MacBook Air Early 2014 vs Mid 2013: Air Benchmark Comparison and Speed Test - Which Is Better? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-bkm2z_K7k
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
Considering you understood what they meant it does, in fact, make sense.
Sorry, I don't come across "half as many" in my dialect and thus it doesn't make any sense to me. You obviously meant "half as much".
I meant many. If one can count it and it doesn't designate a category, it's many. If one cannot count it or it designates a category, it's much. If you're going to argue, at least try not to make embarrassing mistakes like that.
You "obviously" don't know what you're talking about, so let's just stop.The point is that a writer should know how to write properly, and not need readers to infer meaning.
The consumer has no day in what SSD is used. So it is an apples to apples comparison.
They are comparing a MBA with newer MBA. This is what the customer is buying, not an SSD.
Customers should expect slower file transfers and poorer performance.
----------
Blackmagic speed test is consistent.
But, they are comparing models of MBA doing things that customers would do. In a real world test, the new MBAs are slower.
Bingo! You're probably one of the very few who understands that this is all dependent on which PCIe brand Apple uses regardless of the machine's year or model. My sympathies to anybody that'll receive a SanDisk as those are the ones that are the slowest as per tests I've observed in Anandtech. Toshiba is the middle ground while the winners of the lottery are those lucky to get a Samsung. The question I guess is, which of these companies are now the majority supplier for the lower capacity PCIe. If I can recall, early last year for the 2012 Air and Pro models (non PCIe SSDs), Apple started using Sandisk SSDs to reduce the risk of availability issues. To quote AnandTech's Kristian Vatto:
Sorry to break it to you, but apple have always been mid range products at a premium price.
You're paying for design and marketing not for the best technology. Batteries, power supplies, displays, even the plastic keys on the keyboard have always been low-average quality. You're basically paying for the brand name.
Perception > reality. Just because something 'looks' premium doesn't mean it is.
It's funny because you inferred mistake when really I was just mocking you.
But you're right, we are going out of MR discussion and into a linguistic one. If the various schools of thought and formal writing styles won't agree with each other on what constitutes correct writing, I doubt we will here.
I'm happy to call a truce if you are.
Yes, please
But "twice as slow" is still wrong
I ain't even mad
----------
I think they meant in general, as they are using a type of laptop which is known to trade performance for a smaller physical footprint (as opposed to what you would expect from a regular laptop or even a desktop computer), and not that the new model should be slower.
Last edited:
What a ridiculous argument. It frustrates me when some people can not let fair criticism against Apple stand.
IF they are slower, then it is scandalous. These are high end laptops, and they should be getting faster, not slower. Apple deserve to be called out on it, so they consider doing things properly in the future.
This is probably true because Apple removed the "x times faster than last generation" from their website.
Well then you're going with PCI-e then, and it is all that. While I don't think this test was in anyway scientific (I'll wait for an Anandtech review) I will be snatching up the 2013 Airs at ridiculous prices thanks to $100 price cut new/ $100 price cut old gen.
It will be interesting to see how resale is later for all these...
----------
I think its shown time and again from the 2013 rMBP debacle to now with the Airs, Sandisk sucks and Apple and Samsung are stuck with each for better or worse. I'm sure Apple is going to have some issues with this one.
many other websites mentioned that SSD speed was similar on both 2013 and 2014 MBA
one cannot draw a conclusion based on copying only a few files
----------
anyway, i would replace the stock SSD by a OWC
one cannot draw a conclusion based on copying only a few files
----------
anyway, i would replace the stock SSD by a OWC
The margin at the low-end is so small that Apple has to save money on every detail. My bet is that the 512GB models are faster because they have more chips and are addressed differently then the smaller and cheaper models.
A comparison between 128, 256 and 512 MB SSD's from the same MBA 2014 would make more sense to see if the results are consistent.
(I would probably by a 13", 8GB RAM, 512GB SSD version. Currently I'm saving for a MacPro 2013)
A comparison between 128, 256 and 512 MB SSD's from the same MBA 2014 would make more sense to see if the results are consistent.
(I would probably by a 13", 8GB RAM, 512GB SSD version. Currently I'm saving for a MacPro 2013)
I read conflicting info about using that. Some say it rocks, others say it's potentially dangerous, others that it isn't needed with a given SSD.
I put a Samsung 840 EVO 1TB in my 2009 MB. Blackmagic rates it around 260MB/s but normal file operations don't seem to get close.
eh the reality is this just doesn't affect most people. It is going to be pretty zippy in either case. Also wouldn't doubt if speeds improve with a firmware/software update.
I am much more annoyed by the Apple tax on the 128gb to 256gb upgrade. $200!??!? That's definitely at the high end of past Apple tax rates.
I am much more annoyed by the Apple tax on the 128gb to 256gb upgrade. $200!??!? That's definitely at the high end of past Apple tax rates.
Consumers don't care about write speeds that can vary depending on vast range of different reasons. Remember people it's all about the richness of the OS X experience you just can't get anywhere else. And it should be pointed out Apple SSD's are among the best performing and most reliable in the industry. That's why I would never install a third-party SSD in my Macs because you don't get the full benefits of Apple technology and after-care service.
Consumers don't care about speed, eh? Yeah, right.
Do you work for Apple or something? You sound like a commercial.
That video is pure lies!
listen to what that lying video says at 2013:
"there should be NO difference between the 256GB on the 2013 and 128GB on the 2014"
Well, there is a huge difference. The video is lying like a dog. Larger SSD are faster due to densities of the modules.
http://blog.macsales.com/19008-performance-testing-not-all-2013-macbook-air-ssds-are-the-same
In the meantime, we have noticed a vast difference in write speeds between the two SSD offerings that weve received so far. The 512GB Samsung SSD found in our 13-inch model offers roughly a 400MB/s increase in write speeds over the 128GB SanDisk/Marvell SSD as our 11-inch model was configured. It is our assumption that the write performance is mainly due to NAND densities and not brand performance in these cases, but well know more once we can run the same tests on a few more models.