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

Lookee Here. Late 2015 iMac Smokes MP/iMac in flash storage

Awesome performance numbers.


I'm hoping this applies to the 21.5 4K, as I have one with 256GB of solid state goodness on its way.
 
Sweet!

GRAPH LEGEND
iMac 5K '15 = 'late 2015' iMac Retina 5K 4.0GHz Quad-Core i7; Radeon R9 M395X GPU; 16G RAM; 1TB flash storage
iMac 5K '14 = 'late 2014' iMac Retina 5K 4.0GHz Quad-Core i7; Radeon R9 M295X GPU; 16G RAM; 1TB flash storage
nMP 4c = 'late 2013' Mac Pro 3.7GHz Quad-Core Xeon; 16G RAM; dual FirePro D300 GPUs; 512G flash storage

AJA SYSTEM LARGE SEQUENTIAL DATA TRANSFER
It uses file level i/o to simulate large sequential video capture and playback. We used 16GB Test Size and 4K frame size. (RED graph bar means FASTEST in Megabytes per Second.)

im5k15_sr.png


im5k15_sw.png


QUICKBENCH SMALL RANDOM DATA TRANSFER
This is a test of small random transfers ranging from 4K to 1024K bytes. (RED graph bar means FASTEST in Megabytes per Second.)

im5k15_rr.png


im5k15_rw.png



CONCLUSIONThe 'late 2015' iMac 5K's 1TB flash storage speed has definitely taken a leap forward. Part of the improvement has come from increased Link Width (x2 to x4) and better Link Speed (5GT/s to 8GT/s). I assume the Apple proprietary version of the Samsung SM951 flash blade is also present.

Notice we included the results for the 'late 2013' Mac Pro. Hopefully a new Mac Pro is under development that can catch up to or pass the new iMac 5K.

Tomorrow we will will post results showing how the 'late 2015' iMac 5K with the AMD R9 395X (4G) compares in graphics intensive performance to the 'late 2014' iMac 5K with the AMD R9 295X (4G) as well as the 'late 2013' Mac Pro with FirePro D300s (2x2G). And we're just getting started.
 
Gosh, I still remember the days when people though the WD Raptor drives were smoking fast and you were some sort of half-man half-god with deep pockets if you could afford a WD Raptor RAID array. And, this is back when you were lucky to get 50-60 MB/s throughput on a sequential read.

Now we're talking about computers with displays that look lick-able, more RAM than the hard drives used to have in storage, and read speeds measured in the GB/s. All for a price much less expensive than that WD Raptor array used to cost. Just unbelievable sometimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sparkie1984 and Ledgem
HerrMann said:
Gosh, I still remember the days when people though the WD Raptor drives were smoking fast and you were some sort of half-man half-god with deep pockets if you could afford a WD Raptor RAID array. And, this is back when you were lucky to get 50-60 MB/s throughput on a sequential read.

Now we're talking about computers with displays that look lick-able, more RAM than the hard drives used to have in storage, and read speeds measured in the GB/s. All for a price much less expensive than that WD Raptor array used to cost. Just unbelievable sometimes.
Click to expand...


It really is, isn't it. Every now and then I look back at how far we've come and it's truly jaw dropping. Almost scary to think where we'll be in another century. I remember the Raptor and reading reviews about them and such, but it was that I either couldn't afford one or it was too small of a storage space worth my investment.

Truly amazing though.
 
HerrMann said:
Gosh, I still remember the days when people though the WD Raptor drives were smoking fast and you were some sort of half-man half-god with deep pockets if you could afford a WD Raptor RAID array. And, this is back when you were lucky to get 50-60 MB/s throughput on a sequential read.

Now we're talking about computers with displays that look lick-able, more RAM than the hard drives used to have in storage, and read speeds measured in the GB/s. All for a price much less expensive than that WD Raptor array used to cost. Just unbelievable sometimes.
Click to expand...

Think of this: in those times we were editing SD Files. 720x480 = 345.600 Pixel. Today we are dealing with 4k. 3840x2160 =8.294.400 Pixel. Divide it = 24. So theoratically for editing 4k files you need a drive that is 24 times faster than the drive you needed to edit SD files. 50 MB/s x 24 = 1200 MB/s. So the speed didn't even double.
 
schloerg said:
Think of this: in those times we were editing SD Files. 720x480 = 345.600 Pixel. Today we are dealing with 4k. 3840x2160 =8.294.400 Pixel. Divide it = 24. So theoratically for editing 4k files you need a drive that is 24 times faster than the drive you needed to edit SD files. 50 MB/s x 24 = 1200 MB/s. So the speed didn't even double.
Click to expand...

The speed did double....more than that, this is a fact. You mix absolute values and "values in relation to....".

However even in your thinking, be happy about the progess, otherwise we would not be able to handle 4K files.
 
HerrMann said:
Gosh, I still remember the days when people though the WD Raptor drives were smoking fast and you were some sort of half-man half-god with deep pockets if you could afford a WD Raptor RAID array. And, this is back when you were lucky to get 50-60 MB/s throughput on a sequential read.

Now we're talking about computers with displays that look lick-able, more RAM than the hard drives used to have in storage, and read speeds measured in the GB/s. All for a price much less expensive than that WD Raptor array used to cost. Just unbelievable sometimes.
Click to expand...

I agree totally, yet these forums will still be full of people moaning about them..... thats what beggars belief.
 
Anyone have benchmarks for the different SSD versions?

27" 512 vs 1TB?

I know in the older Macbook Airs, if you got the larger Samsung, you got better speeds. So far Barefeats has only done the 1TB.

-Kevin
 
This test is what made me ultimately go for the 1TB SSD, this is faster than any other read/write transfer out there today if I'm not mistaken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buerkletucson
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back