Mac mini 2010: slow Toshiba MK3255GSXF 320GB drive shown as SATA 150?

[DoFoT9]

Apple does not save much and all this is just lame in my opinion.

hmm. i hope you do realise the meaning of entry machine? if you want to upgrade to a 7200rpm HDD then by all means do, i just find it a bit silly that you are complaining about the speed when benchmarks were available before you bought it?

 

[i7QuadCoreMania]

I wonder if the Hitachi 320GB or the 500 GB drives are at least SATA 300. Too bad mine had the lame Toshiba 320GB one.

the 2x 500gb in my 2010 server are not 300gb, I looked after I saw this thread and they are 7200rpm drives.

I doubt your 320gb 5400rpm Toshiba will come anywhere near the 150mb mark to saturate the bus. I agree that Apple should have used better drives, but the fact of the matter is, they didn't as this was meant to be a entry level machine remember. Fortunately they look a lot simpler to swap out than the previous gen.

For Reference sake, here is my benchmark of my 2010 mini server running 2x 500gb hitachi in RAID0 also 150mb drives.

with that being said, I highly doubt there is any benefit of making those lowly Toshiba 5400rpm drives SATA 300gb.

 

[archipellago]

Whether if 150 is still enough or not, fact is that the Apple mini has SATA 300. Therefore Apple should also install SATA 300 hard drives. What they saved on this deal with Toshiba ends up in their pockets but the Mac mini 2010 is way too expensive for what it really is.

It is quite shabby that Apple decided to go with an technologically outdated drive when everyone else is talking about USB 3.0 and SATA 600. A SATA 300 drive does not cost more than a SATA 150 one. Apple does not save much and all this is just lame in my opinion. I would never had expected this and it is disappointing, even though the drive may be fast enough. It is not SATA 300 and if SATA 150 would be well enough why did the industry invent SATA 300 and SATA 600?

No one would buy a SATA 150 drive if he or she would pick it for a new system, unless the drive would be incredibly cheap and being used in an external enclosure.

Apple is earning enough already on the new Mac mini, this SATA 150 deal does not make sense. Not that I could not upgrade the drive, yet why sell new systems with old technology, no this does not compute.

I was surprised to hear that they also did this SATA 150 deal back in 2009 with their notebooks, yet this was a year ago. The Mac mini 2010 is a brand new system, therefore it should also get SATA 300 technology. I wonder if the Hitachi 320GB or the 500 GB drives are at least SATA 300. Too bad mine had the lame Toshiba 320GB one.

To compare this, my very inexpensive and really cheap Packard Bell DOT M/U (similar to the 1410 Acer) boots Windows 7 faster with a stock 320 GB Hitachi SATA 300 drive, actually 20 seconds faster (1 min 20 seconds vs the Apple mini 2010 1 min and 40 seconds). It really does make a difference. And this tiny netbook sized Packard Bell notebook does only come with a Pentium Dual Core SU4100 1.3 GHz CPU vs the Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz that Apple uses in the Mac mini 2010.

I agree 100% but just to add that Apple uses outdated tech in most of its computer products and leaves the cutting edge tech for its mobile devices. Indeed there is more than an outdated HD in the Mini and even the i7 iMacs are using relatively old tech...

the reason I believe is simple... Apple aren't bothered about selling any of their desktops in any great volume, to them its a dying market.

 

[Hellhammer]

It shows up as 1.5Gb/s because it cannot even reach its speed.

Link Speed: 3 Gigabit
Negotiated Link Speed: 1.5 Gigabit

It can do 3Gb/s but is running at 1.5Gb/s for some reason, this is very common from MBPs. By switching the drive, the negotiated speed bumped to 3Gb/s. SATA I is still faster than any single mechanical drive.

I have 3Gb/s negotiated speed for my HD but 1.5Gb/s negotiated speed for my SuperDrive, both using the same NVidia MCP79 chip.

 

[flopticalcube]

SATA I is still faster than any single mechanical drive.

This bears repeating, over and over again.

 

[Hellhammer]

This bears repeating, over and over again.

Repeating is the mother of studying

 

[666sheep]

SATA I is still faster than any single mechanical drive.

But new VRs are really close to SATA I limit (as single). Average about 130 (maximum 140 Mb/s). In burst they're about 210 MB/s. http://www.anandtech.com/show/3636/...ociraptor-vr200m-10k-rpm-at-450gb-and-600gb/5

 

[Hellhammer]

But new VRs are really close to SATA I limit (as single). Average about 130 (maximum 140 Mb/s). In burst they're about 210 MB/s. http://www.anandtech.com/show/3636/...ociraptor-vr200m-10k-rpm-at-450gb-and-600gb/5

I shall change it to single 7200rpm drive You can't stick VR to Mini though

 

[chrismacguy]

if SATA 150 would be well enough why did the industry invent SATA 300 and SATA 600

They were invented for faster drives - Solid State Media and 7,200rpm media are a case in point - they can get more data off the drive, so a larger amount of bandwidth is needed. There would be no point for a SATA-II 5400 rpm drive as the drive cant physically fill the SATA-I connection, and since Apple wont put a 7200 in the Mini due to it being the cheapest and laptop-based Mac, Apple will use SATA-I as its cheaper and just as effective.

 

[i7QuadCoreMania]

and since Apple wont put a 7200 in the Mini due to it being the cheapest and laptop-based Mac, Apple will use SATA-I as its cheaper and just as effective.

funny my 2010 Server came with 7200rpm drives, SATA 1 though, but with raid 0 the read is more than 200mb and the write is more than 150mb, so it's true a single 7200rpm drive won't exceed the bus, not much point to make it SATA2.

 

[DewGuy1999]

A lot of this is greek to me, but for the most part I get the gist of what being said, so, my question then, are there 5400 RPM drives that are better than the Toshiba that the OP was asking about? Also, would a 7200 RPM drive give better results than 5400 RPM drives?

 

[StardustOne]

Well the base price of 699 USD for the Mac mini 2010 may look like an entry system to the US citizen, although we pay about 877 Dollars for this exact same system with that slow Toshiba 320 GB drive here in Switzerland.

It's 999 Swiss Francs and for this price I would expect a bit more than just SATA 150.

To compare this price difference of 178 USD with the price of a 640 GB SATA 300 hard drive: it's about 70 USD here (retail price).

Apple may be excellent in design and features, yet it would not have hurt to give the entry system a 320 GB 7200k drive.

 

[flopticalcube]

A lot of this is greek to me, but for the most part I get the gist of what being said, so, my question then, are there 5400 RPM drives that are better than the Toshiba that the OP was asking about? Also, would a 7200 RPM drive give better results than 5400 RPM drives?

There are lots of better mechanical drives. Some 5400 RPM and most 7200RPM drives have sustained transfer rates over 70MB/s with burst rates well over 100MB/s. These run fairly close to the SATA I limit and, indeed, many come with SATA II interfaces although the benefit will be marginal at best over the same drive with SATA I. Hybrid drives like the Seagate Momentus XT can get over 100MB/s sustained and over 200MB/s burst so they definitely benefit from SATA II as do most SSDs.

 

[DewGuy1999]

There are lots of better mechanical drives. Some 5400 RPM and most 7200RPM drives have sustained transfer rates over 70MB/s with burst rates well over 100MB/s. These run fairly close to the SATA I limit and, indeed, many come with SATA II interfaces although the benefit will be marginal at best over the same drive with SATA I. Hybrid drives like the Seagate Momentus XT can get over 100MB/s sustained and over 200MB/s burst so they definitely benefit from SATA II as do most SSDs.

Thanks, that's something I can understand.