Early Thunderbolt vs FireWire RAID Benchmarks

[Prodo123]

WHAATTT !! It was just rounded to nearest number, dude .. you correct things which actually have insignificant difference. Oh, please

iPhone memory bandwith is actually 179.98MB/s - 281.36MB/s .. how about that?? You're TOTALLY INCORRECT with your statement

Actually he said MegaBITS per second, not MegaBYTES per second. BIG, BIG difference. MB/s is 8 times FASTER than Mbps. 200MB/s = 1,600Mbps, which is extremely faster than 200Mbps.
Also, I'm theoretically speaking there. Since an average internal SSD is 300-400MB/s (not Mbps) on random reads, I'm assuming a miniaturized version of that will be slower. Because of the USB 2.0 bottleneck of 60MB/s (480Mbps), you can't measure the speed of the storage chips inside an iPhone, so all you can do is guess.

How is it compared to single SSD over Thunderbolt. Yes they may not be released to the market yet.

But which would you choose?

Pegasus R4 4TB Thunderbolt vs. 512 GB Whatever SSD 6G??

Considering they both priced around $1000, do you think Pegasus is much much better bargain (it has 8x more capacity)? Or SSD still would be faster?

Transfer rate seems to be equal on both .. although I admit the price is crazy for 4TB HDD .. but for this, we pay $250 for HDD .. and $750 for TB port and RAID

The main disadvantage of HDDs are that they are extremely prone to physical shock. Since the Pegasus rigs are stationary, this is eliminated. Therefore, since the prices and transfer rates are roughly similar, the only factor left is capacity and portability. For me, portability is not a big deal so Pegasus seems like a much better buy.

 

[mazz0]

I think Apple is focused on iOS devices generally. I expect them to release Thunderbolt starting with MacPro, PowerBook, and iMac, but I also expect to see it in a couple of years as attachable to an iPad or iPhone. I guess my words will be tested.

Rocketman

Butbutbut, why would you bother syncing over a cable even if it is much faster than over wifi? The wifi sync can happen overnight when the iPhone is sat it it's dock charging on the bedside table, you never need to go near your Mac.

 

[Rocketman]

Butbutbut, why would you bother syncing over a cable even if it is much faster than over wifi? The wifi sync can happen overnight when the iPhone is sat it it's dock charging on the bedside table, you never need to go near your Mac.

Easy. When it is docked or tethered one can do multiple displays, full HD displays or future 3D or 4K displays.

If I am wrong I expect to see MIMO 11.n. But based on my predictions since 2001 I am probably not wrong. I expect both.

Rocketman

 

[iSayuSay]

Actually he said MegaBITS per second, not MegaBYTES per second. BIG, BIG difference. MB/s is 8 times FASTER than Mbps. 200MB/s = 1,600Mbps, which is extremely faster than 200Mbps.
Also, I'm theoretically speaking there. Since an average internal SSD is 300-400MB/s (not Mbps) on random reads, I'm assuming a miniaturized version of that will be slower. Because of the USB 2.0 bottleneck of 60MB/s (480Mbps), you can't measure the speed of the storage chips inside an iPhone, so all you can do is guess.
.

I think he understand about the difference between bit and byte .. He wrote USB2.0 sync on iPhone limited to around 28mbps, while with Thunderbolt we may get maximum potential ranging on 200 - 300 mbps. From technical standpoint, he didn't misunderstood

Yeah small b means "bit" .. but it's just typos .. he wrote with small m .. and I don't think he means "milli or micron" by it. You didn't misunderstood about that "m" too, yeah?

But whatever .. thanks for answer my earlier question anyway, dude

 

[Prodo123]

I think he understand about the difference between bit and byte .. He wrote USB2.0 sync on iPhone limited to around 28mbps, while with Thunderbolt we may get maximum potential ranging on 200 - 300 mbps. From technical standpoint, he didn't misunderstood

Yeah small b means "bit" .. but it's just typos .. he wrote with small m .. and I don't think he means "milli or micron" by it.

But whatever .. thanks for answer my question anyway, dude

He wrote Mbps, not MB/s. USB gets average 30-50MB/s (240-400Mbps), while Thunderbolt is shown to average around 600-700MB/s (4,800-5,600Mbps). NOT 200-300Mbps OR 200-300MB/s. There is a distinction, albeit I admit it's a confusing one.
But again, I'm saying that the hardware won't be the big issue. I'm saying the software will. What good is an extremely fast SSD if it has crap drivers, or if there's tons of crapware running in the background?

 

[Alrescha]

In fact, it's only been in the last year that Firewire external drives have become mainstream and affordable

This is a ridiculous statement. I have ten year old Firewire drives (iomega, and others) which were in brick and mortar stores, side by side on the shelf with USB drives, and didn't cost much (if any) more than the USB ones.

A.

 

[SomeWhores]

// omitted because I'm ignoring part of your original post //

I predict the same fate for thunderbolt as Firewire. It will be a premium product designed for high end users with deep pockets, and the rest of us.. will be left in the cold by Apple as they refuse to add USB 3.0 to their Macbook Pros.... Thanks Apple. [emphasis added by me]

// omitting end as well //

How many times must it be said. Apple SUPPORTS USB 3.0 You can use it. Seriously, try it. I'll link you to videos of it being used on a Mac if you really want. INTEL is to blame for Apple Products not having native USB 3.0 support because INTEL doesn't support it natively in the Sandy Bridge Chip Set. Everyone else that has USB 3.0 compatibility and is running an Intel based processor (to my knowledge and understanding) is using a third party chip sets to support USB 3.0

Wanna get mad about USB 3.0? Bitch at Intel, stop blaming Apple. Because Apple supports it.

/ Rant (its a pet peeve that people still don't understand who or why certain things are the way they are)

 

[iSayuSay]

How many times must it be said. Apple SUPPORTS USB 3.0 You can use it. Seriously, try it. I'll link you to videos of it being used on a Mac if you really want. INTEL is to blame for Apple Products not having native USB 3.0 support because INTEL doesn't support it natively in the Sandy Bridge Chip Set. Everyone else that has USB 3.0 compatibility and is running an Intel based processor (to my knowledge and understanding) is using a third party chip sets to support USB 3.0

Wanna get mad about USB 3.0? Bitch at Intel, stop blaming Apple. Because Apple supports it.

/ Rant (its a pet peeve that people still don't understand who or why certain things are the way they are)

Yeah, granted ... every computer now which use USB 3.0 support it from mainboard chipset, not processor. But at least Apple can try to do so.

Firewire also handled by external chipset rather than CPU. Otherwise all mainboard would include support for it .. Now why can't Apple do the same with USB 3.0? They could just easily include external controller for USB 3.0 .. So .. stop defend Apple and be open minded

 

[SomeWhores]

Yeah... every computer now which use USB 3.0 support it from chipset, not processor. But at least Apple can try to do so.

Firewire also handled by external chipset rather than CPU. Otherwise all mainboard would include support for it, if the CPU support it natively .. why can't Apple do the same with USB 3.0? They could just easily include external controller for USB 3.0 .. So .. stop defend Apple and be open minded

Oh believe me I'm not trying to defend apple. Sorry, it came across that way, I re-read it. Apple and Intel are total Butt Buddies and I don't think Apple uses anything but Intel products. And since Intel doesn't support it natively, Apple doesn't by proxy. The OS supports it. I think Apple is going to push Thunderbolt much, much more than they'll push USB 3.0 (since they "helped" develop it) however I don't think they're going to try too hard to avoid supporting USB 3.0

 

[skier777]

I'd like to see the iphone with thunderbolt compatibility. Instant syncing!

I doubt it would be much faster than USB2.

In the case of these tests, the RAID array out performs the TB cable, so you can get an actual benchmark. In the case of an iPod or iPhone, the cable would far outperform the slow flash memory drive that is used.

 

[skier777]

I doubt it would be much faster than USB2.

In the case of these tests, the RAID array out performs the TB cable, so you can get an actual benchmark. In the case of an iPod or iPhone, the cable would far outperform the slow flash memory drive that is used.

This actually might encourage them to start sticking faster flash in these devices. Maybe we will see some kind of tiny SSD in the future.

 

[DeepIn2U]

How many times must it be said. Apple SUPPORTS USB 3.0 You can use it. Seriously, try it. I'll link you to videos of it being used on a Mac if you really want. INTEL is to blame for Apple Products not having native USB 3.0 support because INTEL doesn't support it natively in the Sandy Bridge Chip Set. Everyone else that has USB 3.0 compatibility and is running an Intel based processor (to my knowledge and understanding) is using a third party chip sets to support USB 3.0

Wanna get mad about USB 3.0? Bitch at Intel, stop blaming Apple. Because Apple supports it.

/ Rant (its a pet peeve that people still don't understand who or why certain things are the way they are)

Why is it that Apple is NOT to blame here. Apple knew full well that Intel doesn't yet support USB3.0 in current Sandy Bridge Chip Sets ~ yet of course that is not WHY Apple chose Intel vs AMD over Power based cpu's. The issue most switchers have is that A) USB drives are available a plenty at cheap prices (always remember the golden rule of backups: make a backup of your primary backup = more drives or mega $$ for internet based cloud backups that are automated). B) Laptops with USB3 on Windows have the 3rd party chip - which most likely is quite cheap to license and we see NO intellectual proper-suits to scare Apple from implementing a solution. So basically WHY can other manufacturers from Asus to Dell have USB3 support shipping laptops using a hardware solution (3rd party chips) on Sandy Bridge laptops - yet Apple is too high-and-mighty to support us little guys?!

The main issue and possibly the ONLY issue I have ~ well gripe as I'm not going to immediately benefit from a change as of yet is that Apple introduces new technologies ONLY to the top-tier product range, like the Black vs White IOS devices, the Silver/Metal vs Plastic White (recall also the BlackBook MacBook as an elite) as if to mention a "First & Second class citizens of nations" in their consumer focus. Economies of scale states that implementing new tech should be implemented to get the highest returns on sales with higher margins: yet focusing ONLY on higher product cost lineup which does NOT equal the smaller margin sales cannot really pay for the R&D, now can it?

Point:
FireWire implemented on iMac first, then PowerMac (product cycle vs new product determined this ONLY initially).
FireWire 800 PowerMac first, then PowerBook then iMac. iBook/MacBook initially then REMOVED (WHY?!)
320M on MBP fisrt, then on MacBook, then new product MBA.
Dual HDD on PowerMac, Mac Pro then almost 10yrs later iMac as a BTO/CTO.
Not giving the MacBook's & MBPro 13" a dedicated GPU was NOT INTEL's fault alone as Apple could've EASILY worked with NVidia for a smaller custom chip solution and increased sales across the lineup - you're already paying a premium for the MBP13" anyway (and it's proven not EVERYONE requires a 15' screen and likes small regardless of less battery life).

Too many HAVE and HAVE NOTs restrictions on hardware - but OSX iOS and the whole software solution and performance keeps me with Apple as a recent switcher. I know its a better quality product no matter WHAT but I can dream

 

[Torrijos]

I doubt it would be much faster than USB2.

In the case of these tests, the RAID array out performs the TB cable, so you can get an actual benchmark. In the case of an iPod or iPhone, the cable would far outperform the slow flash memory drive that is used.

The RAID doesn't out performs the cable, but the internal drives in the test machines used.
With direct communication to the device they managed 600MB/s (like if your entire project was on the TB device, or if you were directly generating data on the drive), then the others numbers they show were those obtained moving a file form a iMac (disk) or a MacBookPro (SSD) to the TB device both test reaching meager speed of around 110MB/s and 200 MB/s limited by the computers drives.

 

[fat jez]

The main disadvantage of HDDs are that they are extremely prone to physical shock.

And the seek time is poor compared to SSD's. You may get the raw throughput of a good SSD from this system, but you won't get the random access.

I see something like this set up as being more applicable to Mac Pro users, or maybe iMac, as it's a fairly static set up. I reckon your average Thunderbolt device connected to a MBP will be a single disc enclosure, used as an alternative to firewire or USB2.0.

 

[Ulf1103]

Any ideas on how much an external drive of 1TB @7200 rpm with TB cable is gonna cost and when we may expect them?
'cause aparently it's much fatser then using it with FireWire.

I wonted to buy the 750Gb HD @ 7200 rmp with FireWire
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/firewire/on-the-go

85MB/Sec is nice,
but USB3.0 is nicer:

115GB/Sec
(this is ofcourse the cheaper version with usb3.0 HD @ 7200 rpm)
And with TB i's gonna be like 200GB/sec or even much more...

 

[milo]

Butbutbut, why would you bother syncing over a cable even if it is much faster than over wifi? The wifi sync can happen overnight when the iPhone is sat it it's dock charging on the bedside table, you never need to go near your Mac.

Because you can't always sync overnight.

1 You get home from work
2 You plug in to sync a movie you just bought
3 You need to get back in the car to catch your plane

Wireless sync is great and I'm very excited and plan to use it a ton. But there are still situations where wired sync can be faster, and that speed is needed.

INTEL is to blame for Apple Products not having native USB 3.0 support because INTEL doesn't support it natively in the Sandy Bridge Chip Set. Everyone else that has USB 3.0 compatibility and is running an Intel based processor (to my knowledge and understanding) is using a third party chip sets to support USB 3.0

If that were the case then why are there intel motherboards that include USB 3?

 

[winston1236]

Well let's see, the last time Apple started a dog and pony show against emerging standards, they lost... Firewire 800 was 3-4x faster then USB 2.0, but never gained wide spread adoption. In fact, it's only been in the last year that Firewire external drives have become mainstream and affordable, but they are still about 20% more expensive then their USB 2 or 3 counter parts.

USB 3.0 is already on almost all the new external hard drives coming out today, there are no thunderbolt drives.... USB 3.0 is already on the majority of new PC's being made and laptops... Only the Macs have Thunderbolt connectors..

I predict the same fate for thunderbolt as Firewire. It will be a premium product designed for high end users with deep pockets, and the rest of us.. will be left in the cold by Apple as they refuse to add USB 3.0 to their Macbook Pros.... Thanks Apple.

I am hoping and PRAYING someone comes up with a USB 3.0 to Thunderbolt adaptor... I'd pay $100 bucks for it.

So if your not a pro why buy a pro laptop and then complain you cant afford to utilize it?

 

[Torrijos]

If that were the case then why are there intel motherboards that include USB 3?

Because those Intel motherboards use a non-Intel chipset to allow USB3.

The thing is Intel and AMD to a certain extent are trying to go towards a single Chip containing the CPU, GPU and chipset necessary to run everything and Apple is fine with that, less compatibility headaches, less component on the motherboard, more compact, less heat, less failure.

Apple tend to keep its designs for several generation of products, so they're not going to try to add some third party components for just a single generation of products and for a limited benefice.

 

[Torrijos]

Any ideas on how much an external drive of 1TB @7200 rpm with TB cable is gonna cost and when we may expect them?
'cause aparently it's much fatser then using it with FireWire.

I wonted to buy the 750Gb HD @ 7200 rmp with FireWire
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/firewire/on-the-go
Image
85MB/Sec is nice,
but USB3.0 is nicer:
Image
115GB/Sec
(this is ofcourse the cheaper version with usb3.0 HD @ 7200 rpm)
And with TB i's gonna be like 200GB/sec or even much more...

I guess you're trying to troll the Thunderbolt related boards since your post has appeared in two different threads (and the shadows (= units of your comments) are all wrongs) .

In case you're serious...
In the first test the drive is bottlenecked by the FW800 max data rate (around 80MB/s).
In the second test the bottleneck is the drive itself since USB3 is able to get to around 400MB/s. In that case you wouldn't transfer any faster through a TB port (although it would probably put less of a strain on the system since USB tend to eat up CPU ressources).

In any cases if you're looking for a single mechanical drive enclosure you won't go any faster with TB than with USB3, TB is overkill, like USB3 in those situations.

If you're looking for a fast SSD or a RAID system, then the current TB will outperform USB3 since USB3 you bottleneck the transfer.

 

[hotrock3]

Well let's see, the last time Apple started a dog and pony show against emerging standards, they lost... Firewire 800 was 3-4x faster then USB 2.0, but never gained wide spread adoption. In fact, it's only been in the last year that Firewire external drives have become mainstream and affordable, but they are still about 20% more expensive then their USB 2 or 3 counter parts.

USB 3.0 is already on almost all the new external hard drives coming out today, there are no thunderbolt drives.... USB 3.0 is already on the majority of new PC's being made and laptops... Only the Macs have Thunderbolt connectors..

I predict the same fate for thunderbolt as Firewire. It will be a premium product designed for high end users with deep pockets, and the rest of us.. will be left in the cold by Apple as they refuse to add USB 3.0 to their Macbook Pros.... Thanks Apple.

I am hoping and PRAYING someone comes up with a USB 3.0 to Thunderbolt adaptor... I'd pay $100 bucks for it.

You my friend must not have much experience in the professional media industry. Although I have only been around it for 6 years or so I can tell you that Firewire did not lose. It connects just about everything in some way. Decks and cameras are connected to the computers that way, the Avid Mojo was connected to the computer with 4-pin to 4-pin Firewire, mixers, DAs, monitors, and analog to digital converters all had Firewire . Firewire hard drives are and have been everywhere I have worked. Now they are cheap enough that when we deliver a product we give them all the digital copies on a hard drive with our logo printed on the casing. In a world where data transfer needed to be fast and steady Firewire was and for the most part still is king.

Lets not forget you could also daisy chain your drives with Firewire.

...there are no thunderbolt drives...

....Did you read the article you are commenting on?

 

[mattraehl]

Keep dreaming about Thunderbolt iOS devices, not gonna happen. Those will go to USB3 once Intel puts it in their chipsets (2012 I guess).

 

[proximity]

Either this enclosure should come out in a 2,5" version, or manufacturers should come out with cheaper 3,5" SSD.

Thunderbolt + SSD's in Raid 0 + backup = the future.

 

[mattraehl]

Either this enclosure should come out in a 2,5" version, or manufacturers should come out with cheaper 3,5" SSD.

Thunderbolt + SSD's in Raid 0 + backup = the future.

SSDs in RAID is just a short term hobbyist thing while SSD technology evolves, since SSDs are more or less like a big fat RAID 0 set of flash chips anyways. The latest stuff from Intel, OCZ, et al can already do 40% of TB's theoretical maximum (500MB/s). In another year or two I'd be surprised if we didn't have SSDs that could saturate TB.

 

[NotJamesCameron]

Not giving the MacBook's & MBPro 13" a dedicated GPU was NOT INTEL's fault alone as Apple could've EASILY worked with NVidia for a smaller custom chip solution and increased sales across the lineup - you're already paying a premium for the MBP13" anyway (and it's proven not EVERYONE requires a 15' screen and likes small regardless of less battery life).

Good luck fitting a dedicated GPU in the already-cramped 13" MBP's internals. The only way to have an nVidia GPU in the 13" MBPs would be an integrated GPU, and nVidia isn't licensed to make chipsets for any Intel CPU with a built-in memory controller (which is pretty much every Intel CPU after the Core 2 Duo).

Which is too bad, honestly. Intel's GPUs are pretty slow, even the Sandy Bridge one.

 

[ChrisGuy]

Thunderbolt not attached to RAID devices??

so obviously i am that newbie guy that has to ask some dumb question, but if you would be so kind to answer that would be awesome.

so i have been keeping up with the TB discussions as much as possible but i think i am just a little confused here, am i right in saying that at the moment there are only raid devices for TB? if so then will there be just a straight forward external HDD in the future or will TB be sticking to RAID type devices?

also with all the discussions on TB's speed, if my computer knowledge isn't lacking then TB has a bit rate of 10Gbps, correct? and 8 bits are 1 byte, so then in a perfect world where the devices a TB cable would be copying to and from, would read and write super fast, would that mean that a TB cable could transfer a file of ±1.25GB in 1 second??