PDA

View Full Version : Anyone use Black Magic Disk Speed test from the App Store?




jamesryanbell
Nov 29, 2011, 01:06 PM
If so, what kind of results are you getting? They should be slower than you think because it now uses UNCOMPRESSED data for the tests. Regardless, I was just curious what your results were like (regardless of what SSD you're using). It's a free app if you want to check it out.



johnhurley
Nov 29, 2011, 01:16 PM
If so, what kind of results are you getting? They should be slower than you think because it now uses UNCOMPRESSED data for the tests. Regardless, I was just curious what your results were like (regardless of what SSD you're using). It's a free app if you want to check it out.

Yeah there's a bunch of test results reported using that tool under the long running thread ( something like post your SSD and LCD manufacturer ... sorry forget exact name ).

I have the samsung 256 gb ssd ( SM256C ) and tool reported 259 MB/s write performance and 231 MB/s read performance.

Not sure if you are supposed to let it run a really long time or what ... but anyway we all know how fast these air's are right!

waloshin
Nov 29, 2011, 02:59 PM
244 MB/s Write 216 MB/s Read. Samsung 128 GB model.

jamesryanbell
Nov 29, 2011, 09:57 PM
Does the test ever end? It just looks like it keeps repeating.

aph3x
Nov 29, 2011, 10:25 PM
Works fine for me. 248/230 here with Samsung 256.

I wouldn't recommend running disk speed apps like this consistently - your just putting unnecessary wear on the drive especially with bigger file sizes.

Zudeo
Nov 29, 2011, 11:00 PM
251 Write
248 Read

With a Samsung SM256C on fresh boot using Black Magic Benchmark.

jamesryanbell
Nov 30, 2011, 12:20 AM
Something's seriously wrong with my SSD then. I've NEVER seen higher than about 84 read and about 165 write. I have an OWC Blade SSD 240GB (3G).

It just runs the same test over and over and over. Is it supposed to COMPLETE anything and give other kinds of data or something? (Random 4k writes, etc)

Zudeo
Nov 30, 2011, 12:36 AM
Well, according to the help file you can choose between 1GB to the default 5GB for the stress test. The 5GB Stress Test is the most accurate though. Also, the test never 'ends', you have to hit the start button to end the test at any time.

jamesryanbell
Nov 30, 2011, 12:38 AM
Well, according to the help file you can choose between 1GB to the default 5GB for the stress test. The 5GB Stress Test is the most accurate though. Also, the test never 'ends', you have to hit the start button to end the test at any time.

84/165 is absolutely dreadful though for an OWC SSD (Mercury Aura Pro) isn't it?? What gives?? Am I doing something wrong?

mj1108
Nov 30, 2011, 01:37 AM
Write: 248
Read: 261

newdeal
Nov 30, 2011, 06:46 AM
261 read 245 write with samsung 128gb

tanhm
Nov 30, 2011, 07:53 AM
Write : 231
Read : 219

:D

mulo
Nov 30, 2011, 08:01 AM
looks like a really good test
getting 180/210 form my apple ssd

johnhurley
Nov 30, 2011, 08:06 AM
Does the test ever end? It just looks like it keeps repeating.

I would not run it for very long ... what's the point?

I did one pass and clicked stop.

KPOM
Nov 30, 2011, 08:11 AM
84/165 is absolutely dreadful though for an OWC SSD (Mercury Aura Pro) isn't it?? What gives?? Am I doing something wrong?

Did you ever do a secure erase or anything that might have left a lot of "garbage" to collect? Also, did you install a TRIM enabler (since OS X won't natively support the OWC drive)?

Fenix85
Nov 30, 2011, 08:40 AM
I have a samsung drive, 128gb, and I was getting 245 write/ 264 Read.

jamesryanbell
Nov 30, 2011, 09:55 AM
Did you ever do a secure erase or anything that might have left a lot of "garbage" to collect? Also, did you install a TRIM enabler (since OS X won't natively support the OWC drive)?

I can't erase free space in Disk Utility. It's grayed out.

I installed TRIM enabler and rebooted. It's showing TRIM is enabled now.

Did the disk test again just for kicks. 75/114. What is going on?

I wrote OWC about this. It's gotta be something I'm doing wrong. The drive has to be faster than that.

ZipZap
Nov 30, 2011, 11:30 AM
I can't erase free space in Disk Utility. It's grayed out.

I installed TRIM enabler and rebooted. It's showing TRIM is enabled now.

Did the disk test again just for kicks. 75/114. What is going on?

I wrote OWC about this. It's gotta be something I'm doing wrong. The drive has to be faster than that.

Why are you triming a OWC drive? It has a different controller that does its own garbage collection.

BTW...trim enabler is a hack. Who knows what its doing to your OWC.

jamesryanbell
Nov 30, 2011, 02:07 PM
Why are you triming a OWC drive? It has a different controller that does its own garbage collection.

BTW...trim enabler is a hack. Who knows what its doing to your OWC.

I just turned it on about an hour ago. I thought it couldn't hurt. So now I SHOULDN'T use it? Ok. Turning it back off.

KPOM
Nov 30, 2011, 02:30 PM
I just turned it on about an hour ago. I thought it couldn't hurt. So now I SHOULDN'T use it? Ok. Turning it back off.

There are several schools of thought on TRIM Enabler and why Apple didn't enable TRIM in OS X except for drives that ship with Macs. One school is that Apple hasn't optimized OS X to support TRIM except on those drives and that it's risky (although Windows 7 supports TRIM on just about any drive without issues). Another is that Apple is just being Apple and selectively adding TRIM support.

As for TRIM Enabler, it works by replacing some kernel extensions. There is another way in Lion using the following link that might be safer since it doesn't replace any files on your Mac.

http://digitaldj.net/2011/07/21/trim-enabler-for-lion/

jamesryanbell
Nov 30, 2011, 03:26 PM
I just still want to know why my SSD is showing such slow speeds.

jamesryanbell
Nov 30, 2011, 04:38 PM
Repeated emails to OWC with screen shots resulted in them telling me that any test that's not SpeedTools QuickBench is not worth looking at. I have yet to find a free version of that program compatible with Lion.

Email 1:
"Our SSD uses a feature similar to compression for faster performance. The test you are using was recently updated according to their site, and the write test is now compressed itself for a faster test but that results in lower numbers. We recommend an uncompressed test, a true benchmark like SpeedTools QuickBench if you are looking to see max numbers of your machine. Otherwise I assure you everything is looking great, the problem is some drives handle compression differently and that test is not the same it used to be."

I then sent a picture in of an XBench comparison of the stock 2011 Samsung SSD vs my OWC 240GB Mercury Aura Pro (since I'd already sent screenshots in from the results of Black Magic's results). I was then sent this...

Email 2:
"I'm sorry, but it's the same story here. The test is based on compression, and even worse it's designed for HD only, so I am not surprised to see the numbers skewed on an SSD. The last update was 2009 looks like. When this test was developed SSDs like ours didn't exist. If you are adamant about benchmarking SSDs, professionals would tell you QuickBench is the way to go. DIY testing has it's place, but there is a reason these tests are free :)"

Someone care to help me understand this? I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. :)

johnhurley
Nov 30, 2011, 08:28 PM
Someone care to help me understand this? I would greatly appreciate it.

Sounds like the samsung is a stronger performer than even I was aware of!

Does your machine run fast enough for you? That's the bottom line right?

Just enjoy it and have fun and don't worry about arbitrary benchmark results.

SDColorado
Nov 30, 2011, 08:47 PM
Repeated emails to OWC with screen shots resulted in them telling me that any test that's not SpeedTools QuickBench is not worth looking at. I have yet to find a free version of that program compatible with Lion.

Thats a bunch of nonsense from OWC. My results from Black Magic and Speed Tools are different, because Black Magic is basically only showing you Max speeds. But comparing the Max speeds between Black Magic and Speed Tools, you don't see that big of a difference. Certainly not enough to account for your really slow numbers.

Black Magic:
Write: 248 / Read: 265

SpeedTools:
Write: 251 / 261 (Max) and 231 / 225 average

Edit: The above results I was giving where from another Intech program, SpeedTool. But OWC did say QuickBench. So just to clarify, here are the results from QuickBench.

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb171/iSean1/Mac%20Rumors/4f7f22f1.jpg

jamesryanbell
Nov 30, 2011, 10:29 PM
I have to be honest...

I really feel like I got hosed. If this was a $100 drive, then "whatever" would be my attitude. For $430 for 240GB of space, and promises like "Up to 68% faster than factory SSD in real world uses....sustained writes up to 275MB/s"...based on what I'm seeing, not only is it not true, it's NOT EVEN CLOSE TO TRUE. My stock 2010 Toshiba drive was *WAY* faster based on what I'm seeing as results of *any free benchmark test I run*. Lastly, my boot time INCREASED several seconds after installing it, which isn't comforting.

Again, for a small amount of money spent, I'd just write it off because I got more space (128 to 240GB). But at a little less than $2 per GB, I'm unhappy. I'm sorry but I should be able to benchmark my drive and see results without having to buy a program....just like I have with *every other drive I've ever owned".

I know I posted raves about it after using it for fifteen minutes, but I guess it was "perceived" feel. Now that I'm noticing longer boot times, and that I can't find any program to substantiate speed claims without paying for it, I'm just a little miffed.

Anyway, thanks for listening.

:(

jamesryanbell
Nov 30, 2011, 10:50 PM
Sounds like the samsung is a stronger performer than even I was aware of!

Does your machine run fast enough for you? That's the bottom line right?

Just enjoy it and have fun and don't worry about arbitrary benchmark results.

I wish I'd have bought a used Samsung 256GB drive now off of eBay for less money. It's way, way faster from everything I read.

Does it run fast enough for me? That's relative. For almost $500 out the door, I'd hope it'd be way faster than what I'm seeing. The bottom line is that I want way more speed than stock, faster boot up times, and more storage. I got one of the three. Wouldn't you think I'd be able to reproduce something remotely close to manufacturer claims? I've run AJA (works now for some reason), Black Magic, and XBench, and all of them produce numbers that aren't even remotely close.

I'll try. haha. It's just a money thing I guess.

SDColorado
Nov 30, 2011, 11:20 PM
I have to be honest...

I really feel like I got hosed. If this was a $100 drive, then "whatever" would be my attitude....

I don't blame you. But I just don't get the numbers you are posting. If you look at the figures I posted for Black Magic, which was the 5MB test, they are pretty much dead on the same as the 5MB line in the QuickBench scores I posted. I mean they are within .10's, so I am not sure where OWC seems to think Black Magic is somehow being incredibly optimistic as opposed to QuickBench.

Even running the test on my MBP I get read and write scores both of 110-ish on my 750GB 7200rpm HDD.

You could ask OWC if there is some setting I am missing when I run QuickBench, but otherwise I am not sure how they explain how the results between Black Magic and QuickBench are statistically the same on my drive.

I don't know. I am the furthest thing from an expert when it comes to SSD drives. So maybe I am missing something.

jamesryanbell
Nov 30, 2011, 11:27 PM
I don't blame you. But I just don't get the numbers you are posting. If you look at the figures I posted for Black Magic, which was the 5MB test, they are pretty much dead on the same as the 5MB line in the QuickBench scores I posted. I mean they are within .10's, so I am not sure where OWC seems to think Black Magic is somehow being incredibly optimistic as opposed to QuickBench.

Even running the test on my MBP I get read and write scores both of 110-ish on my 750GB 7200rpm HDD.

You could ask OWC if there is some setting I am missing when I run QuickBench, but otherwise I am not sure how they explain how the results between Black Magic and QuickBench are statistically the same on my drive.

I don't know. I am the furthest thing from an expert when it comes to SSD drives. So maybe I am missing something.

Pretty much my thoughts exactly. Thanks for the feedback.

SDColorado
Nov 30, 2011, 11:29 PM
Pretty much my thoughts exactly. Thanks for the feedback.

Besides, doesn't this quote from What's New in Version 2.1, contradict their statement in Email 1:

"Some SSD's use hidden compression when writing data to make their benchmarked speeds appear faster. Disk Speed Test will now measure the true speed of these SSD's so you know if they are suitable for high quality uncompressed video capture."

It sounds to me as though Black Magic is using the uncompressed test that OWC recommends.

Edit: Also, clearly *not* for HD only as OWC states in email 2.

InSaNeBoY
Dec 1, 2011, 10:00 AM
84.4/139.5 are the highest numbers I've seen on my OWC drive using the black magic speed test...

(not an air though, 2008 mac pro, stumbled on this thread via google search)

jamesryanbell
Dec 1, 2011, 12:09 PM
Besides, doesn't this quote from What's New in Version 2.1, contradict their statement in Email 1:

"Some SSD's use hidden compression when writing data to make their benchmarked speeds appear faster. Disk Speed Test will now measure the true speed of these SSD's so you know if they are suitable for high quality uncompressed video capture."

It sounds to me as though Black Magic is using the uncompressed test that OWC recommends.

Edit: Also, clearly *not* for HD only as OWC states in email 2.

You're right on.

iRCL
Dec 1, 2011, 01:16 PM
OP sorry to hear that

Is your SSD quite full? Or has it been at some point in time? Due to the whole TRIM mess and so on, what you can try to do is move all your data to an external HDD, completely format your SSD and then put all of your data back. Think of it like a defrag. This will likely improve your speeds.

However all the stuff OWC said is a bunch of crap. I think that company is pure overpriced garbage TBH and yes I would be upset if I were you. There's always ebay..

rwh202
Dec 1, 2011, 01:55 PM
People seem to be getting confused by the compression here.

The OWC is a SandForce drive - this does compression to achieve the rated speeds.

For example, the drive may only be able to physically write 100MB/s to the NAND, but if it can achieve 3:1 compression, then it appears as a 300MB/s write.

However, not all data can be compressed. If you give it progressively more compressed data to start with, it can't be compressed as much so you will hit the 100MB/s (or whatever) limit sooner.

The updated BlackMagic seems to write heavily compressed data to stop these drives 'cheating' so gives a worst case performance to cater for demanding video capture.

My Sandforce powered 275/285MB/s drive in a MBP also only manages 80/160 on the BlackMagic test so I don't think there is anything wrong. It's still blinding fast in normal use.

jamesryanbell
Dec 2, 2011, 10:22 AM
OP sorry to hear that

Is your SSD quite full? Or has it been at some point in time? Due to the whole TRIM mess and so on, what you can try to do is move all your data to an external HDD, completely format your SSD and then put all of your data back. Think of it like a defrag. This will likely improve your speeds.

However all the stuff OWC said is a bunch of crap. I think that company is pure overpriced garbage TBH and yes I would be upset if I were you. There's always ebay..

No, I have 100GB of free space. I may try that with the external drive. Thanks! :)

ZipZap
Dec 2, 2011, 03:44 PM
People seem to be getting confused by the compression here.

The OWC is a SandForce drive - this does compression to achieve the rated speeds.

For example, the drive may only be able to physically write 100MB/s to the NAND, but if it can achieve 3:1 compression, then it appears as a 300MB/s write.

However, not all data can be compressed. If you give it progressively more compressed data to start with, it can't be compressed as much so you will hit the 100MB/s (or whatever) limit sooner.

The updated BlackMagic seems to write heavily compressed data to stop these drives 'cheating' so gives a worst case performance to cater for demanding video capture.

My Sandforce powered 275/285MB/s drive in a MBP also only manages 80/160 on the BlackMagic test so I don't think there is anything wrong. It's still blinding fast in normal use.

Interesting...thanks for the info.

Would be nice if we could get the Blackmagic folks to comment on this. Seems OWC's do not show the expected rates.

Has anyone contacted OWC for comment?

rwh202
Dec 3, 2011, 03:09 AM
Would be nice if we could get the Blackmagic folks to comment on this. Seems OWC's do not show the expected rates.


The BlackMagic help file also explains their process in the final section -"Important note about Solid State Disk (SSD) speeds"

Also, just as an experiment, I changed the BlackMagic test directory to somewhere more accessible, ran the test, copied the test file to the desktop and right clicked and chose "compress ...."
The 541MB file was 'compressed' to 542MB! This shows that the data that is being written by BlackMagic really is is highly compressed, i.e. incompressible any further by a SandForce drive.

jon08
Dec 5, 2011, 03:51 PM
Disk Speed Test v. 2.1

Write: cca. 180-240 MB/s
Read: cca. 460-490 MB/s

OWC Mercury Extreme PRO 6G 120GB.

So is this good?

KPOM
Dec 5, 2011, 07:25 PM
Disk Speed Test v. 2.1

Write: cca. 180-240 MB/s
Read: cca. 460-490 MB/s

OWC Mercury Extreme PRO 6G 120GB.

So is this good?

Yes, the read speeds are about twice as fast as the native drives. The main difference is that the SSD you are using supports the faster version of SATA.

ZipZap
Dec 6, 2011, 08:41 AM
With an MBA and an OWC Drive....I dont get a performance reading anywhere close to expected.

I have the original 3g SSD 180GB

jamesryanbell
Dec 6, 2011, 09:48 AM
With an MBA and an OWC Drive....I dont get a performance reading anywhere close to expected.

I have the original 3g SSD 180GB

I guess it's the compressed data issue every time.

hh83917
Dec 28, 2011, 06:50 PM
The OWC sandforce drives use compression technology.
The OWC email did said this new compression technology will not show it's full potential under any benchmark other than Quickbench, because it's the only one that can include this compression technology in the benchmark.

As far as I can tell from this thread, no one posted any results of OWC drives using Quickbench. The only Quickbench result I see here is the Samsung drive, which is not we are concerning about.

Unless someone can post some Quickbench result from the OWC drive vs the Samsung drive, there is no proof that the OWC drive is slower.

BTW, The 6G OWC drive should not be considered because it's simply a faster SATA interface and that's in a different category.

Edit: Found a benchmark regarding this on Barefeats: http://www.barefeats.com/mba11_03.html
They said the OWC drive is faster after testing with Quickbench.

jon08
Dec 29, 2011, 02:50 AM
^^ I've performed QuickBench tests on my OWC Mercury Extreme Pro (120GB) before and got the following results on:

Write: 440-470 MB/s
Read: 500-510 MB/s

bdodds1985
Dec 29, 2011, 11:34 AM
I use this app but recenlty its telling me that my macintosh hd is read only. which is wrong. it works perfect for my optical bay hd. also ive noticed any time i copy or add something to the normal hd it asks me for a password. finder says "you can only read"... any idea on how to fix this so i can run the speed test?

hh83917
Dec 29, 2011, 03:24 PM
^^ I've performed QuickBench tests on my OWC Mercury Extreme Pro (120GB) before and got the following results on:

Write: 440-470 MB/s
Read: 500-510 MB/s

Yes, but I thought your test is on the "Mercury Extreme Pro 6G" which is a much faster SATA interface, hence the 6G.

We are talking about just normal SATA 3G here.

jon08
Dec 29, 2011, 03:25 PM
Yeah, it's the 6G one...

portishead
Jan 27, 2012, 07:29 PM
I have a 120GB Electra in my iMac, and I am only getting 100MB/s read, and about 180MB/s write using Blackmagic Disk Speed Test.

In an older version I was getting close to 500MB/s both ways. I know it's measuring Incompressible rates now, but still, those numbers look pretty slow. I wouldn't buy OWC.

jamesryanbell
Feb 2, 2012, 05:32 PM
Thanks for all of the input. Sorry that I'm responding late.

IngerMan
Feb 2, 2012, 05:57 PM
Thanks for all of the input. Sorry that I'm responding late.

Is the slower test results issue resolved? Did you hear back from OWC with satisfaction?

I am curious because I consider them an option for the future. But service and performance is a big factor.

MacShopper
Jun 23, 2012, 05:47 PM
Wow, I thought mine was fast, but it's slower than everyone else's above. :(

But mine is BIGGER! :D

512 GB SSD
Model: Apple SSD TS512C
Mfgr: Toshiba


http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/8210/blackmagic.png

katmeef
Jun 23, 2012, 07:22 PM
I had an agility 3 in my last mbp and found after a year or so things slowed down. I cloned it to an external, 'secure erased' it using the manufacturer supplied Linux boot disc (only took a few seconds to complete) and cloned it back, things seemed much faster afterwards.

Also I found Aja system test to give higher results on read/write scores as opposed to black magic, although since Lion I noticed I need to launch it with sudo for it to be able to create the test file at the root of the drive.

KPOM
Jun 23, 2012, 07:25 PM
Wow, I thought mine was fast, but it's slower than everyone else's above. :(

But mine is BIGGER! :D

512 GB SSD
Model: Apple SSD TS512C
Mfgr: Toshiba


Image (http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/8210/blackmagic.png)

That seems a bit slow, even for the Toshiba. It is on a 6Gbps controller now, and that should give you speeds in the 350-400 Mbps range. In any case, you might try another benchmark, since sometimes a controller can give a benchmark a fit, and thus it won't generate a reliable result. Sandforce controllers in particular seem prone to this. I think it has something to do with how the controller treats compressed data vs. uncompressed data. I've read that the Toshiba is a customized Sandforce.

robvas
Jul 18, 2012, 12:25 PM
FWIW here is the 128GB Toshiba SSD in my 2011 Air

http://i.imgur.com/jJUKi.png

BenClement1978
Jul 18, 2012, 12:36 PM
250 read 250 write 3 WD Black drives. for some reason not letting itself run on the ssd.

iBookG4user
Jul 18, 2012, 12:43 PM
Mine isn't a MacBook Air, but I have a 3 SSD RAID 0 in my Mac Pro and it gets stellar results in Aja but lackluster results in Black Magic. It is also due to the compression issue as I am using OCZ Vertex 2's.

MacRuler
Jul 18, 2012, 09:15 PM
348785

2012 Macbook Air 13" 128gb toshiba

oymd
Nov 5, 2012, 07:25 PM
little late to the party...but happy with results...

MBA 2012 with 256GB SSD, I think its a Samsung..

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f382/oymd/DiskSpeedTest.png

beigelightning
Dec 13, 2012, 07:28 AM
on a 64GB Toshiba 11" i5 mid 2012.

kbmb
Dec 14, 2012, 09:53 AM
Also to note for the 2012 models...there are both Toshiba and Samsung SSDs being used. The Toshiba tends to be used more in the 64/128 GB models while the Samsung is for the 256/512 GB models. This is all per this review:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6063/macbook-air-13inch-mid-2012-review/4

Another thing to note is....like the OWC drives, which are Sandforce drives, the Toshiba drives in the 2012 models are also Sandforce. So with Compressed data, you will get slower speeds.

Also, if you are using Filevault (which with a laptop you should be), the Samsung drive is going to perform better because of the compressed data.

Interestingly, I got the i7/256/8GB model....it came with the Samsung drive. Using the Black Magic speed test:

Before Filevault:

Write avg: 403.5 MB/s
Read avg: 446.8 MB/s

After Filevault was interesting....speeds went up:

Write avg: 422.8 MB/s
Read avg: 449.0 MB/s

I was happy with that.

As for Black Magic......it's definitely going to show slower speeds with the Sandforce drives. I have an old OWC 3G drive in my Mac Pro......with AJA I get speeds in the 200's....with Black Magic I get pathetic speeds....on par with traditional drives.

I think the Sandforce drives used to be the best....but I think others have caught up.

-Kevin

johnjey
Jul 3, 2013, 07:14 PM
Also to note for the 2012 models...there are both Toshiba and Samsung SSDs being used. The Toshiba tends to be used more in the 64/128 GB models while the Samsung is for the 256/512 GB models. This is all per this review:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6063/macbook-air-13inch-mid-2012-review/4

Another thing to note is....like the OWC drives, which are Sandforce drives, the Toshiba drives in the 2012 models are also Sandforce. So with Compressed data, you will get slower speeds.

Also, if you are using Filevault (which with a laptop you should be), the Samsung drive is going to perform better because of the compressed data.

Interestingly, I got the i7/256/8GB model....it came with the Samsung drive. Using the Black Magic speed test:

Before Filevault:

Write avg: 403.5 MB/s
Read avg: 446.8 MB/s

After Filevault was interesting....speeds went up:

Write avg: 422.8 MB/s
Read avg: 449.0 MB/s

I was happy with that.

As for Black Magic......it's definitely going to show slower speeds with the Sandforce drives. I have an old OWC 3G drive in my Mac Pro......with AJA I get speeds in the 200's....with Black Magic I get pathetic speeds....on par with traditional drives.

I think the Sandforce drives used to be the best....but I think others have caught up.

-Kevin

LOL. i am touching 561 in read and 761 in write speeds :) beat that on 11' air 2013 :) 512 SSD !!:cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:

Jefe's MacAir
Jul 4, 2013, 12:28 PM
711 write 726 read. :D

iMarvin
Jul 4, 2013, 05:09 PM
Got my machine today, 453MB/s write, 726MB/s read. 128GB samsung ssd.

Appledreamer
Jul 4, 2013, 05:10 PM
If so, what kind of results are you getting? They should be slower than you think because it now uses UNCOMPRESSED data for the tests. Regardless, I was just curious what your results were like (regardless of what SSD you're using). It's a free app if you want to check it out.

picture att. is this a good speed?

128GB ssd macbook air 2013.

Saberon
Jul 4, 2013, 05:22 PM
Absolutely spot on speeds there.

bradywurtz
Dec 21, 2013, 03:08 PM
I have a 2TB Western Digital My Book Studio for my iMac (2013 Model). The Western Digital My Book Studio is plugged in via Firewire 800 (with a Thunderbolt adaptor to plug into my iMac).

The My Book Studio isn't a plug n' go. It's a high powered hard drive (7200 rpm?)

But I've ran the Blackmagic Disk Speed Test with 5GB stress test for about 2 minutes and here are the results...

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6098795/DiskSpeedTest.png

60.9 MB/s Write, 37.7 MB/s Read. Also, under Will it Work? It says i'm only capable of working with PAL and NTSC. I have an 'X' on absolutely everything else. I've been editing 1080 60p footage off this drive for at least 2 years now without a hiccup.

Are these Write and Read speeds correct? Am I really not capable of editing ANY hd footage EVER according to this app? I feel like it's not working but i've never heard of a person ever have this problem so i'm stumped.

solsearchin
Jan 2, 2014, 11:28 PM
i have the same computer and i get 320 write / 730 Read, not sure if i should exchange it for another, 100 points is pretty drastic IMO

picture att. is this a good speed?

128GB ssd macbook air 2013.

mct74
Jan 26, 2014, 10:24 PM
Just got my new Mac Pro hooked up and ran some comparisons between my 2008 Mac Pro and the new one I just got:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7428/12165795445_78e44d2079_o_d.jpg

Boyd01
Jan 27, 2014, 07:32 AM
Very nice... but did you notice that you're posting in the MacBook Air forum? :)

mct74
Jan 27, 2014, 07:51 AM
Very nice... but did you notice that you're posting in the MacBook Air forum? :)

Doh!! Nope - got here through a google search and just saw the BlackMagic title :)

Even now on my iphone it is hard to see the MacBook Air designation... Sorry about that!

Boyd01
Jan 27, 2014, 11:12 AM
Oh, no problem, just thought it was worth pointing out. I get 700MB/s write and over 700MB/s read on the 512gb SSD in my 11" MacBook Air. Not bad, considering the price difference with the Mac Pro. :D

Those results from your 2008 machine seem kind of low. Just ran the Blackmagic test on a Seagate Desktop Backup Plus drive connected to my MBA through Thunderbolt. This is a 2TB 5400RPM drive, and I get 195MB/s write and 196MB/s read.

n1tut
Jan 27, 2014, 11:47 AM
304/707 for a 128 2013 11"

tut

mct74
Jan 27, 2014, 01:01 PM
Oh, no problem, just thought it was worth pointing out. I get 700MB/s write and over 700MB/s read on the 512gb SSD in my 11" MacBook Air. Not bad, considering the price difference with the Mac Pro. :D

Those results from your 2008 machine seem kind of low. Just ran the Blackmagic test on a Seagate Desktop Backup Plus drive connected to my MBA through Thunderbolt. This is a 2TB 5400RPM drive, and I get 195MB/s write and 196MB/s read.

Yep - that PCI Express Bus is FAST! Glad to see the Airs are taking advantage of that as well!

Yea - not sure about why the speeds are so low on the '08 machine... Was expecting faster myself!