iMac 2012 27" Western Digital slow

Discussion in 'iMac' started by notguiltystyle, Feb 13, 2013.

  1. notguiltystyle, Feb 13, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2013

    macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    #1
    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 :)
     
  2. macrumors G5

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #2
    No hard drive will ever reach 198MB/s reads or writes (not even sequential) at 7200rpm.
     
  3. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    #3
    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?
     
  4. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #4
    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...
     
  5. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    #5
     
  6. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    #6
    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.
     
  7. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #7
    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

    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
     
  8. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    #8
    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.
     
  9. macrumors 65816

    WhiteIphone5

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    Location:
    Lima, Peru
    #9
    is it possible to just buy it without fusion and add a SSD later on if i want and configure it with Terminal? thanks
     
  10. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #10
    Yes. You can do user-configured Fusion.
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    WhiteIphone5

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    Location:
    Lima, Peru
    #11
    so when i open the iMac there would be an empty space for SSD right?
     
  12. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #12
    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.
     
  13. macrumors 65816

    WhiteIphone5

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    Location:
    Lima, Peru
    #13
    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
     
  14. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #14
    Yes, but you'd need a blade-type SSD.
     
  15. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    #15
    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?
     
  16. mikeorchard, Feb 16, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2013

    macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2013
    #16
    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.
     
  17. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #17
    No. The Seagate 1TB is 165MB/s read and write.

    ----------

    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.
     
  18. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    #18
    Please see the youtube vid I posted in my original post.
     
  19. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #19
    I'll have to run my test again on the Seagate, - I usually only let the test run one cycle of numbers. I'll get back to you.
     
  20. mikeorchard, Feb 16, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2013

    macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2013
    #20
    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/
     
  21. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #21
    In my experience my 3TB Seagate is faster than my 1TB Seagate. I'll run some more tests on both and report back, though.
     
  22. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #22
    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.
     

    Attached Files:

  23. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2013
    #23
    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 :(
     

Share This Page