My SSD Only Supports 500MB's Read and 175 MB's Write!


Recommended Posts

You guy's gave me he** for using my 128 GB M4 SSD Externally. Well I just wanted to let you guys know that my SSD only support's 500 MB's a Second Read and 175 MB's a Second Write! It is indeed designed to be used Externally, NOT Internally as USB 2.0 Supports 480 MB's a Second! Just FYI!

actually USB2 supports 480Mb not MB (which is 35MB per second) ;) USB3 isn't bad at 5Gbits or 625 MB a second

An SSD on USB 2? Err... wha...

Some SSD's had USB ports on them... gawd knows why they thought this was a good idea, but some had them...

Some SSD's had USB ports on them... gawd knows why they thought this was a good idea, but some had them...

I can only guesstimate that it would have been for a drive recovery scenario where you were temporarily connecting it to access some of the data. But I concur that makes no sense...

To actually place an SSD on USB 2 as an external primarily is grossly a waste of money. Even the slowest HDD would handle that scenario just fine.

It is indeed designed to be used Externally, NOT Internally as USB 2.0 Supports 480 MB's a Second! Just FYI!

No.

"USB 2.0: Released in April 2000. Added higher maximum signaling rate of 480 Mbit/s (effective throughput up to 35 MB/s or 280 MBit/s)"

actually USB2 supports 480Mb not MB (which is 35MB per second) ;) USB3 isn't bad at 5Gbits or 625 MB a second

Some SSD's had USB ports on them... gawd knows why they thought this was a good idea, but some had them...

An M4 would be a "bare" drive.

I've reread the OP's post about 10 times and still can't real decipher it. :s

I can only guesstimate that it would have been for a drive recovery scenario where you were temporarily connecting it to access some of the data. But I concur that makes no sense...

To actually place an SSD on USB 2 as an external primarily is grossly a waste of money. Even the slowest HDD would handle that scenario just fine.

If you ever figure out their reasoning let me know *lol* I always thought why?... only thing I could think was for easy mirroring of a hard drive to the SSD via USB but that's still a dumb idea if you understand the difference between storage on SSD and HDD's like 512 vs 4k sectors and how mirroring one to the other is kinda an ehh idea to do..

An M4 would be a "bare" drive.

I've reread the OP's post about 10 times and still can't real decipher it. :s

ah, didn't look up that specific drive, was just going by past experience with ssd's sometimes having mini usb ports

An M4 would be a "bare" drive.

I've reread the OP's post about 10 times and still can't real decipher it. :s

He got an internal SSD with a USB cable, thought it was external (I guess because SSDs look like they come in a case compared to a spinny drive), plugged it in via USB 2, apparently thinks it's now running at nearly full speed. :laugh:

I assume it's just sitting on his desk too, which I suppose isn't the worst with an SSD, but it just adds to the ridiculousness.

If you ever figure out their reasoning let me know *lol* I always thought why?... only thing I could think was for easy mirroring of a hard drive to the SSD via USB but that's still a dumb idea if you understand the difference between storage on SSD and HDD's like 512 vs 4k sectors and how mirroring one to the other is kinda an ehh idea to do..

They're cheaper than a flash drive, and slightly more durable than a portable disk drive. I guess there's that. Makes more sense if you have USB 3.0 anyway.

and once again kevpan, you didn't listen to us, only yelled at everyone that was trying to correct you

the ssd you got IS an internal drive. the cord is only for you to easily clone your old internal over to the new drive before putting the new one in

we even linked you to some instructions on how to easily do it all but you chose to ignore us and just attack everyone trying to help you

He got an internal SSD with a USB cable, thought it was external (I guess because SSDs look like they come in a case compared to a spinny drive), plugged it in via USB 2, apparently thinks it's now running at nearly full speed. :laugh:

I assume it's just sitting on his desk too, which I suppose isn't the worst with an SSD, but it just adds to the ridiculousness.

Interesting. If that's the case, there is NO way that he would be getting anywhere near the 500MB/s that he stated. Even 50MB/s would be stretch. :rofl:

WRONG! IT IS GETTING ALMOST FULL SPEED AS IT IS GETTING 480 MB'S A SECOND OUT OFF 500 MB'S A SECOND!

I EVEN PLAYED STAR TREK D-A-C (FROM THE MAC APP STORE) YESTERDAY AND HAD NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER!

I can only guesstimate that it would have been for a drive recovery scenario where you were temporarily connecting it to access some of the data. But I concur that makes no sense...

To actually place an SSD on USB 2 as an external primarily is grossly a waste of money. Even the slowest HDD would handle that scenario just fine.

Yup. I personally use a hybrid drive externally. But i use it on eSata as using it on USB 2 would make no sense at all.

Folks, he has admitted on his own that he has mental problems. Feeding into it only makes it worse for him and everyone else.

Sometimes he literally cannot help the fact that he won't listen and gets agitated.

WRONG! IT IS GETTING ALMOST FULL SPEED AS IT IS GETTING 480 MB'S A SECOND OUT OFF 500 MB'S A SECOND!

I EVEN PLAYED STAR TREK D-A-C (FROM THE MAC APP STORE) YESTERDAY AND HAD NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER!

Kevin, this is a case where you are wrong. Don't make things worse on yourself by arguing with people who know what they are talking about.

You and I have had this type of discussion many times over the last several years.

Walk away and do the proper research when you're well, not when you're sick and cannot judge things well, ok?

WRONG! IT IS GETTING ALMOST FULL SPEED AS IT IS GETTING 480 MB'S A SECOND OUT OFF 500 MB'S A SECOND!

I EVEN PLAYED STAR TREK D-A-C (FROM THE MAC APP STORE) YESTERDAY AND HAD NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER!

Are you sure you aren't using E-Sata?

USB 2.0 support 480 Mbps which as others have observed is 35MBps. Even if the drive supports 550MBps (which it probably does by SATA3) the USB 2.0 interface will slow it down to 35 :\

USB 3.0 could give you those kinds of speeds, but not USB 2.0

Folks, he has admitted on his own that he has mental problems. Feeding into it only makes it worse for him and everyone else.

Sometimes he literally cannot help the fact that he won't listen and gets agitated.

Kevin, this is a case where you are wrong. Don't make things worse on yourself by arguing with people who know what they are talking about.

You and I have had this type of discussion many times over the last several years.

Walk away and do the proper research when you're well, not when you're sick and cannot judge things well, ok?

bipolar ?

If that's the case yeah better leave him alone.

He's never specified the exact issue. If it is BP it is far beyond what I experience...which is already a pain. :p

I played wow with a bipolar guy for a year. It was a hell of a roller coaster ride lol ;) he was a nice guy tough.

which USB connection are you using exactly? USB1, 1.1, 2, or 3 and does the USB to SATA bridge even support what you are using?

how about you answer the question, which USB spec are you running against? USB 1, 1.1, 2 or 3?

and post a picture of a hard drive benchmark test like Crystal DiskMark or HDTac or something similar

it's the 2010 mac mini, so if he's using usb it'd be 2.0

edit: more specifically this is the SSD that he got that he claims is external because it came with a cord http://www.crucial.com/store/mpartspecs.aspx?mtbpoid=78D9B390A5CA7304

USB 2.0 is 480 Mbps (mega bit). Your SSD is 500 MBps (mega byte).

So in fact USB 2.0 is 60 MBps, and once you take the protocol and overhead into account it's closer to 30 MBps.

But you seem pretty adamant on not believing what people say so, whatever.

it's the 2010 mac mini, so if he's using usb it'd be 2.0

edit: more specifically this is the SSD that he got that he claims is external because it came with a cord http://www.crucial.c...8D9B390A5CA7304

Thanks for the article now it is easy to see what he is getting at, albeit it would appear that he is using the transfer kit for using the SSD as an external drive. . .some peoples kids.

USB 2.0 is 480 Mbps (mega bit). Your SSD is 500 MBps (mega byte).

So in fact USB 2.0 is 60 MBps, and once you take the protocol and overhead into account it's closer to 30 MBps.

But you seem pretty adamant on not believing what people say so, whatever.

yeah, just so people know 500 MBps = 4000 Mbps

USB2 maxes out at 480Mbps that's 8.3333 times slower then the SSD's max speed

now if this was running under USB3, yeah you'd get good speed, but USB2 why even have a SSD you are going slower then your mechanical HDD

yeah it comes with a cord

The Data Transfer Kit makes it simple to copy everything on your hard drive, including operating system, data, email settings and applications, to your Crucial m4. The kit includes the EZ Gig III Cloning and Imaging Software for Windows?, ShirtPocket's SuperDuper! for Mac?, a USB to SATA cable and a Quick Start Guide. Upgrade your notebook drive in just three simple steps.

Not sure why you can not believe the USB 2 spec.

http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/

http://www.usb.org/d...rs/usb20/faq20/

1: What maximum speed was finally chosen for the USB 2.0 spec?

A: The USB 2.0 specification has a design data rate of 480 mega bits per second.

This is just fact, if you don't believe it - then download the spec for yourself - I listed the url for it.

yeah, just so people know 500 MBps = 4000 Mbps

USB2 maxes out at 480Mbps that's 8.3333 times slower then the SSD's max speed

now if this was running under USB3, yeah you'd get good speed, but USB2 why even have a SSD you are going slower then your mechanical HDD

Also USB is 480Mbps BURST transfer. it's the highst USB2 will go in a single burst, but it doesn't transfer at that speed constantly, hence why it's called burst.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • NASA: This asteroid may not kill us but it probably won't be far off either by Sayan Sen Image by Zelch Csaba via Pexels New observations by NASA's James Webb Space Telescope have eliminated the last remaining impact threat posed by asteroid 2024 YR4, ruling out the possibility that the near-Earth object could strike the Moon in December 2032. NASA said observations collected by Webb on February 18 and 26, 2026, enabled scientists to refine the asteroid's orbit enough to "rule out a chance of lunar impact on Dec. 22, 2032." Instead, asteroid 2024 YR4 is now expected to pass the Moon at a distance of about 13,200 miles (21,200 km). The agency stressed that the update "reflects improved precision in our understanding of where the asteroid is expected to be in 2032 rather than a shift in its orbital path." The announcement closes a remarkable chapter in planetary defence that began in late 2024, when the approximately 60-metre-wide asteroid briefly became the most closely watched near-Earth object in the world. Discovered on December 27, 2024, by the ATLAS telescope in Chile, 2024 YR4 initially appeared to have a small chance of colliding with Earth on December 22, 2032. As astronomers gathered more observations, the impact probability briefly climbed to around 3%—the highest ever recorded for an asteroid of its size—before steadily falling as its orbit became better understood. By early 2025, international observations had ruled out any significant risk to Earth. However, astronomers were left with another possibility: a roughly 4% chance that the asteroid could instead strike the Moon. "The probability that asteroid 2024 YR4 will strike the Moon on 22 December 2032 is now approximately 4%," the European Space Agency (ESA) had said last year, noting that "there is a 96% chance that the asteroid will not impact the Moon." ESA said such an impact, while unlikely, would have presented an extraordinary scientific opportunity. "It is a very rare event for an asteroid this large to impact the Moon – and it is rarer still that we know about it in advance. The impact would likely be visible from Earth, and so scientists will be very excited by the prospect of observing and analysing it," said Richard Moissl, Head of ESA's Planetary Defence Office. "It would certainly leave a new crater on the surface. However, we wouldn't be able to accurately predict in advance how much material would be thrown into space, or whether any would reach Earth," he added. The asteroid also exposed an important blind spot in planetary defence. Because 2024 YR4 approached Earth from the direction of the Sun, it remained hidden from ground-based telescopes until after its closest approach. "We looked into how Neomir would have performed in this situation, and the simulations surprised even us," Moissl said. "Neomir would have detected asteroid 2024 YR4 about a month earlier than ground-based telescopes did. This would have given astronomers more time to study the asteroid's trajectory and allowed them to much sooner rule out any chance of Earth impact in 2032." He added, "As an infrared telescope, like Webb, Neomir would have also immediately given us a much better estimate for the asteroid's size, which is very important for assessing the significance of the hazard." The latest NASA observations underscore the value of space-based infrared telescopes in tracking faint asteroids. According to NASA, Webb made "among the faintest ever observations of an asteroid," extending the object's observational record by nearly eight months at a time when it had become too faint for other telescopes. That additional data allowed scientists to eliminate the remaining uncertainty surrounding its 2032 flyby. Although asteroid 2024 YR4 is now confirmed to pose no threat to either Earth or the Moon, scientists say its discovery remains one of the most significant real-world tests of the international planetary defence system, demonstrating how continued observations can rapidly transform an object once considered hazardous into one whose future path is known with high confidence. Source: NASA, ESA This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Yup. Google is just scraping the entire internet for their own ad profits without sharing revenue with the sources. It's obviously stealing, but since these sites depend upon Google's search scraps to survive... As for me, I just stopped using Google for anything except Reddit searches. If Reddit's own search wasn't complete crapola, I'd never use Google search again.
    • I had a feeling this was coming. Picked up my first Mac ever last Saturday. Glad I did.
    • In a major surprise there is actually some good deals for the first time in years. At least for me.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post
    • Apprentice
      daryld went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Contributor
      Carltonbar went up a rank
      Contributor
    • One Month Later
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      419
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      169
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      130
    4. 4
      Xenon
      70
    5. 5
      neufuse
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!