SSD Slow read/write Crucial MX100

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by djjaes, Feb 19, 2015.

  1. djjaes, Feb 19, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2015

    djjaes macrumors member

    djjaes

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Location:
    US South
    #1
    I just upgraded my SSD from Kingston V300 SSD (no issues, but wanted a faster drive), and replaced it with Crucial MX100. I put a Crucial BX100 in my 2012 MBP and it reads/writes faster than MX. Both have about 250 GBs space. I used CCC for both, so I am a bit stumped.

    Black magic read/write test for MX was about 257.6/266.3, and on MBP the BX was reading at about 360.2/520.

    Boot time is around 15 to 20 seconds on Mac Pro (15 seconds or less on MBP), but that read/write speed has me a bit concerned. I am thinking of returning and getting another BX100 for Mac Pro.

    Any ideas?
    Thanks.
     
  2. Demigod Mac macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    #2
    MBP 2012 has faster SATA than tower Mac Pros. Drive is bottlenecked.
    This bottleneck can be overcome by installing a SATA III PCIe card.
     
  3. djjaes thread starter macrumors member

    djjaes

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Location:
    US South
    #3
    That makes sense now that you said that. I feel I have a bit of egg on my face, :)
     
  4. handheldgames macrumors 6502a

    handheldgames

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    #4
    While large file write speeds are limited, general operating system performance will be close to what you were seeing on the MBP.

    If you are looking for ludicrous speed, check out this thread:
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1685821&page=27

    The cMP can easily match and outpace the current nMP OOTB (out of the box) experience in a single blade configuration by almost 50%. :eek: On the "value" end of the spectrum, a 256GB Samsung XP941 @ $254 from Newegg and a $20 Lycom adapter is a definite buy. Even the 128GB XP941 @ 129.00 is a breath of fresh air compared to SATAIII SSD's thanks to 1000MB/s+ read speeds.
     
  5. TheStork, Feb 20, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2015

    TheStork macrumors regular

    TheStork

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    #5
    IIRC though, this configuration will need TRIM Enabler. Am I correct?

    Update: I just saw your post here stating that you did use TRIM Enabler, but that causes problems. So, best to go with the Apple SSD blade solution.
     
  6. flowrider macrumors 601

    flowrider

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2012
    #6
    The use of TRIM Enabler CAN cause problems unless the user takes a few simple steps to avoid them. I have been using TRIM Enabler since the Beta days of Yosemite with no issues. And again, this is something APPLE needs to fix.

    Lou
     
  7. handheldgames macrumors 6502a

    handheldgames

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    #7
    Thanks for pointing that out. :rolleyes:
     
  8. djjaes thread starter macrumors member

    djjaes

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Location:
    US South
    #8
    I plan on using a PCIe card for SSD soon. I need the SATA 3 speeds for my workflow.

    ----------

    I have my GTX 680 in PCI slot one. Which slot should a blade adaptor be put in for top speeds in the remaining PCI slots? I assume the remaining free spots have the same bandwidth.
     
  9. Baunkjaer macrumors 6502

    Baunkjaer

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Location:
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    #9
    Slot 3 and 4 shares bandwidth, but as long as you only have one, you´ll be fine. I´ve mine i slot 4.
     
  10. djjaes thread starter macrumors member

    djjaes

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Location:
    US South
    #10
    Thanks for the info. I plan on getting a blade ssd soon. Im researching the best one that I can get (not OWC, don't card of sand force, lol)
     
  11. Synchro3, Feb 27, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2015

    Synchro3 macrumors 65816

    Synchro3

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2014
    #11

Share This Page