13" 2.4/8/256 vs 13" 2.6/8/512

Barney63

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 9, 2014
799
1
Bolton, UK.
What sort of performance gain is there from a late 2013 13" 2.4/8/256 to a late 2013 13" 2.6/8/512?

Barney
 

yjchua95

macrumors 604
Apr 23, 2011
6,727
230
GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
What sort of performance gain is there from a late 2013 13" 2.4/8/256 to a late 2013 13" 2.6/8/512?

Barney
The 512GB SSD (and even the Samsung 256GB SM0256F) outperforms the SanDisk 256GB (SD0256F) by about 150MB/s in writes.

Samsung is the sole supplier for 512GB or larger SSDs. If you have a 256GB or smaller, you're playing the SanDisk/Samsung SSD lottery.
 

Candlelight

macrumors 6502a
Oct 12, 2011
751
538
New Zealand
The 512GB SSD (and even the Samsung 256GB SM0256F) outperforms the SanDisk 256GB (SD0256F) by about 150MB/s in writes.

Samsung is the sole supplier for 512GB or larger SSDs. If you have a 256GB or smaller, you're playing the SanDisk/Samsung SSD lottery.
I did not know that, thank you.
 

maflynn

Moderator
Staff member
May 3, 2009
64,181
30,758
Boston
If you think you'll be filling up the 256GB SSD over the life span of the laptop, then go with the 512GB configuration, if not the 256GB is a great computer.

I've been rocking with a 2012 rMBP with 256GB since it came out (going on 2 years) and I've not filled up my storage yet. My point is why spend more money on a 512GB SSD if you know you'll never fill it up - doesn't seem like a good use of money to me.
 

ColdCase

macrumors 68030
Feb 10, 2008
2,960
142
NH
Yes, but if you start buying/downloading HD TV or movies, you will just about instantaneously fill the 256GB drive, 512GB takes a bit longer and is easier to manage. Otherwise 256 is OK, unless you have larger iMovie, iPhoto, Aperture libraries you want to carry around.
 

Barney63

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 9, 2014
799
1
Bolton, UK.
The size of the drive isn't important.
I am waiting for a 2TB TC (2nd gen) to be delivered which I am going to upgrade to 3TB and hopefully partition to use as a TM drive and also have a copy of my movies and music on (which is also backed up on another usb drive).
So it looks like the only benefit would be a slight bump in the CPU speed, which isn't really worth the extra outlay.
Although it will be the end of the year before I'm looking at getting another MacBook (this one is going to my son) so maybe the new versions maybe out (doubtful though).

Barney
 

Orr

macrumors 6502
Oct 8, 2013
363
50
Virtually no discernible performance gains in real world usage. The bigger SSD is useful only if you plan to make use of it. The whole SSD lottery stuff is vastly overblown and pretty much only applies if you are entering the 'benchmark olympics' which many here specialize in. If you want better performance, up-size to the 15". Simple as that.
 

theromz

macrumors regular
Aug 22, 2013
117
0
Personally I would rather upgrade the 2.4 config to 16gb ram as that will make much more difference in the long run, you can also buy external storage/cloud but you won't every be able to upgrade the ram on the machine.
 

Candlelight

macrumors 6502a
Oct 12, 2011
751
538
New Zealand
My machine is most;y used for transcoding media using Compressor so even with 2TB (1TB OS + 1TB in the Optibay) I still get full from time to time.

Won't be going near a Retina until internal storage is larger and cheaper.