Nine External Thunderbolt Storage Devices, Rounded Up

Features
By published

We compare nine different Thunderbolt-based storage solutions, delivering scorching sequential throughput. Of the nine, three submissions rise to the top. Although it remains pricey, in the applications where it makes sense, Thunderbolt cannot be beat.

Test Setup And Benchmarks

When it comes to Thunderbolt and storage performance, A/V professionals should be particularly happy with the interface. As you've seen in our product spotlights, sequential throughput is quite often exceptional. By emphasizing the speed at which 128 KB blocks of data can be pushed through the interface, we got an accurate picture of how each submission is able to do its job.

It's not our intention to shun random-access performance entirely. However, none of these solutions are going to deliver impressive IOPS rates. If you don't believe us, check out the second page of Everything You Need To Know About Thunderbolt. A typical 3.5” rotating hard drive  is good for somewhere between 200 and 300 IOPS in random read/write workloads, which is less than 1 MB/s when you're dealing with 4 KB blocks. Even when you stripe six 3.5” desktop-class drives, the result is less than 10 MB/s of random reads.

That's not a problem with SSDs, which are capable of up to 80 000 IOPS, in the case of a Vertex 3. That's why we only presented random benchmark results for the SSD-based Thunderbolt solutions.

Thunderbolt is operating system-agnostic. But because Apple had a one-year head-start with the technology, more of its platforms are already equipped with the requisite controller hardware to support Thunderbolt. We ran our benchmarks on both Macs and PCs, achieving identical performance except where we noted otherwise. There are some PC-oriented problems tied to hot-plugging and daisy-chaining, but they don't affect performance, and Intel claims that it's working to help resolve them.

Installing vendor-specific SATA controller drivers delivered a ~1-3% performance boost compared to using Windows 7's generic ACHI driver.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Test Hardware
SystemDesktopMacBook Pro 8,1
ProcessorIntel Core i5-2400 (Sandy Bridge), 32 nm, 3.1 GHz, LGA 1155, 6 MB Shared L3, Turbo Boost EnabledIntel Core i5-2430M (Sandy Bridge), 32 nm, 2.4 GHz, 3 MB Shared L3, Turbo Boost Enabled
MotherboardMSI Z77A-GD80-
MemoryKingston Hyper-X 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) DDR3-1333 @ DDR3-1333, 1.5 VCrucial 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) DDR3-1333
System DriveOCZ Vertex 4 256 GB SATA 6Gb/s
Secondary DriveOCZ Vertex 3 256 GB SATA 6Gb/s
GraphicsPalit GeForce GTX 460 1 GBIntel HD Graphics 3000
Power SupplySeasonic 760 W, 80 PLUS Gold-
System Software and Drivers
Operating SystemWindows 7 x64 UltimateRow 9 - Cell 2
DirectXDirectX 11-
DriverGraphics: Nvidia 270.61 RST: 11.0.0.1032-
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Benchmarks
Iometer 1.1.0# Workers = 1, 4 KB Random: LBA=8 GB, varying QDs, 128 KB Sequential
Transfer TestsCopy From Secondary Drive, Proprietary Benchmark
24 Comments Comment from the forums
  • saiyan
    No benchmark for 8-drive Thunderbolt deivces such as Areca ARC-8050 ?
    Reply
  • acku
    9535164 said:
    No benchmark for 8-drive Thunderbolt deivces such as Areca ARC-8050 ?

    What the R6 isn't expensive enough? :p Honestly, we couldn't include the ARC-8050 (http://www.areca.com.tw/products/thunderbolt.htm) because it's not readily available for purchase (yet).

    Cheers,
    Andrew Ku
    TomsHardware.com
    Reply
  • mayankleoboy1
    storage is OK, but an externally powered GPU is the most interesting application of thunderbolt.

    with the external PCI-E device specification coming soon, i believe the days of thunderbolt are limited.
    Reply
  • web2dot0
    mayankleoboy1storage is OK, but an externally powered GPU is the most interesting application of thunderbolt.with the external PCI-E device specification coming soon, i believe the days of thunderbolt are limited.
    Thunderbolt IS ePCI-E. Well, using Intel's implementation. You think the specification will somehow make things cheaper? Nope.
    Reply
  • chovav
    Thank you Andrew for this review, it certainly makes it clear whether you should invest in thunderbolt or not.

    Could you maybe do add a random read/write graph comparing GoFlex Desk with USB3 and Thunderbolt?

    I was also wondering what the CPU usage is during read/write - is there any impact at all? or does the thunderbolt controller bear all the processing grunt-work?

    Thanks again, great article.
    Reply
  • CaedenV
    web2dot0Thunderbolt IS ePCI-E. Well, using Intel's implementation. You think the specification will somehow make things cheaper? Nope.thunderbolt is a medium that allows for multiple interconnect protocols to be transmitted over the same wire. It can send PCIe, it can send DP, it was supposed to be able to send USB 1/2/3, as well as Ethernet, all over the same wire... but we have not seen that happen over the copper version that was released.

    The external PCIe will be cheaper and easier because it will be hosted directly by the mobo chipset, or the CPU by tapping into already existing hardware. Chip makers will not have to add a new and expensive tech to the device, the connection will just siphon off lanes that are already there. And because it is already standardized and cheap technology it will be easier and cheaper to implement. Finally it will be an open standard that multiple manufacturers can adopt. Thunderbolt (as much as I love the idea) is made and operated by Intel, and Intel wants to charge a premium for it. Until there are multiple chip makers who can make it, then it will continue to be too expensive... and when multiple chip makers can make it then Intel will be the only one worth buying (much like their network interfaces) because nobody can do quality like intel, but at least the price will come down.
    Reply
  • mayankleoboy1
    ^ like the Marvell SATA controllers.

    And thunderbolt is not going optical fibre in the coming years. the cable is too expensive and cant carry much power.

    and the fact that apple is using it gives some clues about its price, compatibility, usability and openness.

    i remember how TB was promoted : one single wire from your PC to a TB brick. and from that brick you added USB, ethernet, firewire, DP, HDMI. basically it was touted as "1 wire for everything". supposed to be magical, and we all know how that turns out.
    Reply
  • acku
    CaedenVthunderbolt is a medium that allows for multiple interconnect protocols to be transmitted over the same wire. It can send PCIe, it can send DP, it was supposed to be able to send USB 1/2/3, as well as Ethernet, all over the same wire... but we have not seen that happen over the copper version that was released.The external PCIe will be cheaper and easier because it will be hosted directly by the mobo chipset, or the CPU by tapping into already existing hardware. Chip makers will not have to add a new and expensive tech to the device, the connection will just siphon off lanes that are already there. And because it is already standardized and cheap technology it will be easier and cheaper to implement. Finally it will be an open standard that multiple manufacturers can adopt. Thunderbolt (as much as I love the idea) is made and operated by Intel, and Intel wants to charge a premium for it. Until there are multiple chip makers who can make it, then it will continue to be too expensive... and when multiple chip makers can make it then Intel will be the only one worth buying (much like their network interfaces) because nobody can do quality like intel, but at least the price will come down.
    Read http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/thunderbolt-performance-z77a-gd80,3205.html Thunderbolt can externalize anything. It just has to have the controller. It is external PCIe. External USB 3.0 and ethernet are possible but unlikely because they are already on the mobo.

    From a practical standpoint, external PCIe may cheaper, but it's pointless from a performance standpoint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI_Express#External_PCIe_cards. Everything is limited to a PCIe 1.0 x1 connection. The new ExpressCard standard (v2.0) ups bandwidth to slightly more than PCIe 1.0 x2, which still isn't that fast compared to TB (PCIe 2.0 x4 uplink). Plus ExpressCard only lets you connect a single device. It's one and done after that. For a mobile user, Thunderbolt is the way to go. Worse, you can't count on EC to be available. I'm already seeing Ultrabooks with TB. It makes sense because it doesn't require a lot of space. EC requires more space, hence it will be a greater rarity now that TB is out.

    It looks expensive now but be patient. TB is something you will want. Many people need to look past the role Apple played. It clearly is a performance oriented technology that opens up a whole new world, especially on the mobile side.

    Cheers,
    Andrew Ku
    Tom's Hardware.com

    Reply
  • web2dot0
    CaedenVthunderbolt is a medium that allows for multiple interconnect protocols to be transmitted over the same wire. It can send PCIe, it can send DP, it was supposed to be able to send USB 1/2/3, as well as Ethernet, all over the same wire... but we have not seen that happen over the copper version that was released.The external PCIe will be cheaper and easier because it will be hosted directly by the mobo chipset, or the CPU by tapping into already existing hardware. Chip makers will not have to add a new and expensive tech to the device, the connection will just siphon off lanes that are already there. And because it is already standardized and cheap technology it will be easier and cheaper to implement. Finally it will be an open standard that multiple manufacturers can adopt. Thunderbolt (as much as I love the idea) is made and operated by Intel, and Intel wants to charge a premium for it. Until there are multiple chip makers who can make it, then it will continue to be too expensive... and when multiple chip makers can make it then Intel will be the only one worth buying (much like their network interfaces) because nobody can do quality like intel, but at least the price will come down.
    Thank you for your Wikipedia quote. Everybody can quote from the spec sheet. The trouble is you make it seem like Intel are bunch of morons building a interconnect that nobody uses. That's is plain wrong. Just like SSDs, they will come down in price and next thing you know, you'll be asking yourself why in the world would I not use Thunderbolt. Imagine running a external GPU on your Retina Display MacbookPro when you dock your laptop. There'll be a lineup of people buying that technology at a premium price.

    Partnering with Apple is no accident. 2 giant corporations backing the initiative is nothing to sneeze at. Give it a few years, and you'll soon find out the true power of Thunderbolt. USB 3.0 complements Thunderbolt.
    Reply
  • mayankleoboy1
    edit
    Reply