Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Either one should be fine, and they both come with the expensive cable.

I think I probably have the older one with the silver rim, but also have one of the newer TB GoFlex sleds as on the newer kit. Both seem to have the same speed test results.

OK bit the bullet and ordered the second one. I hope I can open it without destroying it :-(
 
OK bit the bullet and ordered the second one. I hope I can open it without destroying it :-(

Somewhere on one of these threads, someone linked to a YouTube video showing how to open the GoFlex enclosure. You can probably search and find it over on YouTube.

Just be careful and go slow with a plastic pry-tool so you don't garf up the edges. I think I broke a couple of the snaps opening mine, but it still had plenty for it to snap back together solidly.

Good luck ... and report back on your experiences ... :)
 
Somewhere on one of these threads, someone linked to a YouTube video showing how to open the GoFlex enclosure. You can probably search and find it over on YouTube.

Just be careful and go slow with a plastic pry-tool so you don't garf up the edges. I think I broke a couple of the snaps opening mine, but it still had plenty for it to snap back together solidly.

Good luck ... and report back on your experiences ... :)

Will do, wish me luck, and thanks for all the tips :)
 
USB-3 requires considerably more CPU overhead than Thunderbolt.

You can just plug your SSD onto the GoFlex bare if you don't want an enclosure, but snapping open a disk enclosure is pretty simple, or buy a new GoFlex enclosure on eBay.

You say you want to use this on the road with a Macbook Air ... using a powered drive is not only inconvenient and non-portable, but the cables and wall-wart power supply are bigger than the drive.

My Test Results:
All speeds using Crucial M4 512GB and BlackMagicDesign "Disk Speed Test"

Wr / Rd MB/s
260 / 382 ...... Seagate GoFlex Thunderbolt (single drive)
199 / 250 ...... LaCie Little Big Disk Thunderbolt (single drive)
370 / 481 ...... LaCie Little Big Disk Thunderbolt (dual drive in RAID-0)

197 / 201 ...... LaCie Little Big Disk (as received with 2Tb hard disk RAID-0)

167 / 194 ...... Seagate USB-3 GoFlex (single drive)



-howard

USB3 doesn't require *considerably* more CPU-overhead. It requires more overhead, yes, but not THAT much. You're only affected by it if you do high-CPU work while booting off of USB3.

That Seagate TB has 100mb LESS(!!) in both read and write than the Thermaltake Silver River/Firmtek miniSwap USB3. I don't understand why people praise that Seagate adapter so much, it honestly seem to suck.
 
USB3 doesn't require *considerably* more CPU-overhead. It requires more overhead, yes, but not THAT much. You're only affected by it if you do high-CPU work while booting off of USB3.

That Seagate TB has 100mb LESS(!!) in both read and write than the Thermaltake Silver River/Firmtek miniSwap USB3. I don't understand why people praise that Seagate adapter so much, it honestly seem to suck.

High CPU like video editing, video converting, music mixing, backing up while trying to access another part of the drive. Gosh why would anyone ever want to do any of that with their large external SSD drive?

It's like saying "A sports car only consumes a lot of gas if you drive it fast" lol
 
High CPU like video editing, video converting, music mixing, backing up while trying to access another part of the drive. Gosh why would anyone ever want to do any of that with their large external SSD drive?

It's like saying "A sports car only consumes a lot of gas if you drive it fast" lol

Not really a good comparison since you can use a large SSD for tasks that aren't CPU-intensive. I need an external boot-drive that is fast because I want everything to open fast(and I don't want to risk opening the iMac). But I don't do professional video-editing anywhere NEAR the amount of CPU-load that is required to actually trigger a drive-error. Backing up while trying to access another part of the drive is not near the amount of CPU-load required either.

Again, the Seagate adaptor is really slow for TB. Maybe it's safer for those who are pushing their CPU's but for regular people who need a fast external SSD, it's really slow.
 
Not really a good comparison since you can use a large SSD for tasks that aren't CPU-intensive. I need an external boot-drive that is fast because I want everything to open fast(and I don't want to risk opening the iMac). But I don't do professional video-editing anywhere NEAR the amount of CPU-load that is required to actually trigger a drive-error. Backing up while trying to access another part of the drive is not near the amount of CPU-load required either.

Again, the Seagate adaptor is really slow for TB. Maybe it's safer for those who are pushing their CPU's but for regular people who need a fast external SSD, it's really slow.

Clearly based on several aspects of your response you have no clue what you're talking about.
 
Clearly based on several aspects of your response you have no clue what you're talking about.

So enlighten me then instead of posting a completely irrelevant reply that contributed nothing to the conversation.

What I said was that TB might be good for those who does CPU-intensive tasks. I don't. What I also said was that the Seagate is slower than some of the USB3 enclosures, such as the Thermaltake and the Firmtek. What exactly of that was incorrect?
 

So you don't think that more than 1/10th of your CPU is dedicated to running a single peripheral? Wow.

----------

the Seagate adaptor is really slow for TB. Maybe it's safer for those who are pushing their CPU's but for regular people who need a fast external SSD, it's really slow.

I would love you to cite your source on this statement. It's been proven by the numerous read\write tests here that it's absolutely fast, in most cases faster than usb 3.0.... not sure where you come up with USB being better than Thunderbolt for external SSD. Clearly you have USB 3.0 and you're defending your setup, because you wouldn't say that otherwise. And to say "the seagate adaptor is slow" is just absurd, it's quite fast compared to anything.
 
To put the "high power" issue with bus-powered SSDs to rest:

According to Samsung, the 512GB 840 Pro uses 0.15W of power.
The HGST Travelstar 2.5" 1TB hard disk uses 1.8W avg (4.5W start up)

Power
Power Consumption (W) .15W
Voltage 5V ± 5%

http://www.samsung.com/us/computer/memory-storage/MZ-7PD512BW-specs

Crucial M4 512GB SSDs are also rated at 0.28W - Active, and <0.1W Idle.
http://www.crucial.com/pdf/Tech_specs-letter_Crucial_m4_ssd_v9-22-11_online.pdf


Power capabilities versus other interfaces

Thunderbolt was clearly intended as, and functions as, a unifying interface for mobile, laptop and desktop devices to prevent more proliferation of cables and connectors for displays and storage. Its power characteristics reflect this. The power, at 10 Watts, improves on USB 3.0's 4.5 watts, but is not beyond the ability of a laptop or tablet to power.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)#Power_capabilities_versus_other_interfaces

-howard
 
Last edited:
To put the "high power" issue with bus-powered SSDs to rest:

According to Samsung, the 512GB 840 Pro uses 0.15W of power.
The HGST 1TB hard disk uses 1.8W avg (4.5W start up)

Power
Power Consumption (W) .15W
Voltage 5V ± 5%

http://www.samsung.com/us/computer/memory-storage/MZ-7PD512BW-specs

Crucial M4 512GB SSDs are also rated at 0.28W - Active, and <0.1W Idle.
http://www.crucial.com/pdf/Tech_specs-letter_Crucial_m4_ssd_v9-22-11_online.pdf

-howard

HEHE, yeah, whenever I hear my external 4TB USB 3.0 HDD kick on, I know that it's using FAR MORE power than my 512GB SSD, so my guess is that naysayer talking about how slow TB is, likely has some old spinning 5400 rpm WD mybook attached lol
 
In one of my tests, I used the same SSD on 4 different interface/enclosures:

Using Crucial M4 512GB SSD and BlackMagicDesign "DiskSpeedTest"

Wr / Rd (MB/s)...... notes

167 / 194 ...... USB-3 Seagate GoFlex
230 / 275 ...... USB-3 Oyen Minipro SuperSpeed enclosure

260 / 382 ...... Thunderbolt Seagate GoFlex
199 / 250 ...... Thunderbolt LaCie "Little Big Disk" (single drive) (AC powered)
375 / 482 ...... Thunderbolt LaCie "Little Big Disk" (RAID-0 dual drive) (AC powered)

-howard
 
In one of my tests, I used the same SSD on 4 different interface/enclosures:

Using Crucial M4 512GB SSD and BlackMagicDesign "DiskSpeedTest"

Wr / Rd (MB/s)...... notes

167 / 194 ...... USB-3 Seagate GoFlex
230 / 275 ...... USB-3 Oyen Minipro SuperSpeed enclosure

260 / 382 ...... Thunderbolt Seagate GoFlex
199 / 250 ...... Thunderbolt LaCie "Little Big Disk" (single drive)
375 / 482 ...... Thunderbolt LaCie "Little Big Disk" (RAID-0 dual drive)

-howard

Yeah, you posted it earlier, and these are mirrored by almost every test out there... but he's convinced that "Seagate is slow" ... so clearly he knows something we don't, ahahahaha.
 
To put the "high power" issue with bus-powered SSDs to rest:

According to Samsung, the 512GB 840 Pro uses 0.15W of power.
The HGST Travelstar 2.5" 1TB hard disk uses 1.8W avg (4.5W start up)

Power
Power Consumption (W) .15W
Voltage 5V ± 5%

http://www.samsung.com/us/computer/memory-storage/MZ-7PD512BW-specs

Crucial M4 512GB SSDs are also rated at 0.28W - Active, and <0.1W Idle.
http://www.crucial.com/pdf/Tech_specs-letter_Crucial_m4_ssd_v9-22-11_online.pdf


Power capabilities versus other interfaces

Thunderbolt was clearly intended as, and functions as, a unifying interface for mobile, laptop and desktop devices to prevent more proliferation of cables and connectors for displays and storage. Its power characteristics reflect this. The power, at 10 Watts, improves on USB 3.0's 4.5 watts, but is not beyond the ability of a laptop or tablet to power.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)#Power_capabilities_versus_other_interfaces

-howard

hfg, I think the power issue is a bit more complex then that. The manufacturer specs are highly idealized, not sure exactly how they came up with such a small number.

Here is some data found in a review of the 840 pro:
samsung_ssd_840_pro_512gb_power_values.png


As you can see, during a heavy write workload it is quite possible to exceed or near 4W. Some SSDs are better, some are worse, and I think the Samsungs are on the better end of that scale, especially the 840Pro 512GB.

As far as thunderbolt power. I've been searching for exactly where in the standard it has a minimum power. The supply voltage that Thunderbolt provides can be spec'd as anywhere between 3.3V and 18V. It's really "up to 18V" and "up to 550mA" which makes it "up to 10W"? Can the Thunderbolt device specify the voltage and current it requires? And is the host obligated to provide it?

It is quite possible that some of these Thunderbolt HDD solutions request less than 10W, and/or can't dc-dc convert from 18V down to 5V. A quick calculation, if the device requests 5V (not having a dc/dc converter) and the Thunderbolt can only supply up to 550mA, that's 2.75W of available power.

Just a couple thoughts on the topic,
Mark.
 
hfg, I think the power issue is a bit more complex then that. The manufacturer specs are highly idealized, not sure exactly how they came up with such a small number.

Here is some data found in a review of the 840 pro:
Image

As you can see, during a heavy write workload it is quite possible to exceed or near 4W. Some SSDs are better, some are worse, and I think the Samsungs are on the better end of that scale, especially the 840Pro 512GB.

As far as thunderbolt power. I've been searching for exactly where in the standard it has a minimum power. The supply voltage that Thunderbolt provides can be spec'd as anywhere between 3.3V and 18V. It's really "up to 18V" and "up to 550mA" which makes it "up to 10W"? Can the Thunderbolt device specify the voltage and current it requires? And is the host obligated to provide it?

It is quite possible that some of these Thunderbolt HDD solutions request less than 10W, and/or can't dc-dc convert from 18V down to 5V. A quick calculation, if the device requests 5V (not having a dc/dc converter) and the Thunderbolt can only supply up to 550mA, that's 2.75W of available power.

Just a couple thoughts on the topic,
Mark.

Mark,

Thanks for the great info! This might help to explain why some SSD drives have intermittent drops (i.e. go offline) with some bus powered TB adapters.
 
hfg, I think the power issue is a bit more complex then that. The manufacturer specs are highly idealized, not sure exactly how they came up with such a small number.

Here is some data found in a review of the 840 pro:
Image

As you can see, during a heavy write workload it is quite possible to exceed or near 4W. Some SSDs are better, some are worse, and I think the Samsungs are on the better end of that scale, especially the 840Pro 512GB.

As far as thunderbolt power. I've been searching for exactly where in the standard it has a minimum power. The supply voltage that Thunderbolt provides can be spec'd as anywhere between 3.3V and 18V. It's really "up to 18V" and "up to 550mA" which makes it "up to 10W"? Can the Thunderbolt device specify the voltage and current it requires? And is the host obligated to provide it?

It is quite possible that some of these Thunderbolt HDD solutions request less than 10W, and/or can't dc-dc convert from 18V down to 5V. A quick calculation, if the device requests 5V (not having a dc/dc converter) and the Thunderbolt can only supply up to 550mA, that's 2.75W of available power.

Just a couple thoughts on the topic,
Mark.

Hi Mark,
Thanks for that info, I will try to locate the full article as I am interested in that. :)

As you say, the "up to xxxx" specifications is sufficiently ambiguous it is difficult to know exactly what will work without actually trying it, even to the point of what the host computer is capable of supplying for power. Very difficult to locate specs (as a consumer) on these types of parameters. I do my testing on a 2012 iMac and late 2011 MacBook Pro.

I do know that I am having no problem with a Crucial M4 512GB on the GoFlex TB interface. The interface does run barely warm, and the SSD even less so, so I don't think it is running anywhere near maximum limits, unlike some reports here of the smaller enclosures that have been adapted.

Thanks,
-howard
 
Hi Mark,
Thanks for that info, I will try to locate the full article as I am interested in that. :)

As you say, the "up to xxxx" specifications is sufficiently ambiguous it is difficult to know exactly what will work without actually trying it, even to the point of what the host computer is capable of supplying for power. Very difficult to locate specs (as a consumer) on these types of parameters.

I do know that I am having no problem with a Crucial M4 512GB on the GoFlex TB interface. The interface does run barely warm, and the SSD even less so, so I don't think it is running anywhere near maximum limits, unlike some reports here of the smaller enclosures that have been adapted.

Thanks,
-howard

I have the Crucial M4 512gb and I just got my iMac 2012 27 delivered an hour ago. I fully plan on putting the M4 into the seagate goflex when ups brings it and making it work HARD, and reporting back hehe
 
I have the Crucial M4 512gb and I just got my iMac 2012 27 delivered an hour ago. I fully plan on putting the M4 into the seagate goflex when ups brings it and making it work HARD, and reporting back hehe

Enjoy your new iMac! :) :cool:

Let us know how it all works out for you.


-howard
 
Enjoy your new iMac! :) :cool:

Let us know how it all works out for you.


-howard

Thus far the fusion drive seems to be rediculously fast, almost as fast as when I had straight SSD in my old mac.... all I care about is boot time and safari\common app load time, so I may just keep the fusion as my boot drive and sell or use the SSD as portable drive.
 
Hi Mark,
Thanks for that info, I will try to locate the full article as I am interested in that. :)

Here is a link to the review for those interested:
http://www.storagereview.com/samsung_ssd_840_pro_review

It's a fairly deep review at that. I have a LaCie Rugged SSD with the Crucial M4 - 256GB SSD inside arriving today to play with and at some point I will replace it with a Pegasus J4 and the Samsung 840Pro like yours, which I think is an excellent setup. :)
 
So you don't think that more than 1/10th of your CPU is dedicated to running a single peripheral? Wow.

----------



I would love you to cite your source on this statement. It's been proven by the numerous read\write tests here that it's absolutely fast, in most cases faster than usb 3.0.... not sure where you come up with USB being better than Thunderbolt for external SSD. Clearly you have USB 3.0 and you're defending your setup, because you wouldn't say that otherwise. And to say "the seagate adaptor is slow" is just absurd, it's quite fast compared to anything.

I never said Thunderbolt is slow. I said that the Seagate TB is slow from all speedtests I've seen on Macrumors. According to the speed that other dude wrote here in this thread, he got read/write of 260/386 or something like that. The Firmtek USB3 achieves speeds of 500~ which is far faster than the Seagate.

And no, I don't have a USB3 setup that I'm trying to "defend". You're quite prejudiced, do you know that?

And no, I'm not a CPU power user, I can gladly give up 1/10th of my CPU power, I'm not using it anyway. But this varies from person to person.

As said, TB is faster in most cases, except the Seagate. TB is also more CPU friendly. But the good enclosures still costs way too much so I'll gladly sacrifice some of my CPU to save some money. Besides, I can always get a TB enclosure later if I need the CPU power that USB3 takes away XD
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I never said Thunderbolt is slow. I said that the Seagate TB is slow from all speedtests I've seen on Macrumors. According to the speed that other dude wrote here in this thread, he got read/write of 260/386 or something like that. The Firmtek USB3 achieves speeds of 500~ which is far faster than the Seagate.

And no, I don't have a USB3 setup that I'm trying to "defend". You're quite prejudiced, do you know that?

And no, I'm not a CPU power user, I can gladly give up 1/10th of my CPU power, I'm not using it anyway. But this varies from person to person.

As said, TB is faster in most cases, except the Seagate. TB is also more CPU friendly. But the good enclosures still costs way too much so I'll gladly sacrifice some of my CPU to save some money. Besides, I can always get a TB enclosure later if I need the CPU power that USB3 takes away XD

You completely contradict yourself. First you say you didn't say TB is slow. The seagate is TB, and what we're talking about here. Then you say you haven't seen tests showing the seagate is not slow, yet if you scroll up there are TONS.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You completely contradict yourself. First you say you didn't say TB is slow. The seagate is TB, and what we're talking about here. Then you say you haven't seen tests showing the seagate is not slow, yet if you scroll up there are TONS. Then you call me names and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm done even wasting time responding to you.

Thunderbolt is a technology, that doesn't mean that every enclosure that implements it will use its full potential. Thunderbolt as a technology has potential to be very fast since it got more bandwidth. Obviously Seagate did a bad job or the people who posted the speedtests used a slower SSD.

And can you read? I posted that in all speedtests I've seen of the Seagate TB, it has been slower than some USB3 enclosures. This means that I HAVE seen tests of it.

But just compare it yourself if you don't believe me. Check out Firmtek USB3 vs Seagate TB. Or perhaps you're the one trying to defend your TB setup...
 
Thunderbolt is a technology, that doesn't mean that every enclosure that implements it will use its full potential. Thunderbolt as a technology has potential to be very fast since it got more bandwidth. Obviously Seagate did a bad job or the people who posted the speedtests used a slower SSD.

And can you read? I posted that in all speedtests I've seen of the Seagate TB, it has been slower than some USB3 enclosures. This means that I HAVE seen tests of it.

But just compare it yourself if you don't believe me. Check out Firmtek USB3 vs Seagate TB. Or perhaps you're the one trying to defend your TB setup...

I don't have a TB setup. Maybe it's you that's the issue not the ones who provided the test results in this forum. Likely.

Anyhow, Thanks to those who actually provided test results showing the Seagate is in fact, NOT slow, but quite fast. Tanax can watch jesus on his toast .
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.