Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

notguiltystyle

macrumors member
Original poster
Feb 14, 2008
41
0
I've recently purchased my imac and it came with a Western Digital WD-WCATRA397780 hard drive. My spec: 27", I7 non fusion. I know there are various threads on here stating that the Seagate drives are faster but Im barely getting 75mb read/write speeds through the Black Magic Drive speed test software? Can the difference really be that big? A quick browse on youtube I see some folks with the Seagate getting 198mb read/right speeds. ( http://youtu.be/iYMB8ge9ujg ). I didn't do a fresh install, but instead stuck my time machine backup on from my old 2009 imac which I upgraded from. Will this make a difference to my speed test results and is this software really an accurate way of testing drive read/write speeds? If there are any other WD non fusion owners here, it would be appreciated if you could post your Black Magic speedtest results. Thanx :)
 
Last edited:

notguiltystyle

macrumors member
Original poster
Feb 14, 2008
41
0
No hard drive will ever reach 198MB/s reads or writes (not even sequential) at 7200rpm.
That's what I thought too, but the youtube link I provided in my original post clearly shows just that. Does this mean that the Black Magic Disk speed test software is pants?
 

WilliamG

macrumors G3
Mar 29, 2008
9,920
3,800
Seattle
No hard drive will ever reach 198MB/s reads or writes (not even sequential) at 7200rpm.

I have a 3TB Seagate Thunderbolt 7200rpm drive, and it hits just under 190MB/s read/writes.

My Seagate 1TB in my 2012 iMac hits 165MB/s read and write in BlackMagic.

I've never heard of a WD-WCATRA397780, fyi...

----------

I've recently purchased my imac and it came with a Western Digital WD-WCATRA397780 hard drive. My spec: 27", I7 non fusion. I know there are various threads on here stating that the Seagate drives are faster but Im barely getting 75mb read/write speeds through the Black Magic Drive speed test software? Can the difference really be that big? A quick browse on youtube I see some folks with the Seagate getting 198mb read/right speeds. ( http://youtu.be/iYMB8ge9ujg ). I didn't do a fresh install, but instead stuck my time machine backup on from my old 2009 imac which I upgraded from. Will this make a difference to my speed test results and is this software really an accurate way of testing drive read/write speeds? If there are any other WD non fusion owners here, it would be appreciated if you could post your Black Magic speedtest results. Thanx :)

Did you restore the OS from your Time Machine backup, or just some files? If you restored the whole OS, you're in for a world of trouble in my opinion...
 

notguiltystyle

macrumors member
Original poster
Feb 14, 2008
41
0
Did you restore the OS from your Time Machine backup said:
Thanks yes I just did a full system restore thinking all will be good, but obviously not. I will do a fresh install and see if things gets better but it will still be interesting to know how much of a difference there is between the two drives as I cannot seem to find ant results for the WD drive. I would be very surprised if the Seagate was more than double the speed of the WD? :eek:
 

davidra

macrumors 6502
Oct 12, 2011
413
4
I have this drive in my new iMac:

WDC WD10EALX-408EA0 I know nothing about it except it's a WD drive.

On Black Magic, I am getting write speeds of 275-300 MB/s, read speeds of 350 MB/s. However, I have a fusion drive so I'm not sure how that affects the speed test. Is there any way to avoid the fusion drive so it's clear you're using the hard disk? I'm certainly happy with the speed of the computer at this point.
 

WilliamG

macrumors G3
Mar 29, 2008
9,920
3,800
Seattle
Thanks yes I just did a full system restore thinking all will be good, but obviously not. I will do a fresh install and see if things gets better but it will still be interesting to know how much of a difference there is between the two drives as I cannot seem to find ant results for the WD drive. I would be very surprised if the Seagate was more than double the speed of the WD? :eek:

No the Seagate is not double the speed of the Western Digital, but I really recommend doing a fresh reinstall. Your BlackMagic speeds should be somewhere in the mid-140s MB/s read, and roughly 135MB/s writes. My 1TB Seagate is about 165MB/s read and 165MB/s writes, but that doesn't tell the whole story, of course, since access times are better on the Seagate, too, among other things. Either way, if you're getting 75MB/s, something is off. And my best it the OS install is causing issues.

http://www.storagereview.com/western_digital_caviar_blue_1tb_review_wd10ealx

I have this drive in my new iMac:

WDC WD10EALX-408EA0 I know nothing about it except it's a WD drive.

On Black Magic, I am getting write speeds of 275-300 MB/s, read speeds of 350 MB/s. However, I have a fusion drive so I'm not sure how that affects the speed test. Is there any way to avoid the fusion drive so it's clear you're using the hard disk? I'm certainly happy with the speed of the computer at this point.

It's a Western Digital Blue drive. The BlackMagic tests aren't relevant here since it's quite clear in your case it's benchmarking the SSD portion of the fusion disk.

And here's the review link again to your drive:

http://www.storagereview.com/western_digital_caviar_blue_1tb_review_wd10ealx
 

davidra

macrumors 6502
Oct 12, 2011
413
4
Thanks. It seems to be perfectly adequate for what I'm doing with it. The fact is I've had horrible luck with Seagate drives in terms of longevity, so I was surprised that everyone seemed to want Seagates in their iMacs. I'll be perfectly happy with what I've got.
 

WhiteIphone5

macrumors 65816
May 27, 2011
1,182
2
Lima, Peru
I have a 3TB Seagate Thunderbolt 7200rpm drive, and it hits just under 190MB/s read/writes.

My Seagate 1TB in my 2012 iMac hits 165MB/s read and write in BlackMagic.

I've never heard of a WD-WCATRA397780, fyi...

----------



Did you restore the OS from your Time Machine backup, or just some files? If you restored the whole OS, you're in for a world of trouble in my opinion...

is it possible to just buy it without fusion and add a SSD later on if i want and configure it with Terminal? thanks
 

WilliamG

macrumors G3
Mar 29, 2008
9,920
3,800
Seattle
so when i open the iMac there would be an empty space for SSD right?

Oh. I thought you meant adding a Thunderbolt/USB 3.0 disk.

Internally there's only a blade-SSD connector, not a second 2.5" or 3.5" SATA port. Plus, you don't really want to have to open up your 27" iMac if you don't have to.
 

WhiteIphone5

macrumors 65816
May 27, 2011
1,182
2
Lima, Peru
Oh. I thought you meant adding a Thunderbolt/USB 3.0 disk.

Internally there's only a blade-SSD connector, not a second 2.5" or 3.5" SATA port. Plus, you don't really want to have to open up your 27" iMac if you don't have to.

yeah i ment internally, for example
if you order the 1TB FUSION, you get the 1TB and the 128GB flash, now if you just order the 1TB, there should be an empty space as to where the 128GB should've been if ordered. i was just thinking of adding the SSD later
 

WilliamG

macrumors G3
Mar 29, 2008
9,920
3,800
Seattle
yeah i ment internally, for example
if you order the 1TB FUSION, you get the 1TB and the 128GB flash, now if you just order the 1TB, there should be an empty space as to where the 128GB should've been if ordered. i was just thinking of adding the SSD later

Yes, but you'd need a blade-type SSD.
 

notguiltystyle

macrumors member
Original poster
Feb 14, 2008
41
0
Thanks for the replies. So would it be safe to assume the following speeds differences between the 2 dives:
Seagate = 198mb read/write approx
WD = 135mb/140mb read/write approx
Making the Segate about 25-35% faster?
 

mikeorchard

macrumors regular
Jan 15, 2013
101
0
Thanks for the replies. So would it be safe to assume the following speeds differences between the 2 dives:
Seagate = 198mb read/write approx
WD = 135mb/140mb read/write approx
Making the Segate about 25-35% faster?

http://www.storagereview.com/western_digital_caviar_blue_1tb_review_wd10ealx

http://www.storagereview.com/seagate_barracuda_3tb_review_1tb_platters_st3000dm001

So yeah, about that. However, in real life usage I doubt it's noticeable at all. If you need speed, an SSD is the only way to make a real difference.
 
Last edited:

WilliamG

macrumors G3
Mar 29, 2008
9,920
3,800
Seattle
Thanks for the replies. So would it be safe to assume the following speeds differences between the 2 dives:
Seagate = 198mb read/write approx
WD = 135mb/140mb read/write approx
Making the Segate about 25-35% faster?

No. The Seagate 1TB is 165MB/s read and write.

----------

http://www.storagereview.com/western_digital_caviar_blue_1tb_review_wd10ealx

http://www.storagereview.com/seagate_barracuda_3tb_review_1tb_platters_st3000dm001

So yeah, about that. However, in real life usage I doubt it's noticeable at all. If you need speed, an SSD is the only way to make a real difference.

You're comparing the 3TB Seagate to the 1TB Western Digital, there. 3TB is faster than 1TB due to data density. The 1TB only hit 165MB/s read/writes.
 

mikeorchard

macrumors regular
Jan 15, 2013
101
0
You're comparing the 3TB Seagate to the 1TB Western Digital, there. 3TB is faster than 1TB due to data density. The 1TB only hit 165MB/s read/writes.

It's the same drive series, using 1TB platters. The differences between the 1TB, 2TB and 3TB models will be negligible. The data density of all sizes will be the same since it's 1TB per platter.

See benchmarks from the 2TB model here: http://postimage.org/image/64rz34qfv/full/
 
Last edited:

WilliamG

macrumors G3
Mar 29, 2008
9,920
3,800
Seattle
It's the same drive series, using 1TB platters. The differences between the 1TB, 2TB and 3TB models will be negligible. The data density of all sizes will be the same since it's 1TB per platter.

See benchmarks from the 2TB model here: http://postimage.org/image/64rz34qfv/full/

In my experience my 3TB Seagate is faster than my 1TB Seagate. I'll run some more tests on both and report back, though.
 

WilliamG

macrumors G3
Mar 29, 2008
9,920
3,800
Seattle
Re-ran some tests. Just grabbed a screen of my 1TB Seagate inside my 2012 iMac. I saw a few peaks at 190MB/s per second, but I never got above this as a result. My 3TB still benches about 10MB/s faster. Not sure why. And I've repeated these tests on several 2012 iMacs with the 1TB Seagate.

Also, bear in mind my results below were not the first run. BlackMagic runs over and over. The run below was maybe the third or fourth cycle. My first run is at around 165MB/s.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2013-02-16 at 1.27.17 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2013-02-16 at 1.27.17 PM.png
    915.5 KB · Views: 85

mikeorchard

macrumors regular
Jan 15, 2013
101
0
See? Not that much difference when they use the same platter density/design.

Thank God I got Fusion, the HGST TravelStar 5K1000 in my 21.5" barely gets above 130 :(
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.