Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

johnnyindia

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 4, 2010
95
0
The 256 GB new Macbook Pros are a lot cheaper than the 512 right now from B&H.

I do music production so either I get the 512 and can store my system files, and samples all on the internal drive, or I get the 256GB and store my samples on an external SSD.

Obviously the internal SSD would be faster than an external, though if I go external, will Thunderbolt be much faster than USB 3.0/C?

Lacie Rugged External SSDs are Thunderbolt but more expensive. I currently have a Samsung EVO840 512GB SSD I could use in an external USB 3.0 enclosure, but not sure if that will be fast enough for loading samples and running all my samples from. Will the Thunderbolt Lacie be a big improvement in speed/loading time? Is it best to just have everything on the internal SSD and shell out the extra $400 for the 512GB version MBP?

This is the Lacie. What kind of speed improvement will this get me over a USB3.0/C connection external SSD? I have a Samsung EVO840 already so would just need to buy a USB C enclosure.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/co...ap=y&m=Y&c3api=1876,92051677682,&Q=&A=details
 

Weaselboy

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 23, 2005
34,006
15,338
California
though if I go external, will Thunderbolt be much faster than USB 3.0/C?

No it won't with a single SSD setup. If there is any difference at all, it will be very small.

The main benefit of TB over USB with an external SSD is with TB you can enable TRIM. TRIM over USB does not work on macOS.
 

Fishrrman

macrumors Penryn
Feb 20, 2009
28,149
12,305
"I currently have a Samsung EVO840 512GB SSD I could use in an external USB 3.0 enclosure, but not sure if that will be fast enough for loading samples and running all my samples from."

That should do fine.

Before you spend any money, try it as it is...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.