MacBook Pro 2010 OCZ Agility 3 Results?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by karkid, Jan 6, 2012.

  1. karkid macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
  2. thundersteele macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Location:
    Switzerland
  3. karkid thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    #3
    the disk read and write speeds ...
     
  4. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #4
    Yes, the numbers look correct. Could you please resize that screenshot into something smaller or use timg tags instead?
     
  5. mickpearcey macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2011
    Location:
    England
    #5
    The 2010 comes with SATA-II doesn't it? - 3GBps, so that looks about right.
     
  6. thundersteele macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Location:
    Switzerland
    #6
    the network here was too slow... it stopped loading the image after about an inch.
     
  7. TommyStarwind macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    #7
    I'm getting about the same speeds however I have the newest version of the mbp... They say that the max speeds for read and write is over 500 but the Sequential Read and Write are in this range. What exactly does that mean?
     
  8. TommyStarwind macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    #8
    OCZ forum... This is the answer to that..

    I believe 140 and 200 are right on the money assuming you used the latest version of Black Magic for those numbers.
    Agility 3's posted numbers for Sequential Read and Write of compressed data (this is what Black Magic does) is 195 MB/s and 130 MB/s. You are actually slightly outperforming these numbers.

    NOTE: You'll see a lot of higher Black Magic numbers if you do searches but it's confusing because apparently Black Magic changed it's test from using compressible data to incompressible data and that dramatically lowered scores. Many people are still testing with the old version.

    To get numbers like 500/280 you will need the data structured right (compressible for one). Your own real world performance will be somewhere lower than 500/280 and higher than 200/140.
     
  9. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #9
    In a nut shell, that is the corporate way of saying "it is asynchronous NAND which is inferior to synchronous NAND". The Vertex 3 and Agility 3 comparisons shown below are pretty good illustrations in highlighting the differences as the Vertex is synchronous where as the Agility is asynchronous. The comparisons of the OWC models are also good to show the differences. Indeed, asynchronous SSDs suffer the worst from incompressible data and so depending on the type of use the user is doing, they may get far more benefit from a synchronous SSD than another user who uses their computer differently. It also seems that asynchronous SSDs suffer more as the free space on the drive is used up.

    http://forums.tweaktown.com/storage...s-synchronous-nand-flash-ssd-performance.html
     

Share This Page