Blackmagic disk speed test late 2012 imac

[CaptMike]

Hi

Anyone have a Blackmagic speed test for:

21.5" i7
1TB Fusion

I have viewed some youtube videos on the i5 without fusions and they showed pretty low and unimpressive

EDIT

Came across this speed test using the mac mini with and without the fusion drive
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0M6pv9qAH4
I would expect that the 21.5 would result in about the same results

[WilliamG]

Originally Posted by CaptMike

Hi

Anyone have a Blackmagic speed test for:

21.5" i7
1TB Fusion

I have viewed some youtube videos on the i5 without fusions and they showed pretty low and unimpressive

EDIT

Came across this speed test using the mac mini with and without the fusion drive
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0M6pv9qAH4
I would expect that the 21.5 would result in about the same results

The test is pretty irrelevant. If the app is using the SSD for its benchmark, it will get the exact same speeds as an SSD. If the data is not on the SSD, the speed will be the same as the Mac mini with 5400rpm disk.

This is why that YouTube video with the benchmarks doesn't tell the whole story. That file copy is another example. If it weren't on the SSD it would have been a lot slower.

I think Fusion drives are a fine idea for the majority of people. For the power users (like myself), no thank you. I want full SSD power, all the time.

[CaptMike]

Originally Posted by WilliamG

The test is pretty irrelevant. If the app is using the SSD for its benchmark, it will get the exact same speeds as an SSD. If the data is not on the SSD, the speed will be the same as the Mac mini with 5400rpm disk.

This is why that YouTube video with the benchmarks doesn't tell the whole story. That file copy is another example. If it weren't on the SSD it would have been a lot slower.

I think Fusion drives are a fine idea for the majority of people. For the power users (like myself), no thank you. I want full SSD power, all the time.

Thanks for your input

As I do not want to spend the money for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB GDDR5 and am concentrating more on the speed of the 1TB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm , I wanted to try to compare the difference in speed between that and the 1TB Fusion Drive .

[leman]

Originally Posted by CaptMike

Thanks for your input

As I do not want to spend the money for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB GDDR5 and am concentrating more on the speed of the 1TB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm , I wanted to try to compare the difference in speed between that and the 1TB Fusion Drive .

I think the Fusion Drive will improve your everyday experience tremendously. If Apple did that right than all data where speed matters will reside on the SSD. Of course, the seldomly used stuff will be slower to load but chances are you won't really notice the slowdown. Also, remember that the Fusion works per-block and not per-file, which means that it will utilise the SSD space much better than a manual setup ever could.

[Siderz]

Please add a question mark to your thread title.

I was expecting some data...not a question.

[CaptMike]

Originally Posted by leman

I think the Fusion Drive will improve your everyday experience tremendously. If Apple did that right than all data where speed matters will reside on the SSD. Of course, the seldomly used stuff will be slower to load but chances are you won't really notice the slowdown. Also, remember that the Fusion works per-block and not per-file, which means that it will utilise the SSD space much better than a manual setup ever could.

Thanks, I'm just trying to fill the gap between the bare 5400 and the GTX 680MX 2GB GDDR5 without having to speed over $2400 to get it.

[Razorhog]

Originally Posted by CaptMike

Thanks, I'm just trying to fill the gap between the bare 5400 and the GTX 680MX 2GB GDDR5 without having to speed over $2400 to get it.

You're looking at the wrong data because the 27" uses a 7200 rpm drive.

[CaptMike]

Originally Posted by Razorhog

You're looking at the wrong data because the 27" uses a 7200 rpm drive.

I know that the 27 is using 7200, but that is the point of trying to compare the speed of the of the fusion 5200 and non fusion first, to see the speed difference THEN compare that result of the 5200 fusion to the 7200 without fusion.

There is no speed test that I can find online (youtube anyway) that shows the speed of the 7200 with or without fusion

[Razorhog]

Originally Posted by CaptMike

I know that the 27 is using 7200, but that is the point of trying to compare the speed of the of the fusion 5200 and non fusion first, to see the speed difference THEN compare that result of the 5200 fusion to the 7200 without fusion.

There is no speed test that I can find online (youtube anyway) that shows the speed of the 7200 with or without fusion

You're making this too hard. A SSD is way faster than any hard drive with spinning disks. No matter what combo the fusion drive uses, when data is reading/writing to the spinning drive it will be slower.

[CaptMike]

Originally Posted by Razorhog

You're making this too hard. A SSD is way faster than any hard drive with spinning disks. No matter what combo the fusion drive uses, when data is reading/writing to the spinning drive it will be slower.

so then the 5400 fusion is faster than the 7200 NON fusion

[Razorhog]

Check out this review, it has some black magic results.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/12/03/a...c-review-2012/

[Ddyracer]

Originally Posted by Razorhog

Check out this review, it has some black magic results.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/12/03/a...c-review-2012/

Thx for posting that. Engadget sure made lots of gramatical mistakes. The speakers are better which i hoped, but the Verge did say that there was zero bass while engadget said nothing related to that. Need more speaker info.

[CaptMike]

Originally Posted by Razorhog

Check out this review, it has some black magic results.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/12/03/a...c-review-2012/

Thank you

It states:

" Still, that refreshed silicon doesn't tell the whole story. That performance jump, we suspect, mostly comes from Apple's FusionDrive, which combines a 5,400RPM hard drive and an SSD into one volume -- similar to the setup you'll find in high-end gaming rigs. (Note: you need to configure the iMac with this feature, as it doesn't come standard.) It's a significant change, especially since as recently as last year even the most tricked-out iMacs still had spinning hard drives (7,200RPM ones, mind you, but spinning hard drives nonetheless). Here, you get a 128GB disk, and it's not just there for caching, or speeding up boot times. The difference between this and other so-called hybrid storage solutions is that by default, FusionDrive stores most everything on that SSD, including the OS and applications. (Media files might live on the HDD, since you're not as likely to open them every day.) For the most part, then, the SSD will be your primary mode of storage; it's not until you run out of space that the machine really starts off-loading content onto the slower of the two drives.

And yes, it's fast, especially compared to the HDDs in last year's models. Using the Blackmagic disk benchmark, we recorded average read speeds of 409.64 MB/s and average writes of 320.14 MB/s. We should say, too, that although we varied the stress load, simulating transfers between 1GB and 5GB, the performance remained pretty consistent. For instance, in the 1GB test, which tends to yield higher numbers than the 5GB one, our average read and write rates were only slightly higher: 412.73 MB/s and 321.93 MB/s, respectively. We also didn't see that significant a gap between our high and low numbers; read speeds, for instance, never dipped below the 390s, but also never rose about the 420s. The numbers also stayed even from one machine to the other: our two systems delivered nearly identical numbers across many rounds of testing."

Now, do you have a link to Blackmagic results for the NON fusion 7200 RPM version?