Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2014 MacBook Airs Demonstrating Slower Flash Storage Speeds Than 2013 Models
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For the dissenters,
Despite the different SSD drives and capacity, this test is fairly accurate. They're not testing "the latest and greatest hardware ever developed;" They are in fact testing "This year's model versus last year." These guys didn't slant the tests, Apple did by releasing under-baked firmware drivers.
Despite the different SSD drives and capacity, this test is fairly accurate. They're not testing "the latest and greatest hardware ever developed;" They are in fact testing "This year's model versus last year." These guys didn't slant the tests, Apple did by releasing under-baked firmware drivers.
Just copying files is what everday users do. If that is slow, then it is slow, no matter what the scientific benchmarks tell us.
Imagine Cook on stage with a diagram of a slower Air compared with the 2013 model. Boom!
Nope, never gonna happen... Thats why I hate the big talk and BS facts.
Nope, never gonna happen... Thats why I hate the big talk and BS facts.
Blackmagic is a well known and reliable benchmarking software. The comparisons are appropriate.
The performance of the 2013 models is consistent with that of Samsung SSDs benchmarked in the retina MBPs. The 2014 13'' result is similar to what I get on my SanDisk 256 GB SSD, which is known to be slower than the Samsung drive of the same size.
It seems for the 128 GB drives Apple managed to find an even slower SSD. Congratulations!
I wonder if this was just random, or if they are phasing out Samsung as supplier for their SSDs.
To those crying foul: The comparison is fair and the results are not that surprising given Apples history with SSDs.
The performance of the 2013 models is consistent with that of Samsung SSDs benchmarked in the retina MBPs. The 2014 13'' result is similar to what I get on my SanDisk 256 GB SSD, which is known to be slower than the Samsung drive of the same size.
It seems for the 128 GB drives Apple managed to find an even slower SSD. Congratulations!
I wonder if this was just random, or if they are phasing out Samsung as supplier for their SSDs.
To those crying foul: The comparison is fair and the results are not that surprising given Apples history with SSDs.
What I am waiting for is the 12' retina Macbook Air. Hope the storage speed is better than this.
Thanks, Apple.
Cutting corners on screen quality using B-rated rejected panels. Update new version with slower SSD.
Who knows what other bait-and-switch is coming with these updates.
Cutting corners on screen quality using B-rated rejected panels. Update new version with slower SSD.
Who knows what other bait-and-switch is coming with these updates.
Not to mention build quality. But the displays are truly bad. The light leak around the edges of the MBA display is embarrassing.
Agreed. Totally flawed test. Not to mention the supplier/brand differences between Samsung and Sandisk in the 2013 models. Maybe they brought Toshiba back for 2014??
Was it just me, or were they comparing 128 GB vs 256 GB drives? The 256 GB ones will almost always be faster.
So, compare same sizes, and preferably same brands as well. If different brands, make sure to find all brands used and then provide data. Otherwise, junk article?
So, compare same sizes, and preferably same brands as well. If different brands, make sure to find all brands used and then provide data. Otherwise, junk article?
More than likely they went to a different generation of device that effectively reduced the number of chips on the SSD card. It would be interesting to see the card and get part numbers. It would also be interesting to see how the larger build to order SSDs work.
I really doubt it is a firmware issue. Most likely they are using denser flash chips which reduces the number of chips used thus writes are not spread across multiple chips. The only bad thing about the article is that they did no dig deeper.
It would be most interesting to see how the 512 GB option performs.
strange initial findings
If it's not a like/like comparison with the same sized storage then shame on them.
But for all the complainers saying it's "unscientific" or not a "real" benchmark, I really have to wonder what you care about. I'll take someone timing a real workload that I might do on my computer (and yes, I do copy files) any day over some synthetic benchmark. What do you want, a computer that does what you want it to quickly or the ability to brag that your laptop can make the kessel run in less than 12 parsecs?!?
If it's not a like/like comparison with the same sized storage then shame on them.
But for all the complainers saying it's "unscientific" or not a "real" benchmark, I really have to wonder what you care about. I'll take someone timing a real workload that I might do on my computer (and yes, I do copy files) any day over some synthetic benchmark. What do you want, a computer that does what you want it to quickly or the ability to brag that your laptop can make the kessel run in less than 12 parsecs?!?
they're comparing apples to oranges. for a valid test, they should have had the same SSD capacity.
And does anyone proof read these articles? Can someone please explain what "twice as slow" means?
But Apple also knows that benchmarks would be run and any degradation would be reported in "the news". I doubt this was an intentional move to lower their costs. It was either unavoidable for reasons we do not know, or something that can be corrected via improve a software/firmware update.
Probably due to Sandisk. Despite the name, Sandisk does not seem to have top notch performance that the brand might suggest.
Of course, before everybody screaming foul, I think when sourcing their components, Apple has a stated minimum performance. It could be that Samsung's managed to go beyond that, thus giving us the better scores, while the other OEMs merely met the minimum that Apple stated. However, due to the release cycle, now it as if the newer product is "slower."
Still no excuse... for Sandisk that is. They are enjoying their name brand too much. Even their flash drives and SD cards are fairly slow, despite demanding premium prices over the competitors. Hopefully Apple can whip them up to shape.
Of course, before everybody screaming foul, I think when sourcing their components, Apple has a stated minimum performance. It could be that Samsung's managed to go beyond that, thus giving us the better scores, while the other OEMs merely met the minimum that Apple stated. However, due to the release cycle, now it as if the newer product is "slower."
Still no excuse... for Sandisk that is. They are enjoying their name brand too much. Even their flash drives and SD cards are fairly slow, despite demanding premium prices over the competitors. Hopefully Apple can whip them up to shape.