Disk speed testing on Apple Silicon: AmorphousDiskMark, Blackmagic, etc. [MERGED]

[jdb8167]

Everyone loves a one number benchmark result but Blackmagic Disk Speed Test is meant to measure sequential speeds needed for editing high end video not for general performance. AmorphousDiskMark is meant to measure both sequential and random access speed. It is more comprehensive and will give a better picture of what different SSD configurations affect performance.

AmorphousDiskMark

Edit: My 1 TB M2 MacBook Air results:

 

[Mike Boreham]

Completely agree. Very difficult to get meaningful data from BlackMagic. I used to like the the old Intech Speedtest which has much more control than Black magic. I would suggest people use Amorphous for external drives as well, not just Apple Silicon.

FWIW here is my M2 2TB MBA result:

 

[chouseworth]

Here are Amorphous results for my M1 Studio Max 1TB SSD and my Thunderbolt attached Samsung 980 Pro in an Acasis enclosure. Interesting that the RND QD64 and QD1 speeds are higher for the external SSD. The SEQ results are pretty much as expected with the internal Studio SSD being over twice as high. Anyone have a view of why the RND results for the external Samsung 980 Pro versus the internal Studio 1TB SSD are higher?

 

[BrianBaughn]

Is everyone using the same seven settings in the app?

 

[Juicy Box]

Is everyone using the same seven settings in the app?

That is going to be the biggest problem for true comparisons, especially since there is no default setting and some of the settings are not displayed.

That said, I would still prefer people post AmorphousDiskMark over BMDST unless they are specifically referring to sequential speeds.

 

[jdb8167]

That is going to be the biggest problem for true comparisons, especially since there is no default setting and some of the settings are not displayed.

It seems to default to 5 passes, 1 GB, with the 4 tests: Sequential 1M queue depth 8, Sequential 1M queue depth 1, Random 4K queue depth 8 64, and Random 4K queue depth 1.

Edit: fixed random queue depth to 64 instead of 8. Thanks for the heads up @chouseworth

 

[chouseworth]

It seems to default to 5 passes, 1 GB, with the 4 tests: Sequential 1M queue depth 8, Sequential 1M queue depth 1, Random 4K queue depth 8, and Random 4K queue depth 1.

I think you meant Random 4K queue depth 64 instead of 8. I used the default settings in my post above.

 

[Juicy Box]

It seems to default to 5 passes, 1 GB, with the 4 tests: Sequential 1M queue depth 8, Sequential 1M queue depth 1, Random 4K queue depth 8, and Random 4K queue depth 1.

Are you using some button to default the settings? I don't see it on the app.

The settings on mine is different than what you posted.

 

[chouseworth]

Default settings for the Amorphous app are as follows, per the help screen:

 

[jdb8167]

Are you using some button to default the settings? I don't see it on the app.

The settings on mine is different than what you posted.

No button but you can find what the developer considers default in the Help menu.

Edit: Ninja'd by @chouseworth LOL

 

[MuckSavage70]

Mac Mini Pro M2 512 / Macbook Air M2 256

 

[Juicy Box]

No button but you can find what the developer considers default in the Help menu.

View attachment 2148252
Edit: Ninja'd by @chouseworth LOL

Yeah, it is nice that. the defaults are posted, but having a reset button would be nice.

Also listing the settings on the main screen would be helpful when trying to compare two different results. Right now, we have to hope that people are reverting back to the default, which is most likely not going to happen.

 

[Alex Cai]

Sensei might also do the same job

 

[i486dx2-66]

Sensei might also do the same job

Nope. It does not.

Read the first post - the whole point of this thread is that Blackmagic only produces one number (sequential), but that other tools - in this case AmorphousDiskMark - provide data for both sequential and random at different block sizes. Sensei, like Blackmagic, only produces one number.

Sensei also produces terrible screenshots - note how Amorphous gives the data clearly and in huge print - legible even in thumbnail-sized images. It's basically illegibly small in Sensei.

 

[i486dx2-66]

For something to benchmark against, here is a 2018 Mac Mini (3.2GHz Intel i7, 8GB RAM, 256GB storage).
I'd be interested to see one for a 2018 Mini with 512GB storage if anyone has it.

 

[i486dx2-66]

... and here are the results from a 2020 M1 Macbook Air (8GB / 8-core / 512GB configuration)

 

[Sagnet]

MBP M2 Pro 14” 10c/16g 32GB 512GB
MBP M1 Pro 14” 10c/14g 32GB 512GB

 

[Juicy Box]

MBP M2 Pro 14” 10c/16g 32GB 512GB
MBP M1 Pro 14” 10c/14g 32GB 512GB

View attachment 2149243 View attachment 2149242

That is disappointing.

 

[i486dx2-66]

That is disappointing.

It sure is. Wow.

Speaking of which, I'm a bit surprised to see how far ahead my 2018 Intel machine is for small block random writes... It handily beats every Apple Silicon config posted so far. Any ideas why this is the case?

 

[Nermal]

It sure is. Wow.

Speaking of which, I'm a bit surprised to see how far ahead my 2018 Intel machine is for small block random writes... It handily beats every Apple Silicon config posted so far. Any ideas why this is the case?

It sure is interesting. I see a lot of claims that the Arm machines are so much faster than Intels, but the results don't seem to bear that out. Here's my 2020 iMac (default settings):

And even my ageing 2015 MBP!

 

[Juicy Box]

It sure is interesting. I see a lot of claims that the Arm machines are so much faster than Intels, but the results don't seem to bear that out. Here's my 2020 iMac (default settings):

It has to do with Apple (Tim Cook) pinching pennies.

The first AS Macs had decent storage speeds, but with the M2 Macs, Apple opted to use bigger, slower, single SSDs instead of much faster, multiple smaller SSDs.

At first, people thought it was due to a shortage of 128GB SSDs (for the base storage of the M2 MBA and MBP), but that has since proven to be untrue. Now, it appears that Apple is doubling down, and now using larger, slower, single SSDs for larger storage sizes on some Macs.

The thing is, Apple is literally pinching pennies, as the price difference per unit is just a few cents that Apple is saving.

 

[xraydoc]

14" MBP M1 Pro (10 core/16 core), 1TB, 16GB:

 

[Sagnet]

That is disappointing.

Yes, it is indeed. However, for me, I will still choose the M2 over the M1. The extra power and better battery life wins out. I will probably never do anything that will push the limits of the SSD. I will be using the computer for light office work (word processing, emails), and some photo editing in Lightroom. I had the budget of upgrading either the RAM or the SSD, and I chose the RAM.

Then why do I need the 14" Pro, some might ask? Why not get the 13" or an Air for my usage? Well, I want the 14" screen size, and the memory card slot and HDMI port are nice to have.

 

[3Rock]

I knew this would happen again after hearing Youtubers, a year or two ago, complaining about the lower SSD card speed installed being slower. Bellyaching about the 512 GB SSD is not doing anybody any good this time around again. Apple not gonna change their ways for the bottom line. So this is why I opt for the 1 TB, so that I won’t be disappointed.

 

[escargot3]

It has to do with Apple (Tim Cook) pinching pennies.

The first AS Macs had decent storage speeds, but with the M2 Macs, Apple opted to use bigger, slower, single SSDs instead of much faster, multiple smaller SSDs.

At first, people thought it was due to a shortage of 128GB SSDs (for the base storage of the M2 MBA and MBP), but that has since proven to be untrue. Now, it appears that Apple is doubling down, and now using larger, slower, single SSDs for larger storage sizes on some Macs.

The thing is, Apple is literally pinching pennies, as the price difference per unit is just a few cents that Apple is saving.

iFixit disagreed (link) in the blog post they posted along with their teardown, as well as the industry expert they consulted:

What gives? According to Patel, the reason for this is simply because the smaller 128GB modules are becoming harder to come by and more expensive to purchase as the smaller dies are phased out and the industry moves towards ever larger NAND die densities.

Also, it's only the base models that have this limitation, not all M2 Macs as you are implying. Finally, none of the 14" Pros have a single NAND chip. The M2 512GB models have two 256GB chips, rather than 4 128GB.