Go-flex

[mac jones]

Hey guys, i'm new to this stuff. This is the Go-flex TB with a Samsung 830 256GB. 17" Macbook pro
2.4 GHZ quad 16GB RAM.

Is this fast?


Results 544.97
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.7.2 (11C74)
Physical RAM 4096 MB
Model MacBookAir4,2
Drive Type SAMSUNG SSD 830 Series
Disk Test 544.97
Sequential 368.71
Uncached Write 576.19,,,,,, 353.77 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 452.58,,,,, 256.07 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 191.14,,,,,, 55.94 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 598.10,,,,,, 300.60 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 1044.08
Uncached Write 1193.76,,,,,, 126.37 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 687.88,,,,,, 220.22 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 2170.00,,,,,, 15.38 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 926.91,,,,,, 171.99 MB/sec [256K blocks]

here's the same drive inside the box

esults 496.37
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.7.3 (11D50)
Physical RAM 16384 MB
Model MacBookPro8,3
Drive Type SAMSUNG SSD 830 Series
Disk Test 496.37
Sequential 323.31
Uncached Write 533.41,,,, 327.50 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 374.27,,,, 211.76 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 156.59,,,, 45.83 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 694.82,,,, 349.21 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 1068.15
Uncached Write 1277.05,,,, 135.19 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 688.85,,,, 220.53 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 2328.13,,,, 16.50 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 925.50,,,, 171.73 MB/sec [256K blocks]

So it's writes are slower on the buss? WTF?
In other words, you can't get better write performance than from this Go-flex, no matter what , yet those Macwworld guys trashed it.
Well....I can understand that, maybe.....NOT

Sooo how long did we wait for these peripherals?

(the key word here is peripheral, as in: wrong forum)

 

[squeakr]

Why do you think that you can compare 2 completely different systems and find valid results?? Different models, OS versions, installed RAM, and you feel this is a fair comparison for results??

MacWorld didn't fully trash it, but for $150 on top of the price of the drive and no ability to extend the TB network is why they were less than favorable on it (same for me).

 

[mac jones]

Why do you think that you can compare 2 completely different systems and find valid results?? Different models, OS versions, installed RAM, and you feel this is a fair comparison for results??

MacWorld didn't fully trash it, but for $150 on top of the price of the drive and no ability to extend the TB network is why they were less than favorable on it (same for me).

I already had the cable and the drive, but if I didn't already that would be pretty darn expensive I agree.

I just thought I'd post this as some here may be interested. As far as Macworld.....who cares.

 

[thundersteele]

Nice. I thought that the GoFlex adapter would be awesome with a SSD.

 

[Freyqq]

well, thunderbolt has a max of 10 gbps and sata III has a max of 6 gbps. So, it makes sense that thunderbolt would be faster. Impressive that it saturates 6 gbps anyway lol.

 

[thundersteele]

well, thunderbolt has a max of 10 gbps and sata III has a max of 6 gbps. So, it makes sense that thunderbolt would be faster. Impressive that it saturates 6 gbps anyway lol.

The GoFlex adapter uses a sata III port to plug in the hard drive...

Thunderbolt can exceed sata III speeds, but for that it needs to connect to a raid controller (+SSDs or many many HDDs) or a pci-express SSD.

 

[Freyqq]

The GoFlex adapter uses a sata III port to plug in the hard drive...

Thunderbolt can exceed sata III speeds, but for that it needs to connect to a raid controller (+SSDs or many many HDDs) or a pci-express SSD.

ah yeah, you're right. My other guess is that, since it is the boot drive, during the benchmark the os was accessing the ssd for stuff too, slowing it down a bit.