Promise Pegasus R6 & Mac Thunderbolt Review
by Anand Lal Shimpi on July 8, 2011 2:01 AM ESTFinal Words
There are really two things that need concluding in this article. We'll start with the Promise Pegasus R6. Without a doubt this is the highest performing external enclosure you can get for your 2011 MacBook Pro or iMac. Even using lowly mechanical hard drives you can get absolutely amazing sequential performance out of the R6. In its beefiest configuration you get 10TB of storage that you can readily access at over 600MB/s. For a MacBook Pro or iMac user that does a lot of HD video work, this amount of high speed storage is just unheard of. The big tower guys have always been able to piece together beefy RAID arrays, but now you're able to get that sort of an experience in a more compact computing device.
I'd love to see Promise offer a version of the Pegasus with SSDs instead of mechanical drives. If Promise didn't want to retool the Pegasus' design it could come in the same chassis, but it'd be really nice to see an even smaller form factor chassis designed exclusively around the 2.5" form factor. I've already shown what four high speed SSDs can do in the R6's chassis. You obviously don't get the capacity but I suspect there's a class of users out there that needs more than what a MacBook Pro can offer with its internal drive bays, but doesn't quite need 10TB of storage.
The Promise Utility that comes with the Pegasus is nice but I found it slightly temperamental at times. I almost feel like we're another couple of software/firmware revisions away from a more polished solution, although admittedly I didn't encounter any issues when I was just using the device as configured.
The biggest drawback to the Pegasus is its price. At $1999 fully loaded, or $999 for an entry level 4TB R4 it's just a very difficult device to justify. I suspect if your work depends on it then you'll have no problems spending the money, but it is a very niche product as a result. I would like to see Promise or someone else offer a barebones Thunderbolt chassis for those users who need this sort of performance but at a better price point. I can understand the price premium for Thunderbolt, but at these prices the technology is simply out of the reach of too many who could honestly use it.
Which brings me to the next topic of discussion: Thunderbolt. The interface is fast, there's no doubt about that. With the right drive configuration I had no problems pushing 8Gbps over the PCIe channel while sending another ~7Gbps over the DisplayPort channel to a 27-inch monitor. It's clear that Thunderbolt has what it takes to really enable more users to migrate from big desktops to high powered quad-core notebooks. The interface effectively solves the high speed local storage issue.
I'd love to see Apple get really aggressive here and offer a Cinema Display with two Thunderbolt ports, more USB ports, Ethernet and audio out. Then MacBook Pro users would only have to run a single Thunderbolt cable + power to their notebooks when they're docked at a desk. I'd also like to see full-speed performance when used in Target Disk Mode. Thunderbolt could become the new defacto way to quickly migrate data between Macs.
I am concerned that we may run into bandwidth limitations in the not too distant future. If we can already push 5 - 8Gbps of data on a single channel, what happens when you run Gigabit Ethernet and USB over Thunderbolt as well. For high end users, I see a definite need for faster signaling or multiple Thunderbolt ports.
I also have concerns about cable costs and widespread adoption. For Thunderbolt to really take off we need to see tons of products that support it. Intel's Thunderbolt controller IC can't be cheap, so I am curious to find out if more companies will give Thunderbolt a try. I believe cable costs can be prohibitive, but today device costs are the bigger concern.
Intel already announced that we'd see Thunderbolt support in Ivy Bridge designs next year so it may be at least one more year before we see just how much market potential Thunderbolt has. While I'm happy that Apple is championing the standard, Thunderbolt really needs widespread industry support to make an impact.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
88 Comments
View All Comments
enthios - Thursday, July 28, 2011 - link
"Ironically isolated from the world around them?" How about wifi and iCloud? With limited storage capacity, there's no need for anything more. iOS devices are simply thin clients - and they work wonderfully as such.NirXY - Friday, July 8, 2011 - link
Which is 0$Exelius - Friday, July 8, 2011 - link
Yes, but in this instance, it's not just a dumb wire; there is an IC at each end of the cable. So theoretically, if Intel comes up with an upgraded Light Peak spec, there may well be cables that are capable of faster speeds. I also imagine longer cables become more difficult, and may in fact require fiber optic transceivers built into the cable. This cable also likely costs significantly more to manufacture than a crimped cable, since there's a tiny IC and micro soldering that needs to be done on each cable.But yes, in one sense you are right that in a digital bus, higher quality cables do not provide better performance (though I have run into very low-quality HDMI cables that work fine at 720p but refuse to carry a 1080p signal.)
repoman27 - Sunday, July 10, 2011 - link
At the moment, i’m not sure the Thunderbolt host controller has any real legs on the cable. That host controller is already pumping data to each port at the same speeds as the DMI link between the CPU and PCH. Everything in the chain that is connected to it needs to get faster for Thunderbolt to get faster, i.e. PCIe 3.0, DMI 3.0, DP 1.2.Also, I’m pretty sure it’s not those little ICs that are making Apple’s Thunderbolt cables cost $49. Like many retailers, Apple knows that cables and accessories (and RAM upgrades) are a great place to stretch profit margins. A quick search of the Apple store for cables and adapters will turn up dozens of genuine Apple offerings ranging in price from $19 on up to $99. So, taken in context, the Thunderbolt cable is actually a mid-priced cable from Apple, not an expensive one. It also means that cheap unbranded alternatives could quite realistically be sold for around $15, ICs and all.
Regarding your HDMI cable experience, Category 1 or “Standard” HDMI cables are only rated for 1080i60, whereas Category 2 or “High Speed” cables will do 1080p60, 4K, 3D, Deep Color, etc. Older cables weren’t marked as such, and thus YMMV.
snakeInTheGrass - Friday, July 15, 2011 - link
Yeah, the SCSI cables were $75+ easily, you needed terminators, and do you remember the fine SCSI1/2/3 connector differences so you needed adapters or cables with different ends depending on the devices. I still have probably what WAS $500 of cables in my closed.Inflation adjusted, these $50 cables are about the equivalent of $15 cables back in those days, so frankly they don't sound too bad, especially considering the fact that it's industry leading performance right now.
As for comparing to Monster cables, these Thunderbolt cables have controllers built into them and presumably do have to meet tighter tolerances than USB, particularly as they carry 2 x 10Gbps data streams. But you're right that Monster cables are a rip off.
flowynn - Friday, July 8, 2011 - link
I remember those days well. My need for speed SCSI habit was insanely expensive.MonkeyPaw - Friday, July 8, 2011 - link
It reminds me of FB-DIMMs, an expensive solution that uses additional energy, and the components cost more than devices it replaces. Controllers in the cables AND on the motherboard and peripherals? Maybe the optical solution will make more sense.CrimsonFury - Monday, July 11, 2011 - link
I thought the initial copper cables didn't need any controllers in them? The impression I got from earlier articles was that Intel said their Thunderbolt implementation could scale to optical in future for greater speeds by releasing optical cables with a copper to optical controller in each end of the cable once controller costs had come down from mass production.MobiusStrip - Tuesday, July 12, 2011 - link
No, they need optical in the ports and wires.By reneging on the light in "Light Peak", Intel effectively killed it. Who knows why they're playing dumb in pretending that they're going to get the industry to adopt Thunderbolt and then turn around and adopt an optical solution right afterward. Just idiotic.
André - Friday, July 8, 2011 - link
I find it especially funny considering that all current Thunderbolt solutions (A/V equipment or storage enclosures) are all in excess of $999 to begin with.