They provided that as yet another option.
Show me it’s a thing for Apple customers. My evidence that it’s not a thing is the fact it doesn’t exist but does in the 15” model. That’s all I need.
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.
2018 MacBook Pro Features 'Fastest SSD Ever' in a Laptop According to Benchmarks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Show me it’s a thing for Apple customers. My evidence that it’s not a thing is the fact it doesn’t exist but does in the 15” model. That’s all I need.
I believe that the Intel 600p is now an outdated NVMe part, but its Write speeds were consistently below 1000MB/s in every size sold - https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-600p-series-ssd-review,4738-2.html - at least in most of the reviews I read.
I cannot speak to testing methodology and I am not going to claim victory or fraud by the testers, but I will say that the beauty and/or curse of most PC OEMs is the flexibility in configuring a PC. The dirty little secret is that disclosure about what parts you are getting is not transparent.
For example, Dell has a configuration for the Dell XPS 13 costing $1049 that includes a 128GB Solid State Drive (SATA?, NVME?, 2.5”, m.2?) and an upgrade to a 256GB PCIe Solid State Drive (AHCI?, NVMe?). The omission of certain information written creatively to my way of thinking, is deceptive. Other configurations list “Class 20” or “Class 40” PCIe SSDs, which I have simply not researched to understand what that means. Unfortunately, the PC market is so fiercely competitive and has to survive on razor thin profit margins that deciphering what performance you may end up with is not a known quantity at each upgrade level. Although Dell discloses which CPU you are using, unless you are familiar with the fact that a Core i7 8550U is a 15w part, their marketing makes that particular Dell model sound like the bees knees when the customer
might really need a 28w U-Series or even a 45w part.
My point is, Apple tends to disclose this information more transparently, and while some here will disagree, Apple’s smaller lineup is better, IMHO, in that there is less variability in their configurations. Dell sells SIX different laptops line - Latitude, Vostro, Precision, Inspiron, G-Series and XPS. I know that Latitude is corporate, Vostro is SMB/SOHO, Inspiron is ?, Precision is Pro, G-Series is Gamer and XPS is Performance, but which higher specc’d series is the best or most appropriate to compare with Apple?
Does that mean Apple’s current lineup is perfect, no, not by any means. Replacing the 12” MacBook, 13” MacBook Air, 13” MacBook Pro with a 13” MacBook would go a long way in simplifying the lineup (so would adding a 15” MacBook).
Bottom line, comparison tests may have some useful information, but should have clear and concise disclosures about the configuration and parts used (if possible). A better comparison would be to test several different NVMe SSDs (960, 970, Sandisk, Crucial, Toshiba, AData, et al.) in the laptops and compare that against the MacBook Pro. However, I guess that does not get clicks and eyeballs the way hyperbole does.
I don't think the BlackMagic test uses the APFS clone feature. ArsTechnica ran a similar test on a 2017 iMacPro and a 2016 MBP using QuickBench, which I'm pretty sure it doesn't use the APFS clone feature either.
iMacPro WRITE 2500 MB/s and WRITE 3200
2016 MBP WRITE 1500 MB/s and WRITE 2500
I've seen those numbers on the 2016 MBP before, well before APFS came out. As ARS notes, Apple was able to almost double those speeds by using two SSDs in parallel over NVMe using the T2 chip as the controller.
"Note also that the iMac Pro actually has two SSDs working together, controlled by the T2 chip. It's an unusual solution, but it works well." - ArsTechnica
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...e-but-not-quite-perfect-for-pros-either/4/#h4
[doublepost=1531676674][/doublepost]
I don't think the BlackMagic test uses the APFS clone feature. ArsTechnica ran a similar test on a 2017 iMacPro and a 2016 MBP using QuickBench, which I'm pretty sure it doesn't use the APFS clone feature either.
iMacPro WRITE 2500 MB/s and WRITE 3200
2016 MBP WRITE 1500 MB/s and WRITE 2500
I've seen those numbers on the 2016 MBP before, well before APFS came out. As ARS notes, Apple was able to almost double those speeds by using two SSDs in parallel over NVMe using the T2 chip as the controller.
"Note also that the iMac Pro actually has two SSDs working together, controlled by the T2 chip. It's an unusual solution, but it works well." - ArsTechnica
I've also included two screen shots of a 2017 MBP using HFS+ and APFS and the numbers are the same as the 2016 MBP, with APFS being is slightly faster. Clearly, the 2018 MBP is using two SSDs on NVMe with the T2 chip as the controller.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...e-but-not-quite-perfect-for-pros-either/4/#h4
2017 MBP HFS+ Encrypted
2017 MBP APFS Encrypted
[doublepost=1531677311][/doublepost]
Exactly.
People spend a lot of time matching the specs on the box not really understanding the technical differences.
A lot of the "better" spec'd PCs don't use the same quality components that go into the MBP. Two 512GB SSDs are not created equal. the quality of the SSD can be different, the connection method, the controller, etc,.
In this cases it appears that Apple has paired TWO (2) SSDs to achieve this speed using NVMe and the T2 chip as a controller. Not going to find that in a budget PC.
You get what you pay for.
The information is available and not too difficult to find if you want to know. From the "More Info" link from the "Tech Specs & Customization" page:
An SSD is available in two different interfaces: SATA or PCIe. PCIe has up to 4 times the theoretical bandwidth of SATA and is supported by the NVMe host protocol.
They do list the specific PCIe model number for the 15" models:
Yes I know. The point I was making is that the Black Magic test isn't using instant clone.
Nor would I expect to and I certainly wouldn't be comparing a budget system to a non-budget system.
Yes, but that doesn't make the two implementations equal. I remember reading over at ARS that Apple's implementation was the fastest, before they began to use the T2 chip and dual SSDs. For example, the T2 chip handles all of the encryption instead of the CPU. Plus all SSDs are not created equal.
Best I can tell, the benchmarks appear to be correct. As for the PCs they matched them to I can't say.
The description lists a PCIe drive, but doesn’t tell me what brand it is or if it is NVMe. The 2280 refers to the physical size of the drive, not it’s model number, in this case 22mmx80mm, which is probably the most common size - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.2 - and a PCIe m.2 drive can be AHCI or NVMe, which will have vastly differently top transfer speeds. Dell will use AHCI in budget conscious models and NVMe in its higher cost performance models. Apple used SATA storage early on (2012-2013) in a custom blade and then switched to AHCI PCIe blades with much higher transfer speeds after that. NVMe came on the scene in the MacBook 2015 and was a new feature on the 2016 MacBook Pro.
Yes, but I don't always need to plug in peripherals every single time I use it. Others do. These adapters really don't take up much space. The power/HDMI/Type-A adapter is probably the most useful for being on the go. Perhaps a TB2 adapter as well. There are now Type-C flash drives and external SSDs that reduce the need for the adapters. They're very reasonably priced for the level of performance they offer. A couple of these dongles don't weigh anywhere close to a pound.
The 15" is incredibly portable at just 4 lb. It feels nearly the same as the original retina 13" models. The 13" model really weighs nothing. Remarkable for what it is able to do. Personally I prefer the larger display, better speakers and performance of the 15". I've never owned a smaller notebook and never will with the exception of an ASUS netbook I bought out of curiosity back in 2010.
Was that the request? I thought it was to know what type (SATA, PCIe AHCI, or PCIe NVMe) of SSD was installed. I didn't read it as a requirement to know the exact model number of the SSD. I am not surprised Dell (or other manufacturers) does not publish such information on their website (at least on the sales portion). I don't believe Apple does either.
[doublepost=1531685194][/doublepost]
I didn't see a requirement to know what brand it was in your OP. As for the 15" specs yes, what is provided isn't absolute. However it's more than what is provided for the 13" models but the type can be found as previously stated.
[doublepost=1531685416][/doublepost]
Yes, others do. But then they don't have the option of not having to use dongles. Dongles which are, IMO, more of a nuisance than a little extra thickness / weight (which could, if Apple wanted to, be used to increase battery capacity to fill the additional space).
IMO I think Apple's obsession with thin and light weight is being taken to an unreasonable extreme when it comes at the cost of sacrificing functionality.
I would love to know what type of SSD/Flash Storage/Hybrid Storage was in the computers that Laptop Magazine tested, because these transfer rates are on par with the 512GB SSD in my Mid 2012 2.6Ghz Retina MacBook Pro, which if those numbers are true, is abysmal in 2018. I honestly cannot believe those numbers are actually correct. I am actually wondering if there is a generic driver issue in Windows 10 that should be researched. I could create a RAID 0 and get just about the same throughput from a pair of decent 2.5" HDDs.
A very few specialty computer manufacturers will actually disclose what DRAM and SSD/PCIe storage manufacturers they are putting in the computer that you are ordering, and if PCs are so much more flexible than Apple, then it shouldn't be an issue for Dell or Lenovo to offer specific vendor's storage.
FYI: The Dell XPS15 Service Manual shows a full length Samsung PM951 NVMe PCIe drive which clocks at 1050MB/s Sequential Read and 560MB/s Sequential Write.
There was a bit of discussion about this the other day. After some back and forth it was discovered there’s a bit of a parts lottery on the XPS’. You might get the pretty crappy Toshiba drives or the Samsung. The link below references the 13 and so does the OP. Not sure whether the 15 consistently has the Samsung drives
https://www.notebookcheck.net/How-t...-Dell-XPS-13-9350-as-an-example.168535.0.html
“notebookcheck.net” said:
Therein lies my biggest single issue with purchasing a Windows-based laptop. We have an embarrassment of riches in terms of people who spend time and effort to bench test and recommend the best pieces and parts to build a desktop Windows PC...you really cannot get it wrong if you stick to better parts or proven compatible parts. My son just built an HTPC case Gaming PC using a Fractal Design Node 202, Core i5-8400 and a 1070 GPU. It was his first build, he consulted me on the parts list, I knew which parts needed to be upgraded a bit and after following a couple of YouTube videos he was booted and fragging people all over the world.
While PC OEMs have upped their mobile game, the race to the bottom mentality still pervades enough that a parts lottery is completely unacceptable in this day and age. Basically, if I were to buy a Dell XPS15, I want to make sure it has the best WiFi/BT card in it, the best RAM, the best NVMe SSD and if it doesn't then it means that I have to crack that puppy open the day I get it to make sure I hit the lottery and if I didn't, I need to spend time and money replacing those items, because I don't trust that Dell is looking after my best interests performance-wise, but simply trying to save a few bucks a unit. For better or worse, Apple's parts integration and R&D are worth the price of admission to me and a lot of other consumers.
I truly believe that PC OEMs have to stop seeing price as their only differentiator in selling a Windows-based PC, especially with mobile devices. It just doesn't make sense anymore. There are some really *good* devices out there, that are on the cusp of greatness, but PC OEMs have to commit to quality, less compromise and a more professional presentation.
For instance, I am constantly assaulted by a floating "Do you want to Chat" window that makes my blood boil every time I refresh or go to a new page on Dell or Lenovo's website. Dear Dell and Lenovo - **** OFF! - I don't want to take a survey and I don't want to chat...I want to price out a PC.
A ThinkPad X1 Carbon (i7-8650U, 16GB, 1TB SSD and 2560x1440 14" HDR display) at $2,321.20 is not a cheap piece of kit, but damn if their website isn't just possibly the second most annoying thing on the face of the earth (Dell's website being the first). Respect yourselves, PC makers, be proud of what you are making and selling, and if Microsoft is falling down on the job performance-wise, stop screwing each other over and instead put the screws to Microsoft to fix some of the performance bugs that consistently show that macOS and Apple gear is more balanced on a day in day out basis, and maybe these SSD shootouts wouldn't look so one-sided.
Last edited:
You know I pretty much agree with you. There’s no doubt PC OEMs have upped their game over the last few years. Not just in specs, there were already a range of highly specified PCs too choose from and the prices when you make casual comparisons to Macs certainly look good. I contracted at Dell a couple of years ago for 6 months though and people were pretty willing to talk about the challenges they face and part of their challenge is those highly competitive prices. It’s a cutthroat business and it leads to do things like dual source parts* that aren’t at all similar and to put that lovely indestructible “trial” of Norton on there, just to eke out a tiny margin. It’s gotten better but being an OEM is definitely not a business I’d want to be in.
* not that dual sourcing parts is unique to PC OEMs. Apple have definitely had their challenges and missteps in that department too!
FWIW, I have the exact same laptop you have in your sig and i've never really needed it for more "horsepower". Never opened Xcode, and have only minimally attempted to use photoshop on a few occasions. I am really one of those people who use it for basic grad schoolwork, shopping, Instagram and watching Grey's Anatomy on Netflix haha. I really just wanted a bigger screen
What model?
Actually, it doesn’t matter. Even Samsung only claim maximum read/write throughput of 3500/2100. Notebookcheck couldn’t manage that in a XEON powered box, but theorized it might be possible.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Samsung-960-Evo-and-Samsung-960-Pro-SSD-Review.189479.0.html
#Wrong
Last edited:
Sager NP9870-S (Clevo P870DM-G), and yes while it's "technically" a laptop, it's more of a luggable desktop.
Sager NP9870-S (Clevo P870DM-G), and yes while it's "technically" a laptop, it's more of a luggable desktop.
The 960 Pro is ridiculously fast, no doubt, but can’t reach the write speeds from the OP even in theory. Honestly, laptopmag is a rag regardless. Looking forward to better, more representative benches from Anandtech, Ars and others.
Yeah, his number came from copying a 4.9GB file and timing that it took 2 seconds. Not exactly an accurate test, and I've never been a huge fan of BlackMagic either, but it's definitely better than the first test. Either way, yeah the read speeds are right there with the 960 Pro / 970 Pro (the read speeds didn't increase on the 970 Pro), but it's write speed lands it in between the 960 Pro (2200) and the 970 Pro (2700).
But quite frankly, I could put a 970 Pro in my laptop if I wanted to spend the money on upgrading (I'm 99% sure I don't do anything that would ever gain from that extra 500MB/sec writes when 2200 is already plenty fast enough (even with Gigabit Internet, the fastest I've ever seen anything come in over the net was a Steam game coming in at 108MB/sec and it was compressed, so it ended up writing at over 600MB/sec, and any game I run isn't writing that much data to disk))
However, to my point, this Sager was actually released at the end of 2015, and there have been plenty of laptops since then released with 4x PCIe NVMe SSD's in them, and any with a 960 Pro is in this same ballpark, it's just that these laptops don't typically get reviewed by the "trade mags"
Last edited:
BlackMagic measures one specific thing, how fast can the drive/controller write/read one thing at a time. It tells you something but in some ways, it’s not that interesting.
Since 2015, when Apple moved to NMVe what they’ve done is take whatever the top end Samsung MLC is, split into more banks than the off the shelf part and put their own controller in front of it. That way, they’ve been able to eek out a bit of extra speed. I expect they’re using the MLC from the 970 pro this year and we know they’re putting T2 in front. It will definitely be interesting to see better benchmarks with representative workloads. I’d especially like to see cross platform FDE benches, though it seems to be rarely mentioned.
May we live in interesting times (but not too interesting)