2014 MacBook Airs Demonstrating Slower Flash Storage Speeds Than 2013 Models

[coolfactor]

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.

Using rejected display panels? Point me to the official article about that one...

 

[Macyourdayy]

Somewhat disappointing. Then again I've got a 2013-256 that feels slower than my 2007 15 mbp. Maybe some of the extended battery life is due to the different spec ssd's. Two extra hours on the 13" is a huge increase.

 

[xmichaelp]

What the hell Apple?

Hopefully this is some kind of defective unit or something.

 

[DragoniteD]

And this is probably where they shaved $100 from

256GB and above SSDs are twice as fast as 128GB SSDs (due to the way it works), so there is no problem with 11inch model's result. However the results for 13inch is kind of weird. Suggest re-test with same size SSDs

At least, for late 2013 13inch rmbp, 256GB model is twice as fast as 128GB model.

Even though the 2014 model is slower, actually it does not matter since you won't use your air for thunderbolt external drives, and thus you will not feel the difference.

 

[Yojimbo007]

Samdung driver?
Every time i hear that name associated with apple in anyway it gives me the creeps !

 

[cdmoore74]

Your benchmarking it wrong!

Steve Jobs

 

[rtr1985]

All drives that are faster are working wrong

 

[iSteve-O]

"You want to take the time to get it right."

 

[billystlyes]

Your benchmarking it wrong!

Steve Jobs

Classic! This update was a joke. All I really want from Apple at this point is a new Mac mini. I mean, who even wants a low resolution TN display in the year 2014? Even Samsung is moving on from those resolutions in the Chromebook 2.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Apparently, to Apple, "SSD" means SUPER SLOW DRIVE.

 

[MrX8503]

Classic! This update was a joke. All I really want from Apple at this point is a new Mac mini. I mean, who even wants a low resolution TN display in the year 2014? Even Samsung is moving on from those resolutions in the Chromebook 2.

Apple wants people to buy the rMBPs instead, which IMO is untouchable.

 

[Marx55]

People at Macworld labs do not get that a picture (graph) is worth a thousand words!

 

[Señor]

Hey, that's where that $100 decrease came from!

Really hope this doesn't mean other new Apple products will be slow, as well.

 

[inscrewtable]

...the 2014 models were twice as slow as the 2013 models ...

Shouldn't that be "half as fast"

 

[cjgonzales1900]

I think there is some information missing from the test like which drives were in which computer configurations. Also Like many people are saying this is nothing new we see this all the time with the SSD's that are in Apple's product. Its because one supplier can not supply all the NAND memory needed for Apple's SSD Needs. I would be happy with either SSD they are shipping as long as its reliable.

----------

um...

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

I would also like to see a head to head comparison of 2 exact same MBA with the same type of SSD and amount of storage just different years (2013/2014). I think the difference would be a lot less if this happened. Hopefully someone can post this on the forums.

 

[rdlink]

Half of write speed is going backwards. Newer models are supposed to be better. Stop trying to make excuses. Apple cheaped out here.

You don't know that. That's the point. Unscientific testing is worthless.

 

[OzyOly]

What I am waiting for is the 12' retina Macbook Air. Hope the storage speed is better than this.

I'm with you on that.

----------

Even though the 2014 model is slower, actually it does not matter since you won't use your air for thunderbolt external drives, and thus you will not feel the difference.

I use USB3.0 external SSD storage, I might notice the difference (just).

 

[snprintf]

Hopefully they're more reliable to make up for it.

 

[okwhatev]

Glad I'm going with the refurb 2013 model.

PCI-e isn't all that.

Uh..... the 2013 model uses PCI-e as well. It was the first one to use it, and they're great. But on that note, the refurb 2013 airs from Apple are a truly amazing deal.

 

[Traverse]

But is this a big enough change to be noticeable?

I'm still on a 5400rpm HDD at the moment.

 

[mikeboss]

SAMSUNG 256GB in 2013 MBAir 13"

SANDISK 256GB in 2014 MBAir 13"

 

[xmichaelp]

Classic! This update was a joke. All I really want from Apple at this point is a new Mac mini. I mean, who even wants a low resolution TN display in the year 2014? Even Samsung is moving on from those resolutions in the Chromebook 2.

How was it a joke? They didn't have a new generation processor to put in it so they slightly updated it with a haswell one and dropped the price 100 dollars. If they didn't do this update they wouldn't have done any. This update didn't delay the retina model or anything. The retina MBA will come when the next processors come out.

 

[Lesser Evets]

Apple sure is innovative these days.

One update to something after more than 4 months and it's a cheap flop backwards. Ah well, let's pretend it's great and cheer the downward slide.

 

[Parasprite]

Then what do the rest of the 0.09% think?

They notice but don't care that much.

 

[richman555]

SAMSUNG 256GB in 2013 MBAir 13"

Image

SANDISK 256GB in 2014 MBAir 13"

Image

The 2014 has a lot less free space... not sure if that has any impact.

Is the OS also installed on the same volume?