I totally agree.
could have shown some respect and put a relatively fast SSD in the new Imac. Instead they slap on a hefty price tag on a mediocre at best SSD. 
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2011 Thunderbolt iMac SSD Discussion Thread (Parts Identified)
- Thread starter mrfoof82
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I totally agree.
could have shown some respect and put a relatively fast SSD in the new Imac. Instead they slap on a hefty price tag on a mediocre at best SSD. 
I totally agree.
Yeah.. that is how I feel myself atm. I paid 500 euros, for a average (older model?) SSD.
You will always pay a premium with Apple anyway. Also isn't most "average" SSD at 256Gb capacity around similar price. I will probably still go with the Apple one for now, saving the hassle of tearing it apart etc. At least we can fit 6Gb drives in them in the future when hopefully the price would have dropped a bit more for the apple equivalent sized SSD.
not what I want. I know the scores are great.
I want his xbench score ran on his imac for a vertex 3. he says he has a sata 3 ssd in a 2011 imac with a sata 3 connection.
ONLY one ssd score from a 2011 imac was posted it is oem it is 56 write for 4k random and 17 read for 4k random. NOT one other score inside a working 2011 was posted > So until someone posts his vertex 3 xbench score inside a 2011 imac and it kills 56/17 score for the oem ssd We have no basis of comparison.
I say this because every sata II test for sandforce ssds I have ever read is 10 to 20 percent better then the tests I did.
I did patriot inferno owc and vertex they all scored 10 to 20 percent lower then the posted scores from anandtech and tom's hardware.
My tests were done on mac minis and mac pros aja/geekbench/xbench/superduper clones. I not saying the vertex 3 is bad I am saying no one has posted an xbench score for it while it was inside an iMac.
Last edited:
I actually made a whole thread about this.
You guys aren't paying that much more for the SSD drive, Sata III or Sata II 256SSD drives are no cheaper than $400. By the time you buy the equipment you need to tear the computer apart and the risk involved with doing so, I think $500 is reasonable.
The RAM on the other hand is insanely priced.
You guys aren't paying that much more for the SSD drive, Sata III or Sata II 256SSD drives are no cheaper than $400. By the time you buy the equipment you need to tear the computer apart and the risk involved with doing so, I think $500 is reasonable.
The RAM on the other hand is insanely priced.
I am on your side in saying the oem ssd has not been proven to be a lot slower as of today then a vertex sata III ssd. I am also on your side because vertex ssd's have an admitted 2 to 3 percent failure rate and an iMac is tough to disassemble.
personally since apple has made both iMac and Macmini's very hdd upgrade resistant. I won't buy one until t-bolt comes out. Then t-bolt will have to show me it boots. If not I will keep my mac pro and sell off my apple gear and just buy pc's with windows 7. I am tired of apple making upgrade paths so ***** hard that it is not worth buying them.
No SATA 3 SSD. But the performance is good. Reliably is what I am worried about and the toshiba drives have the most agressive GC on the market today, and Apple supports TRIM to boot.
Here is my info, same as the OP's.
Below is some bench marks. Xbench disk performance. Overall Xbench performance and geekbench numbers. Which has no bearing on the SSD performance as expected.
Here is my info, same as the OP's.
Below is some bench marks. Xbench disk performance. Overall Xbench performance and geekbench numbers. Which has no bearing on the SSD performance as expected.
Attachments
thank you.
280 to 300 vs 56 for write and 24 to 27 vs 18 for read. that is vertex 3 to apple ssd.
Pretty good indication that the vertex 3 would really help on page outs. So if you do high ram work it is the drive to use. Since the 16gb ram is max unless you want to spend 2000 plus on 32gb ram. So any big time ram guy should consider using this ssd. writes are 5x faster then the oem ssd. reads are closer so a lite ram guy will not lose too much time on apps opening. So many users with the oem ssd should be okay. they can also wait for t-bolt raid for killer speed.
as for reliability that is another pair of sleeves. I would hate to rush to tear down my imac and drop a replacement in.
All the more reason for me to fence sit. I want to Know if the t-bolt cases will work as boot drives. Lion is coming and the back to school sale is coming.
How hard to install my own SSD in a Mid-2011 iMac?
I love this discussion and so glad to see people posting actual results like ChargedPC, but I'm curious just how hard it would be for me to install my own SSD like maybe the OCZ Vertex.
Other World Computing had a post that was blasting Apple for making it nearly impossible to open up a Mid-2011 iMac (I guess that's how I've seen the ThunderBolt versions referenced) without basically voiding the warranty.
Does anyone have any good tutorials/video of how to do this?
If I'm going for an SSD, I'd rather buy my own with super-high read/writes and random speeds in a SATA 3 at 6GB/sec. rather than settle for Apple's version.
I love this discussion and so glad to see people posting actual results like ChargedPC, but I'm curious just how hard it would be for me to install my own SSD like maybe the OCZ Vertex.
Other World Computing had a post that was blasting Apple for making it nearly impossible to open up a Mid-2011 iMac (I guess that's how I've seen the ThunderBolt versions referenced) without basically voiding the warranty.
Does anyone have any good tutorials/video of how to do this?
If I'm going for an SSD, I'd rather buy my own with super-high read/writes and random speeds in a SATA 3 at 6GB/sec. rather than settle for Apple's version.
Guide how you did it
Hi! Did you use a guide to install the SSD into your iMac. I'm looking for one.
Thanks!
Hi! Did you use a guide to install the SSD into your iMac. I'm looking for one.
Thanks!
This is the most compariable drive to the Apple SSD. Same size single drive.
How does this matter in real world usage. My guess is not much. But still I wish Apple would have given us a better drive than the old Toshiba.
Single Vertex 3:240GB
Sequential Write:406Mb/Sec. 4k blocks
Sequential Read:45Mb/Sec. 4k blocks
Random Write:300Mb/Sec. 4k blocks
Random Read:28Mb/Sec. 4k blocks
Toshiba(Apple SSD):250GB
Sequential Write:231Mb/Sec. 4k blocks
Sequential Read:38Mb/Sec. 4k blocks
Random Write:57Mb/Sec. 4k blocks
Random Read:19Mb/Sec. 4k blocks
How does this matter in real world usage. My guess is not much. But still I wish Apple would have given us a better drive than the old Toshiba.
Single Vertex 3:240GB
Sequential Write:406Mb/Sec. 4k blocks
Sequential Read:45Mb/Sec. 4k blocks
Random Write:300Mb/Sec. 4k blocks
Random Read:28Mb/Sec. 4k blocks
Toshiba(Apple SSD):250GB
Sequential Write:231Mb/Sec. 4k blocks
Sequential Read:38Mb/Sec. 4k blocks
Random Write:57Mb/Sec. 4k blocks
Random Read:19Mb/Sec. 4k blocks
I personally am very happy with the speed of the Apple SSD. I have a OWC Mercury Extreme 6gps 240Gb drive in my Mac Book Pro and I cannot tell the difference in every day usage between my new imac 2.8 i7 21.5. Everyone gets caught in all the hype.
300Mps vs 58Mps, would you ever use 300Mps? Really for every day tasks that you use your computer for 99 percent of the time? The percentage is for the random 4k blocks which is the most usefull function of measuring real world performance of a SSD.
I personally want a more reliable drive, and they don't get more reliable than the Toshiba drives. TRIM support doesn't hurt also.
300Mps vs 58Mps, would you ever use 300Mps? Really for every day tasks that you use your computer for 99 percent of the time? The percentage is for the random 4k blocks which is the most usefull function of measuring real world performance of a SSD.
I personally want a more reliable drive, and they don't get more reliable than the Toshiba drives. TRIM support doesn't hurt also.
Last edited:
There really should be a 3rd set of figures in here... the results for a "top-shelf" 7200rpm hard disk. Once people look at how those numbers compare to the HG3, it'll sink in that what you shouldn't be caring about is the Delta between one SSD and another SSD, but the delta between the HDD and any SSD.
Here are the figures for StorageReview's 7200rpm leader, the 2TB WD Caviar Black, which actually does ship in the 2011 iMacs (as does the current Seagate Barracuda):
Random Write: 1.568MB/Sec. 4k blocks
Random Read: 0.794MB/Sec. 4k blocks
(Storage Review does not have numbers for sequential read/write for 4KB block sizes)
------
Random I/O is what makes things feel slow, not sequential I/O. With the Caviar Black, you're still looking at an average of 6ms per I/O operation. Even value SSDs see latencies average in the 0.05 to 0.07ms range. That's a 100-fold difference.
Last edited:
Who says Toshiba is reliable
Yes and no. I mean its a valid point, do not get a traditional HDD - the performance is no longer acceptable. I can't imagine installing a traditional rotating, rusting (ha) drive into my iMac.
However - there are performance differences between SSD's and it's a shame Apple picked a slow one. For me especially because I, from time to time, do data mining, and its important to have that latency lower. If one job takes and hour on apple's ssd, and takes 45 minutes on another drive - I prefer the faster drive.
But some say, OK its slower but I want reliability.
I have seen no evidence that Toshiba is more reliable...Samsung, Micron, Intel, all talk up reliability..., and frankly I think its wishful thinking to think Apple picked the drive for reliability - they picked it for profit margins, that I think is a more reasonable assumption.
They are warrantied for 3 years - assuming you paid for the 3 year Applecare - so in my mind thats the only real argument in favor of Toshiba -n - the only drive you can get with integrated Applecare - is the stock. So if thats critical, thats your choice.
If that isn't critical and someone doesn't mind cracking open the case - you can get a faster, better, and as reliable drive for your money.
Yes and no. I mean its a valid point, do not get a traditional HDD - the performance is no longer acceptable. I can't imagine installing a traditional rotating, rusting (ha) drive into my iMac.
However - there are performance differences between SSD's and it's a shame Apple picked a slow one. For me especially because I, from time to time, do data mining, and its important to have that latency lower. If one job takes and hour on apple's ssd, and takes 45 minutes on another drive - I prefer the faster drive.
But some say, OK its slower but I want reliability.
I have seen no evidence that Toshiba is more reliable...Samsung, Micron, Intel, all talk up reliability..., and frankly I think its wishful thinking to think Apple picked the drive for reliability - they picked it for profit margins, that I think is a more reasonable assumption.
They are warrantied for 3 years - assuming you paid for the 3 year Applecare - so in my mind thats the only real argument in favor of Toshiba -n - the only drive you can get with integrated Applecare - is the stock. So if thats critical, thats your choice.
If that isn't critical and someone doesn't mind cracking open the case - you can get a faster, better, and as reliable drive for your money.
They picked it for it's agressive GC. A more agressive GC will provide you with more predictable realworld usage and a more reliable drive. Toshiba created flash storage. I think they know a thing or two about how to build one.
Just because a drive is faster doesn't mean it's better.
Apple does customize the firmware on its SSDs
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3991/apples-2010-macbook-air-11-13inch-reviewed/4
It appears from my tests the random write is 57Mb\Sec compared to the Mac Book airs 4.9Mb\Sec. It appears that Apple custom firmware with Toshiba's controller has been upgraded and is giving much better speeds, over ten fold random write speeds.
Now take that agressive GC and add trim support and then you have the most reliable SSD that can be possibly be put in a Mac.
You will not have that benefit on a third party SSD. So yes they picked Toshiba because they can customize the firmware to work more closely with the SSD controller and tightly integrate TRIM support.
I will take a few seconds more with a few tasks with the Apple SSD to have this reliability over a Vertex 3 any day of the week.
First off, the Toshiba SSD is hardly"slow' even for a SSD. Apple picked it for the reliability not speed. The speed is there. How reliable a SSD is plays into profit margins, and more importantly their product. Apple cares about profit margins, but they care about their product more, or there would be no profit margins to speak of.
You cannot have one without the other they go hand in hand.
I don't know what you are doing with your SSD, but between the vertex 3 and Apple SSD real world performance is not that great. You are looking at tests which are just that tests.
A whole system plays a part in how fast files transfer. Not just the HD. I have a OWC like I said in my mac book pro and it is a 6Gps drive. I transferred a 120GB photo folder onto a portable SSD. And from the portable SSD to my new 21.5 imac with Apple SSD.
The transfer was so fast I could not tell the difference. I don't think you will see a discrepancy between the two drives of over 15 min in any scenario one might come across in every day use not unless they are transferring 1tb drives. Even then probably not.
If you are transferring between a HD and a SSD the bottleneck would be the HD not the SSD, again no difference between a Apple SSD or the 6gps drive since the data would saturate the bus too quickly. Again, marketing hype comes into play here.
Last edited:
I personally am very happy with the performance of my mac, it currently is the fastest imac in existence to ever come out of a Apple factory. Until the 3.4's SSD's ship that is.
And then it will be a close second.
I just wish they went with a newer drive, even a newer Toshiba drive, as they now have in testing a 6gps drive with SATA 3.
I totally agree.
No wonder Apple doesn't release any info on the components. Apple is charging top dollar for Old model SSD . Makes no sense. Charge the customer the price but give us the latest tech components. Seems like this refresh was only about the Thunderbolt port and they threw in a better CPU & GPU to justify it. I'm disappointed. Thinking of cancelling.
MBA has less channels in use. Anand tested the 64GB SSD which has only four NANDs in it, while most 2.5" SSDs have 16 NANDs. More channels help, especially with writes.
So that means it's the same drive, no change. Thanks Apple.
Still happy with it but they could have gave us a little more than a year old drive.