Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > iMac

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 22, 2012, 10:11 AM   #1
barefeats
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
iMac 3TB HDD is slower than 1TB

Just tested both with QuickBench 4.04.

Large 1TB Sequential Custom Test (average of 5 iterations):
1TB = 208MB/s READ, 207MB/s WRITE
3TB = 174MB/s READ, 173MB/s WRITE

Also faster on small random writes:
1TB = 57MB/s
3TB = 38MB/s

Tested two 3TB in case it was a dud. No dud. Just slower.

Not a huge deal but just thought you would like to know.

P.S. Those are not Fusion Drives -- just the regular HDDs.

Last edited by barefeats; Dec 22, 2012 at 10:12 AM. Reason: addendum
barefeats is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2012, 10:33 AM   #2
MeFromHere
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
What drive models?

There have been indications that Apple is using more than one disk vendor in each system type. Can you post the model numbers of the particular drives you tested?

Thanks.
MeFromHere is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2012, 11:17 AM   #3
barefeats
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeFromHere View Post
There have been indications that Apple is using more than one disk vendor in each system type. Can you post the model numbers of the particular drives you tested?

Thanks.
Yes.

1TB = model ST1000DM003 (Seagate Barracuda 7200.14)

3TB = model ST3000DM001 (Seagate Barracuda 7200.14)

Both are 7200rpm and have 64M cache.
http://www.seagate.com/internal-hard...ku=ST3000DM001
barefeats is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2012, 11:58 AM   #4
XionCore
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
3 TB drives are slower by design due to the more dense-packed platters (single disks inside the HDD)
XionCore is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2012, 05:19 PM   #5
Outrigger
macrumors 65816
 
Outrigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by XionCore View Post
3 TB drives are slower by design due to the more dense-packed platters (single disks inside the HDD)
Shouldn't the drives be faster due to the more dense packed platters?
__________________
iMac | Intel i7 3.4GHz | 32GB RAM | 1TB Fusion | GTX 680MX
Mini | Intel i5 2.5GHz | 8GB RAM | 750GBSSD | AMD 6630M
rMBP 13 | Intel i5 2.6Ghz | 8GB RAM | 512GB SSD
Outrigger is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2012, 08:52 PM   #6
Metal Dice
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Denmark
I would really like for us to be able to conclude on this. Is there anybody that could confirm the results of barefeats.
__________________
"There's that word again, heavy. Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the earth's gravitational pull?"
Metal Dice is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2012, 09:11 PM   #7
Puevlo
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outrigger View Post
Shouldn't the drives be faster due to the more dense packed platters?
No. As the data is smaller the reader has to squint harder to read it.
Puevlo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2012, 09:42 AM   #8
Metal Dice
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Denmark
Is there anybody else that could contribute with benchmark results or something. It find this HDD speed difference very important, but it seems as if I'm alone.
__________________
"There's that word again, heavy. Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the earth's gravitational pull?"
Metal Dice is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 02:10 AM   #9
dukee101
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puevlo View Post
No. As the data is smaller the reader has to squint harder to read it.
No, that's simply untrue.

Higher areal densities mean there's more data crammed into the same amount of space, which means that once the read-write head scans any given block, it will read/write more in a given moment than if the density were lower.

Increased areal density therefore leads to increased speeds. The more gigabytes you can pack onto a platter, the faster your hard disk drive should become.
dukee101 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 11:06 AM   #10
Mr. Retrofire
macrumors 601
 
Mr. Retrofire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: www.emiliana.cl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puevlo View Post
No. As the data is smaller the reader has to squint harder to read it.
Source?
__________________

“Only the dead have seen the end of the war.”
-- Plato --
Mr. Retrofire is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > iMac

Tags
1tb, 3tb, hdd, imac, speeds

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iMac late 2012 3TB HDD accidentally fused with 128GB SSD xrs74 iMac 6 Apr 5, 2013 06:37 PM
3TB Fusion or 1TB Fusion - surely 3TB? jackofharts iMac 33 Dec 11, 2012 03:51 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:27 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC