SSD+HDD combo.

    But, i just hoped the SSD in the new iMac was one of the latest generation (probably explains the delay?) Ah.. i will be happy anyways. ;)
     
  11. peregrines macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    #11
    Now, I am really happy about all the effort I put into adding a Vertex3 to my iMac!! To my opinion Apple should really have added SATA3 SSD`s to the new iMac. The speed difference is huge to my opinion.
     
  12. Yorr, May 26, 2011
    Last edited: May 26, 2011

    Yorr macrumors member

    Yorr

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Location:
    Holland
    #12
    What cost a Vertex3 256GB?

    [edit]

    nm, almost the same as the Apple SSD. Only 2x faster :p
     
  13. qap macrumors 6502

    qap

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Location:
    Udine, Italy
    #13
    Wait a bit… is this (screenshot from) a HDD+SSD iMac or only SSD iMac?
     
  14. mrfoof82 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Location:
    Lawton, OK
    #14
    Combo. 1TB drive with 256GB SSD. Original post is linked from my original post at the top of this thread.
     
  15. qap macrumors 6502

    qap

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Location:
    Udine, Italy
    #15
    Thanks (i'm sorry, i've not clicked the link) , in your opinion is there a chance to see a different SSD in the iMac with only the SSD? :confused: :eek:
     
  16. rcook macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    #16
    Since this is a combo setup, I am curious how Apple chose to partition the two drives. Everything on the SSD, HDD empty? OS on the SSD, home directory on the HDD?
     
  17. Sylonien macrumors regular

    Sylonien

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    #17
    What if I edit a lot of HD movies from DSLR? Will this Apple SSD be a big difference compared to the Vertex 3 say.

    By the way does this iMac support 6Gb drives then even though this is 3Gb SSD?
     
  18. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #18
    In that case the difference should be more noticeable. Vertex 3 has insane random speeds too, which are the whole point of an SSD.

    Yes. The interface is SATA 6Gb/s but Apple has decided to stick with SATA 3Gb/s drives. Possibly because Toshiba does not offer SATA 6Gb/s SSDs.
     
  19. bpeeps macrumors 68020

    bpeeps

    Joined:
    May 6, 2011
    #19
    I second the title being slightly confusing, thought this was about TB.
     
  20. macrumors12345 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    #20
    I'm more concerned about reliability than raw sequential read/write performance (which is not that important anyway). I've already had an OCZ Vertex series die on me (put one in a Mac Mini). I'm definitely going to get Applecare...SSD + spinning drive means two points of failure, and SSDs are notoriously unreliable...
     
  21. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #21
    would you run an xbench for us and post it. I would like to see the random 4k write/read numbers.


    the fact that it is fast sequentially only helps if you are fully cloning it, and or copying large files from it. Now the three xbench scores in this thread

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1159273

    all random 4k write read scores

    show 56 /17 for the new oem ssd
    113 /11 for an owc ssd
    1.3/.8 for a stock seagate 1tb


    I would love to see what the vertex 3 does. compared to the above scores
     
  22. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #22
  23. Domino8282 macrumors 6502a

    Domino8282

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Location:
    Southeast USA
    #23
    Please excuse the noobish question, but is there even a remote possibility that it is, in fact, an SATA-3 drive that for some reason is only operating at SATA-2 speeds due to software/firmware? In other words, is it within the realm of possibility that it is actually SATA-3 and Apple just needs to release a software update for it to function at its full speed?

    Maybe wishful thinking...
     
  24. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #24
    The drive is clearly made by Toshiba and they don't make SATA 6Gb/s SSDs (yet). It will be SATA 3Gb/s for good, no software can change it.
     
  25. Yorr macrumors member

    Yorr

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Location:
    Holland
    #25
    Can we say that this is a bit ... sad news?
     

Share This Page