2014 MacBook Airs Demonstrating Slower Flash Storage Speeds Than 2013 Models

[Parasprite]

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?

It means it takes twice as long to do the test. It's somewhat idiomatic but not that difficult to understand.

 

[mikeboss]

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

nope, this has no impact at all. I just re-did the test to take screenshots for the forum. I saw similar results this afternoon when the new 2014 MBAir arrived (when it still was empty). the sandisk is awfully slow at random writes compared to last years samsung.

 

[lilo777]

nope, this has no impact at all. I just re-did the test to take screenshots for the forum. I saw similar results this afternoon when the new 2014 MBAir arrived (when it still was empty). the sandisk is awfully slow at random writes compared to last years samsung.

Many readers here will be happy anyways. Apple finally is getting rid of Samsung components!

 

[torana355]

It sucks that Apple use Sandisk SSD's but the only place you are going to notice the difference is when benchmarking TBH. For everyday tasks it will be just as fast 95% of the time. With all that being said Apple prides themselves on being a premium brand but they don't use premium components, its really starting to irk me.

 

[godrifle]

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.

And the other .09% work at universities and never turned on their machines.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Actually this is good news. Last years models were too fast. How's that for putting a pro Apple spin on it?

 

[ohbrilliance]

Why are they comparing machines with 128GB drives to ones with 256GB drives?

 

[musham]

It means it takes twice as long to do the test. It's somewhat idiomatic but not that difficult to understand.

that was a rhetorical question... but since it was apparently too difficult to understand for some, here goes:

One can understand something being half as fast, because "fast" substitutes for an unstated speed, but "twice as slow," doesn't make any sense and is incorrect, not "idiomatic". "Slow" is only meaningful in comparison to how fast something else is.
Same with many/few: "half as many" makes sense, but "twice as few" doesn't. It's sloppy writing.

 

[DesMaize]

Really difficult to consider Apple would have sacrificed this much to cut the price.

 

[a0me]

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 real question is, do all mid-2014 MacBook Air models have slower SSD, or is it only some of them?

 

[okboy]

???

Better (to have) slower speeds and improved reliability (than to have faster speeds and poorer reliability).

 

[cdubb80]

Better (to have) slower speeds and improved reliability (than to have faster speeds and poorer reliability).

as far as I know Samsung SSDS were both FASTER and MORE RELIABLE

 

[okboy]

as far as I know Samsung SSDS were both FASTER and MORE RELIABLE

How far do either of us know? I just meant to suggest there might be a reason. I've had two Airs with problems.

 

[ThatGuyInLa]

I'd expect this from a Windows PC laptop. Apple is supposed to be a higher standard. It's what we pay for.

A Ford Taurus does the job, but I pay for the BMW. FOR A REASON.

 

[nexusrule]

And this is probably where they shaved $100 from

Definetely not. You can be assured Apple doesn't pay 100 (or 50 or 25) dollars for SSD.

----------

I'd expect this from a Windows PC laptop. Apple is supposed to be a higher standard. It's what we pay for.

A Ford Taurus does the job, but I pay for the BMW. FOR A REASON.

Often these are synthetic benchmarks that doesn't represent real usage patterns. As always happen for these type of claims it's almost sure in any day use you won't notice differences. At least, any time a news like that comes out, in ends like that.

 

[michaelsviews]

You could just enjoy what you have. Until articles like this come along no one would know what they have nor care about the speed. If you turn it on, it boots up and runs like it should , your all set , if not take it back, but I would think that Apple already has a plus and minus as to what's except able for an exchange even if that was possible.

Enjoy what you have

 

[haravikk]

There was a high failure rate with some past SSD's. I'm glad they're trying others. Better slower speeds and better reliability.

This, also I'm curious to know what the power consumption of these new drives is; after all, every shaved watt can help with battery life, which is IMO more important in a portable device.

 

[Gudi]

SAMSUNG 256GB in 2013 MBAir 13"

Image

SANDISK 256GB in 2014 MBAir 13"

Image

That is sad, regression makes me sad. A product worse than its predecessor destroys my faith in the Church of Apple. What would Steve do? Dear Jobs, give me a sign!

 

[Tech198]

Its on the PCE-E bus... How can these possibly be slower? It must be the SSD Apple used

 

[AppleWarMachine]

Our fastest MacBook Airs ever....oh wait

 

[MacSince1990]

And this is probably where they shaved $100 from

Cute, but no. Old flash is still early as expensive as new.

 

[Tech198]

We'll probaby see a "Sodtware update" out for this, then suddenly the story will change to "What was the whole fuss about"

 

[FrozenDarkness]

flash lottery is older than dinosaurs. what's disappointing is that it appears nobody has gotten a samsung yet

 

[MacLC]

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

Don't worry, this is MacWorld we are talking about. A lot of their reviews seem to be done by people who were never in the same room as the computer they allegedly reviewed. I lost faith in them years ago after reading a review of the same iMac I was setting up for a friend.

I kept thinking, 'man, if they actually had this in front of them, they would surely have noticed ...' 'Why don't they comment on that?' 'why did they leave this out?'
Most condemning though was all the photos they used were stock images. I mean, if you actually review a computer in front of you, would you not take your own photos?

In this so-called "review" I did not see any photos, either. I've seen more transparent hogwash than this stuff coming out of MacWorld.

 

[Kirb112]

SSD write speed it hugh to me. Glad I have my 2013 model.