Thunderbolt NOT 10gb/s

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Babyboi, Jul 27, 2012.

  1. Babyboi macrumors regular

    Mar 16, 2008
    Hello, world.

    Can anyone tell me why thunderbolt isn't transferring at 10gb/s as advertised?

    I did a file transfer from one macbook pro to another using Target Disk Mode.
    file transfer size: 18.75 GB
    time: 6m:17s
    first mbp is SSD crucial m4
    2nd mbp is standard 5400 rpm HDD

    what are the conditions that will allow 10gb/s using thunderbolt? is something wrong with my setup? Also is there another way to transfer using thunderbolt without using target disk mode? (besides airdrop as well)
  2. NT1440 macrumors G4


    May 18, 2008
    What is the max speed of your SSD? :confused:

    By the way, 10Gbs is the theoretical limit the cable can support, not the advertised transfer speed. Transfer speed relies on many factors.
  3. AdrianK macrumors 68020

    Feb 19, 2011
    Wait, you were reading from the SSD and writing to the HDD? If that's the case the bottleneck will be the 5400 RPM drive, you wont get >100mbit write on that drive.
  4. aaronw1986 macrumors 68030

    Oct 31, 2006
    The limiting factor here is the 5400RPM hard drive. As the above poster mentioned, 10GB is the theoretical bandwidth, no device actually can do that.
  5. Babyboi thread starter macrumors regular

    Mar 16, 2008
    Crucial M4:
    Sustained Sequential Read
    up to 500MB/s

    Sustained Sequential Write
    up to 175MB/s
  6. kdoug macrumors 6502a


    Jun 2, 2010
    Iowa City, IA USA
    Thunderbolt has fail written all over it. I returned a seagate TB adapter and Apple's overpriced cable because it couldn't keep pace with USB 3.0.
  7. Freyqq macrumors 601

    Dec 13, 2004
    1. it is 10 gigabits per second, so that translates to 1.25 gigabytes per second.
    2. the bottleneck is the drives, not the thunderbolt. A 5400 rpm hd can do maybe 80 MB/s read speed tops. An ssd can do 500 MB/s read speed tops (SATA III).
  8. thekev macrumors 604


    Aug 5, 2010
    Either one of those would flood the 5400RPM drive. The fastest 7200RPM 3.5" drives are around 140MB/s sequential write. Most of the time you won't get that high. The 5400RPM drive is below 100MB/s read or write.
  9. Dammit Cubs macrumors 68000

    Dammit Cubs

    Jul 31, 2007
    Yeah...dude. Your SSD can only top out at 550MB/S if you get lucky.

    10Gbps is about 1.2 Gigabite per second transfer rate. Good luck find a client SSD that will offer that. You will need something like Pegasus to find the full power.

    I don't even want to talk about your HDD. Get that crap out of here. Geo Metros don't get to ride with M3s
  10. kdoug, Jul 27, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2012

    kdoug macrumors 6502a


    Jun 2, 2010
    Iowa City, IA USA
    My new Seageate Backup Plus 2.5 reads and writes well over 100MB/s. This of course using USB 3.0.
  11. gentlefury macrumors 68030

    Jul 21, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    Thunderbolt is 10gb/s....your drive is not.
  12. Big-TDI-Guy macrumors 68030


    Jan 11, 2007
    If you're looking to test that bandwidth out for it's maximum - it will be an expensive test. RAM drive, or fiber channel / sequenced drive array is about your best bet for saturating the thunderbolt interface.

    I believe the 10gb connection speed is more about reducing latency, so that multiple devices can access the bus without bottlenecking. (running a display AND a camera AND an external drive or port replicators).

    You also have to consider not only the devices limitations, but error checking / data processing that happens between the drives.

    A Bugatti Veyron's top speed is only 29mph when it's on a single-lane road stuck behind a moped, and in this case, your 5400rpm drive is that moped.
  13. Babyboi thread starter macrumors regular

    Mar 16, 2008
    OK i think i'm getting it. the 5400 was the receiving hard drive, so i guess read/write max is about 80mb/s.

    i had such high hopes for thunderbolt...
  14. Fatt macrumors member

    Jul 2, 2012
    Miami/Gainesville, FL
    You would need at least two SSDs in RAID0 to be able to get close to maxing out the bandwidth on TB. Also it's important to remember, while USB3 is fast, it does not do well with high queue depths, as in random reads/writes. USB3 only performs well with sequential reads and writes, whereas TB performs extremely well even at high queue depths.
  15. Big-TDI-Guy macrumors 68030


    Jan 11, 2007
    Nothing wrong with the Thunderbolt in this case, it's your drives limiting things. Connect 2 decent SSDs and it'll be dramatically faster. Even if you moved data in the other direction with your existing setup (read from 5400 write to SSD) it should be faster.
  16. 7even macrumors 6502a

    Jan 11, 2008
    Nothing wrong with Thunderbolt. You just need an SSD RAID array to take full advantage of it if you want anything close to the theoretical transfer speed.
  17. Babyboi thread starter macrumors regular

    Mar 16, 2008
    indeed, that 5400 rpm is the moped. SSD is just so expensive for what u get right now.
  18. ryane67 macrumors member

    Jun 13, 2012
    your hopes should still be high, t-bolt is great when applied properly and it has bandwidth for the future.

    Just wait till you can plug a PCI-E graphics card into an external tb enclosure and run games(if you're a gamer) 3 years from now on your MBP from this year.
  19. bossxii macrumors 68000

    Nov 9, 2008
    Kansas City
    I use a Pegasus R4 setup at work and it is worth every penny. The speed is insanely fast and am able to use it even with the 4 1TB 7200 RPM drives in RAID 1 extremely fast. It's setup as a shared drive among several of us that work with large video and photo files. Moving a 1gig file in mere seconds, I'll have to time it to get a true measure but I've loaded 6 to 7 gigs in less than 30 seconds, or so it seemed, to my retina MBP.

    I've used it with a 7200 rpm drive and seem 100Mbps of solid speed when using super-duper to clone new iMacs in the office as well. I can say I wouldn't spend the money personally as It simply doesn't make sense for my back up solution when I can just start it and let it run over night. In a professional workplace, it is very much worth the price/speed ratio. My video guru loves his SSD based iMac with the Pegasus holding 4TB of storage for his Final Cut projects.
  20. jav6454 macrumors P6


    Nov 14, 2007
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    Where Thunderbolt shines is in network transfers and video signal sending along with other data.

    Thunderbolt is meant for multiple devices sending and receiving without there being a potential bottleneck.

    One device will never max out Thunderbolt right now. (Unless it happens to be an SLC SSD x4 drive RAID 0 setup on both ends)
  21. Romeo604 macrumors regular

    Oct 17, 2005
    you will get better speeds if you just:

    Buy a 2.5" laptop SSD.

    Buy an external hard drive enclosure with either a USB 3/Thunderbolt connector.

    Any thunderbolt external hard drive you buy only has a thunderbolt interface and inside it has a regular hard disk drive.
  22. Babyboi thread starter macrumors regular

    Mar 16, 2008
    looks like thunderbolt is fast but it depends on your setup. thanks everyone for their input!
  23. MikhailT macrumors 601

    Nov 12, 2007
    That's how it is for every protocol you use. TB is about the interface, not the between.

    "USB 3 is fast too but it depends on the setup. "

    The reason people are excited about Thunderbolt is not because it is super fast, but because it makes your electronics a bit future proof for the next year. So, you're not stuck with slower interfaces and faster devices. Like I have 100MBps external hard drives but I can't use all of it because I got electronics with USB 2.0 ports. But now, finally, I can take advantage of those speed with both Thunderbolts and USB 3.0.

    Your solid state drives will continue to get faster, hard drive RAID systems will get faster and so on but you need a much faster interfaces to take advantage of them.
  24. brentsg macrumors 68040

    Oct 15, 2008
    I guess if you're talking about capacity and not performance... ok.

Share This Page