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

barefeats

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jul 6, 2000
1,058
19
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:
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.
 
3 TB drives are slower by design due to the more dense-packed platters (single disks inside the HDD)
 
I would really like for us to be able to conclude on this. Is there anybody that could confirm the results of barefeats.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.