2011 iMac Thunderbolt SSD Benchmark

Discussion in 'iMac' started by supersid, May 26, 2011.

  1. supersid macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 23, 2011
    #1

    Attached Files:

  2. rcook macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    #2
    Do you mind running those same benchmarks on the HDD for comparison?
     
  3. dwmac macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    #3
    As a point of comparison, here are XBench SSD benchmarks from an OWC Mercury Pro (SATA2) in my MBP 5,3:

    Disk Test 238.36
    Sequential 143.04
    Uncached Write 170.08 104.42 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Write 162.11 91.72 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Uncached Read 75.46 22.08 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Read 375.54 188.74 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Random 714.32
    Uncached Write 1073.04 113.59 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Write 335.46 107.39 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Uncached Read 1603.78 11.36 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Read 940.46 174.51 MB/sec [256K blocks]

    The iMac's SSD has substantially higher overall scores, although it is slower at some specific tests.
     
  4. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #4
    the 4k random write/read are 56 and 17 for the imac vs 113 and 11 for the macbook pro.

    now if these are accurate the oem apple ssd does random reads faster the the owc. meaning better app openings etc.
     
  5. barbarbar macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    #5
    Can you use Geekbench benchmark to review if it´s more powerfull than his brothers withouth SSD´s?

    Thanks, i´m thinking on getting the top imac 27" withouth SSD or the top imac 21" with SSD.
     
  6. Michael D. macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2011
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    #6
    If I'm not mistaken, Geekbench measures mostly processor and memory performance.
    SSD's influence is most likely negligeable on Geekbench.
     
  7. bpeeps macrumors 68020

    bpeeps

    Joined:
    May 6, 2011
    #7
    I second this.
     
  8. barbarbar macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    #8
    It´s just to see this. If ssd give to this iMac a better benchmark.

    P.D. Sorry about my bad english, i´m from Spain.

     
  9. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #9
    xbench shows off ssd or hdd more then other parts of the machine. geekbench shows off ram and cpu more then other parts of the machine. here is an xbench on a 2009 imac just the hdd scores note the 4k write and read. it has a 1tb seagate in it the write score is 1.3 the read is .8 far lower then any ssd. this is the lag that hdds have.
     

    Attached Files:

  10. supersid thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 23, 2011
    #10
    I have downloaded Geekbench, but that one was paid so I did not run Geekbench.
     
  11. barbarbar macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    #11
    If you run it on 32-bit mode, you don´t need to pay, it´s free, and it can provide us an benchmark to compare with another macs withouth ssd. You must use the later option when asked you for registration.

    Thanks!

     
  12. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #12
    I'm no expert, but my understanding is that something like 75% of all disk I/O is in small blocks, so 4K/8K block writes (reads isn't usually the bottleneck) is the number to use in comparisons.
     
  13. Domino8282 macrumors 6502a

    Domino8282

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Location:
    Southeast USA
    #13
    Can someone who self-installed an SSD in their iMac post the same benchmarks for comparison?
     
  14. philipma1957, May 26, 2011
    Last edited: May 26, 2011

    philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #14
    both writes and reads under 8k are the most important numbers for users. this is why getting a vertex 3 xbench score from a 2011 iMac showing great random 4k writes and reads would be nice . I will troll around on the xbench result site and look. maybe I can find a score for vertex 3 on a macbook pro. i found a vertex 3 score for a macbook pro

    http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=529787

    it show 4k random writes at 280 5x better then the oem ssd but 4k random reads are 20 vs 17. what does it mean opening apps will be close to the same and if you are lite ram the vertex 3 will be faster then the oem ssd. any time you get a page out the vertex 3 will be a lot faster. so power users that go near or over 16gb ram would want a vertex 3 over am oem ssd. most users are not getting much more for the money. time and effort of installing a vertex 3 in an imac. in a macbook pro yes because the install is easy.
     

    Attached Files:

  15. iamthedudeman macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    #15
    Here are my benchmarks I posted in the other thread.

    Disk test, xbench overall, geekbench. As expected the SSD has no bearing on geekbench scores, same as the HD version.

    I have a 2011 21.5 i7 2.8 with SSD and 1TB HD.
     

    Attached Files:

  16. iSayuSay macrumors 68030

    iSayuSay

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    #16
    For a second there I thought this thread is about benchmarking external SSD plugged into Thunderbolt :eek: (looking from the title)

    That would be super if true, indeed :p
    But it´s fun to read internal SSD benchmarking too :)
     
  17. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #17
    The problem with random read and write benchmarks is that they become meaningless after a certain point because if the one drive is at that point, it will make no difference to real world performance when you install a drive that is twice as fast. Anandtech has a good explanation of this.
     
  18. ecstacy2012 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    #18
    I have the 2011 imac 27" 3.4 ghz with 2gb graphics card. I have done the ssd custom install with the owc 120gb sata III 6g ssd. I get about 530's/516 read write speed, this is benched with aja system test on the highest res setting with 10bit and 128gMB write read file size. It's the fastest ssd you can get. One word of warning to anyone installing it to install osx on it, the osx disk doesn't see the drive nor does disk utlity when using boot from disk. thus you will have to clone another internal drive (such as hd drive) over for OSX to be installed. I contacted owc when they tested the drives they cloned so they were not aware of this, but other then that its unbelievable fast and I'm working on raiding two of them in 0 raid to get near 1gb internal ssd read write speed. Oh and geek bench I got a score of 19,800 of course this was with the stock 4gb's of ram I haven't gotten the 16 gb ram kit I'm putting in yet then I'll rebench!
     
  19. chfied macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    #19
    imac i7 3.4 + vertex 3

    Replaced internal drive with a Vertex 3. Xbench disk results:
    [​IMG]
     
  20. ecstacy2012 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    #20
    hey xbench doesnt show its full potential and use aja system test please and show results set it to 128mb and 10 bit with full resolution settings to get an accurate result.
     
  21. snugla macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2011
    #21
    So you're saying there's no way to make a SSD a boot drive...is that correct? Applications can run off of them...just not the OSX?
     
  22. ecstacy2012 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    #22
    im saying it only in regards to owc drives will not see the drives no matter what you do the only way around it is to clone over to the internal thus you can't clone onto a raid and no way to build the raid first because it won't see the drives. I'm using vertex 3 drives and they work amazing (now my results are averaging 1100kb read/write. Aslong as you use vertex you can boot and also raid them, Considering the thunderbolts are 600kb with 4 drive raid and the highest most expensive one is 800kb I'm still killing them and wayyy cheaper let alone it is internally
     

Share This Page