|May 2, 2014, 02:55 PM||#1|
2014 MacBook Airs Demonstrating Slower Flash Storage Speeds Than 2013 Models
The newly released 2014 MacBook Airs are seeing improved processor performance thanks to updated Haswell chips, but storage performance appears to have declined.
In a series of performance benchmark tests performed by Macworld, tests of the flash storage suggested the new MacBook Airs are performing slower than the 2013 MacBook Airs. The comparison, which included a 2013 11-inch MacBook Air with a 256GB SSD and a 2013 13-inch MacBook Air with a 128GB SSD vs. a 2014 11-inch model with a 128GB SSD and a 13-inch model with a 256GB SSD, found that the 2014 models were twice as slow as the 2013 models at some tasks.
Using fewer but larger files, the performance difference narrowed between the two models, but the 2014 11-inch MacBook Air still performed 35 percent slower copying files than the mid-2013 13-inch MacBook Air with the same storage capacity and 53 percent slower when uncompressing files.
The Blackmagic Disk Speed Test also showed the new models running slower than the older models, with write/read speeds as follows (in MBps):
- 2013 13-inch with 128GB SSD: 445/725
- 2013 11-inch with 256GB SSD: 687/725
- 2014 13-inch with 256GB SSD: 520/676
- 2014 11-inch with 128GB SSD: 306/620
All four of the drives in the MacBook Airs tested came from different manufacturers, with two from Samsung, one from Toshiba, and one from SanDisk, which accounts for the performance discrepancies. Speed differences between SSDs used within Apple's MacBook Air computers have been highlighted before in previous models and as suggested in the past, while the speed variations may be noticeable in some high-intensity tasks, they are unlikely to be noticed during day-to-day usage.
Released earlier this week, the new MacBook Airs are available from Apple's website beginning at $899.
Article Link: 2014 MacBook Airs Demonstrating Slower Flash Storage Speeds Than 2013 Models
|May 2, 2014, 02:59 PM||#6|
am I the only one who is seeing some serious faulty testing going on here?
there doesn't seem to be a like to like test.
going to have to see better and more detailed working of their testing environment and setup.
the two 11"'s tested did not have the same storage SSD's. We all know that there's a density difference and performance with different sized SSD's
then they compared 13" to 11" models, that have other factors as well.
Plus, they're not really giving scientific backing. Just copying files isn't really a good indicator of the real speed. I want to see some actual benchmarks.
Listen, I'm just a skeptic. if you're going to make claims. Back them up
“We can't win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win.”
― Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe and Everything
|May 2, 2014, 03:00 PM||#7|
Longtime readers of AnandTech know that Apple SSDs are a crapshoot. It used to be that Toshiba and Samsung provided all the SSDs, with Samsung's significantly faster, particularly with encrypted or compressed data. After the Toshiba failed SSD debacle, it seems Apple is sourcing from others. So what Macworld is doing isn't really an "apples to apples" comparison.
|May 2, 2014, 03:00 PM||#8|
NOT apple to apple
So if somebody was dedicated enough to get 4 machines to do comparisons...
Why did they not choose the same disk options...
They just had to do 13" 128GB vs 256GB and then again 11" with 128GB vs 256GB
|May 2, 2014, 03:01 PM||#10|
Hopefully apple comments on this, otherwise.. it appears Apple just kept their margin from that 100 dollar cut.
Late 2009 27" iMac, i5, iPhone 6 128GB Black, 13" Macbook Air, i7, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD, TV 3rd Generation iPod Nano iPad Air 32GB White
|May 2, 2014, 03:06 PM||#14|
I just found out how Apple saved $100.
Silly people thinking Apple would cut their margins
iPad 2 16GB, iPhone 6 Space Grey 16GB,
iMac 21.5 inch, 2.5 GHz Core i5, 4GB RAM, 500GB HD
|May 2, 2014, 03:07 PM||#15|
This test is so unscientific it's basically worthless. No reason to even bother paying attention to these results.
IF the 2014 models are slower, they're still fast enough that 99.9% of customers will never notice a difference and the other .01% will never be happy.
|May 2, 2014, 03:08 PM||#16|
|May 2, 2014, 03:09 PM||#17|
|May 2, 2014, 03:10 PM||#18|
I wouldn't be surprised if this was true. But then other 2014 MBA's might be faster.
Apple's Q/A is at its worst on the MBA, especially compared to the MBP. Fit and finish is crap compared to the MBP. The displays are less than third rate too.
|May 2, 2014, 03:12 PM||#21|
these aren't unreliable tests at all.
It's probly a driver/firmware issue.
|May 2, 2014, 03:14 PM||#22|
Honestly couldn't even finish the article there are so many typos. (i.e. the 2013 models are almost twice as slow as the 2013 models?)
And the test is BS.
Getting a 2014 model 13" 256 today.
|May 2, 2014, 03:16 PM||#24|
Don't they realize this is like comparing apples (no pun intended) to oranges?!
If you go buy a flash drive from the same manufacturer even, from the same model series, different capacities have different speed ratings ...
Whether these are are SATA drives or even PCIe drives is irrelevant. This is a review from yesterday. In this case the read speeds are the same across the three capacities but the writes are all different depending on if its 128, 256, or 512
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|
|thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Swap mid 2012 flash storage to 2014 MBA?||hlkc||MacBook Air||3||Feb 15, 2014 12:45 PM|
|2013 iMac: Faster PCIe Flash Storage ?||macdud||iMac||21||Nov 19, 2013 04:00 AM|
|2013 MacPro PCI-e Flash Storage?||Lesser Evets||Mac Pro||14||Oct 18, 2013 11:12 AM|
|2013/2014 iMac Models||tanker5||iMac||14||Aug 3, 2013 03:46 PM|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:40 PM.