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.
External vs internal SSD speed
- Thread starter smurray
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How is it working, does it feels like using a pc with normal SSD in it? Any problems during sleep/wake? Interested in doing the same to an iMac via USB C port.
The Sonnet fusion tb3 drive costs $999 (1tb).
If you're using work-related software that requires that speed, it's a business investment that can be depreciated.
For "ordinary folk", pretty much an extravagance unless one has money to toss away...
If you're using work-related software that requires that speed, it's a business investment that can be depreciated.
For "ordinary folk", pretty much an extravagance unless one has money to toss away...
Look at the picture from „jerwin“. Every drive with more than 2000 MB/s has to use this concept. The Netstor case seems interesting because you can buy it empty and equip it yourself with NVMe‘s....
So Here's some test you probably wont find elsewhere.
Samsung Evo 860 1TB SSD connected via USB 3.1 Gen2 = roughly 400w/450r - iMac late 2015
Samsung Evo 860 1TB SSD connected via thunderbolt 2 = roughly 350w/390r - iMac late 2015 TRIM enabled
Samsung Evo 860 1TB SSD connected via INTERNAL SATA = roughly 480w/520r - iMac mid 2017 **
So Internal SATA is faster maybe due to newer iMac with newer AHCI controller, I don't know.
But yeah, don't connect SSD via USB because you'll loose TRIM which will eventual degrade SSD even though initial speeds might be bit faster then USB gen2 compared to T2
Samsung Evo 860 1TB SSD connected via USB 3.1 Gen2 = roughly 400w/450r - iMac late 2015
Samsung Evo 860 1TB SSD connected via thunderbolt 2 = roughly 350w/390r - iMac late 2015 TRIM enabled
Samsung Evo 860 1TB SSD connected via INTERNAL SATA = roughly 480w/520r - iMac mid 2017 **
So Internal SATA is faster maybe due to newer iMac with newer AHCI controller, I don't know.
But yeah, don't connect SSD via USB because you'll loose TRIM which will eventual degrade SSD even though initial speeds might be bit faster then USB gen2 compared to T2
I have an iMac 2017 with an internal fusion drive. Fusion drive is slow, so I bought an external Samsung X5 500GB SSD (TB3), huge difference. Looks like 300 MB/s slower on Read / Write vs Internal Apple PCIe SSD, but still fast enough and cheaper and I have a 1TB scratch drive. TRIM is also supported natively.
Attachments
Samsung X5
AtomRAID SSD
OWC ThunderBlade V4
I have reviewed each of the above on my YouTube channel (Link in sig - I don't want to link to videos directly here in case its seen as advertising etc) and any of these will offer super fast speeds via a TB3 interface. The AtomRAID being the slower of the three, but also the more affordable. The OWC being the most expensive, but better value then the Samsung X5, which is great for portability......
AtomRAID SSD
OWC ThunderBlade V4
I have reviewed each of the above on my YouTube channel (Link in sig - I don't want to link to videos directly here in case its seen as advertising etc) and any of these will offer super fast speeds via a TB3 interface. The AtomRAID being the slower of the three, but also the more affordable. The OWC being the most expensive, but better value then the Samsung X5, which is great for portability......
jeboles wrote:
"Yes, I am using it as my boot drive. The internal 1TB is my scratch drive but currently sits empty."
I would set up the internal drive with at least a "bootable-to-the-finder" capable copy of the OS.
You always ALWAYS ALWAYS want to keep a SECOND bootable drive around.
What happens if you get into an "I can't boot!" moment with the X5 ...?
"Yes, I am using it as my boot drive. The internal 1TB is my scratch drive but currently sits empty."
I would set up the internal drive with at least a "bootable-to-the-finder" capable copy of the OS.
You always ALWAYS ALWAYS want to keep a SECOND bootable drive around.
What happens if you get into an "I can't boot!" moment with the X5 ...?
The OWC being the most expensive, but better value? Something doesn't sound right with that statement.
If I had a can't boot moment, Time Machine to the rescue. I do have a 512 GB SD card with a full system bootable to the Finder. I have been running this setup for a while now with no issues.
Maybe I should have use the term 'better bang for your buck'.
The X5 much more expensive in comparison due to its portability. So price per GB, the OWC would be better 'bang for buck' overall, albeit both solutions still being mega expensive.
The X5 is cheaper: The Samsung X5 1TB is $498 as of this morning on Amazon. The OWC is $799.99 on Macsales. Could not find it cheaper anywhere. (B&H says discontinued). I would say the Samsung X5 is the best bang for the buck.
I can't find out any information on the OWC ThunderBlade V4 if the 1TB model is a single drive or multiple drives in RAID0. I think they are RAID0, which makes it faster, but if 1 drives die, bye bye data.
Having searched among several online retailers, I’m finding a paucity of external TB3 1TB drives. Lower cost options (perhaps 3-4 hundred dollar range) appear designed for mobile laptop use, which is fine, but most of these have some limitation for desktop use. (Eg: only one TB3 port, captive cable too short to conveniently lie next to an iMac.) Prices on drives that eliminate these two negatives seem to start around five to seven hundred dollars, and up. I imagine more options will appear in time.
You are right about only 1 TB port and short cable. However, for an iMac, having 2 ports, it is not an issue. Now the short cord is annoying. I double sided tape my ssd to the back of my iMac. Not an issue since the iMac never moves around.