You can make a difference in the Apple Support Community!
When you sign up with your Apple Account, you can provide valuable feedback to other community members by upvoting helpful replies and User Tips.
When you sign up with your Apple Account, you can provide valuable feedback to other community members by upvoting helpful replies and User Tips.
looking for a relatively fast usb-c external portable drive (5TB) for TM backups and have understood that USB 3.2 is considerably faster than USB 3 or 3.1 (though I don't get the 'gen1", "gen2" stuff). Platter disk is apparently safer than SSD and SSD at that size is too expensive. I have had better luck with Seagate than WD, but WD has done okay in the past too. Any suggestions welcome.
MacBook Pro 14″, macOS 12.0
Numbers I quoted are from real world tests and not artificial drive test apps, which depending on which app is used, can have a fair amount of differences.
All things being equal, a 7200 RPM drive will be faster that a 5400 RPM drive.
"So, bottom line, will a USB 3.0 write as fast as, or slower than, a 3.1 gen 1? " Again, regardless of what flavor USB3 is used as an interface, drive read and write speeds will be limited by the drive itself regardless of the interface.
Numbers I quoted are from real world tests and not artificial drive test apps, which depending on which app is used, can have a fair amount of differences.
All things being equal, a 7200 RPM drive will be faster that a 5400 RPM drive.
"So, bottom line, will a USB 3.0 write as fast as, or slower than, a 3.1 gen 1? " Again, regardless of what flavor USB3 is used as an interface, drive read and write speeds will be limited by the drive itself regardless of the interface.
MBP 14 may not actually take USB 3.2, just 3.1 Gen2. If so, my question is the same but for USB 3.1 Gen2.
Confusingly, apple states that this MBP has Thunderbolt 4 ports. What is unclear to me is whether these would support faster transfer speeds and which kind of x-drive would supply those speeds.
FWIW, at a 5T size for external HDD, the disk speed will only be 5400 RPM which generally will only give you 60-80 Megabyte per second transfer rates which is the limiting element in the transfer speeds.
Even a USB 3.0 has way more bandwidth than the drive can use. So, even if you could find a USB4 drive which has a capability of 40 Gigabits/sec (equivalent to 5 Gigabytes/sec), the drive will still only give you the 60-80 Megabyte/sec transfer rate. You would have to go back to USB 2.0 before the link is the limiting factor.
Bottomline, the fastest data transfer is limited my the slowest link in the system, in this case the SSD.
With all that said, if you were to use a desktop drive of that size storage (generally 7200 RPM HDD), it would be in the range 100-120 Megabytes/sec and it would still be the limiting factor.
Also, spending the extra money on a hard drive with a thunderbolt interface is a waste of money and is only useful is an SSD would be used.
Thanks. This whole speed thing is really confusing to a general user. I found a cheap 5TB USB 3.0 Seagate (Expansion drive) that could work; then I read that 3.1 or 3.2 usb's are faster; but you are saying that the 3.0 speed would be as fast as I can go without moving up the speed scale.
I read this at Lacie's site (https://www.lacie.com/manuals/lacie-mobile-drive/cables-and-connectors/)
USB-C supports many protocols:
Hi-Speed USB 2.0transfer rates up to 480Mb/sSuperSpeed USB 3.0transfer rates up to 5Gb/sUSB 3.1 Gen 1transfer rates up to 5Gb/sUSB 3.1 Gen 2transfer rates up to 10Gb/sThunderbolt 3transfer rates up to 40Gb/s
It sounds like none of this would be obtainable (despite what they claim)—if 60-80mbs are the best I can produce. False advertising? Or false understanding on my part?
jinet wrote:
...
It sounds like none of this would be obtainable (despite what they claim)—if 60-80mbs are the best I can produce. False advertising? Or false understanding on my part?
All those USB speed specs that companies post for their hard drives, while the specification is true, the transfer rate is still the capability of the actual internal hard drive itself.
Simple analogy, you have one of the new electric assisted bikes that can do say 25 MPH. If you take it on an Interstate where the speed limit is 75 MPH, you can still only go 25 MPH (maybe a bit more if downhill and a strong wind at your back). Consider the USB interface as the interstate, but the drive is the bike.
Thanks. I get the point. Transfer speeds and write speeds are not the same thing.
So, bottom line, will a USB 3.0 write as fast as, or slower than, a 3.1 gen 1?
Here's a write-up from CNET:
https://www.cnet.com/reviews/seagate-expansion-portable-drive-review/
In my testing with USB 3.0, it registered a sustained copy speed of more than 120MBps for writing and almost 130MBps for reading. These were about the fastest among hard-drive-based portable drives.
Those are higher than the speeds you quoted above. It's also from 6 years ago.
The 3.1 that I am looking at (G-Tech mobile) gets these speeds in a CNET review from 5 years ago:
The drive supports the USB 3.1-gen one-speed standard and delivered a sustained copy speed of 110MBps for writing and 126MBps for reading.
https://www.cnet.com/reviews/g-technology-g-drive-mobile-usb-c-review/
We don't know what they were writing to, but the discrepancy is weird. Why slower than a 3.0?
The other factor: moving up to a 7200 rpm x-drive. Would that be faster in real world use?
Eg this: Transcend 4TB.
Thanks very much. This is absolutely clear.
I wish this information were more widely available. It would spare people like me from agonizing over false choices.
Here's my goto external drive: https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-1TB-Extreme-Portable-SDSSDE61-1T00-G25/dp/B08GTYFC37?ref_=ast_sto_dp
I use it for pictures and Music.
looking for a relatively fast usb-c external portable drive (5TB) for TM backups
