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

Anyone use Black Magic Disk Speed test from the App Store?

jamesryanbell

jamesryanbell

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Mar 17, 2009
2,171
93
johnhurley said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

SDColorado

macrumors 601
Nov 6, 2011
4,360
4,324
Highlands Ranch, CO
jamesryanbell said:
I have to be honest...

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

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

jamesryanbell

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Mar 17, 2009
2,171
93
SDColorado said:
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.
Click to expand...

Pretty much my thoughts exactly. Thanks for the feedback.
 
SDColorado

SDColorado

macrumors 601
Nov 6, 2011
4,360
4,324
Highlands Ranch, CO
jamesryanbell said:
Pretty much my thoughts exactly. Thanks for the feedback.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I

InSaNeBoY

macrumors newbie
May 9, 2005
2
0
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

jamesryanbell

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Mar 17, 2009
2,171
93
SDColorado said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're right on.
 
I

iRCL

macrumors 6502
Nov 2, 2011
284
0
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..
 
R

rwh202

macrumors regular
Nov 14, 2010
114
11
UK
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

jamesryanbell

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Mar 17, 2009
2,171
93
iRCL said:
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..
Click to expand...

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

ZipZap

macrumors 603
Dec 14, 2007
6,076
1,448
rwh202 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
R

rwh202

macrumors regular
Nov 14, 2010
114
11
UK
ZipZap said:
Would be nice if we could get the Blackmagic folks to comment on this. Seems OWC's do not show the expected rates.
Click to expand...

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.
 
J

jon08

macrumors 68000
Nov 14, 2008
1,885
104
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?
 
K

KPOM

macrumors P6
Oct 23, 2010
18,024
7,867
jon08 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Z

ZipZap

macrumors 603
Dec 14, 2007
6,076
1,448
With an MBA and an OWC Drive....I dont get a performance reading anywhere close to expected.

I have the original 3g SSD 180GB
 
H

hh83917

macrumors 6502
Jun 30, 2005
297
65
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.
 
Last edited:
J

jon08

macrumors 68000
Nov 14, 2008
1,885
104
^^ 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

bdodds1985

macrumors 6502a
Jul 18, 2011
867
0
Tartarus
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?
 
H

hh83917

macrumors 6502
Jun 30, 2005
297
65
jon08 said:
^^ 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
Click to expand...

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.
 
P

portishead

macrumors 65816
Apr 4, 2007
1,114
2
los angeles
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.
 
IngerMan

IngerMan

macrumors 68020
Feb 21, 2011
2,005
902
Michigan
jamesryanbell said:
Thanks for all of the input. Sorry that I'm responding late.
Click to expand...

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.
 
M

MacShopper

macrumors newbie
Nov 15, 2003
16
1
Eugene, Oregon
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


blackmagic.png
 
K

katmeef

macrumors 6502
Jul 20, 2010
404
28
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom