Is macrumors serious? All three of my Windows laptops have Samsung NVME M.2 SSDs in them that are every bit as fast if not faster then this. This article is absurbly stupid.
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
Is macrumors serious? All three of my Windows laptops have Samsung NVME M.2 SSDs in them that are every bit as fast if not faster then this. This article is absurbly stupid.
But are they faster than the numbers on this chart and is this chart useful or misleading?
They are but they are also more than double the price of the MacBook being tested.
You should read the article though. It has all the information.
The Dell XPS being tested was infact the top of the line spec with PCIE SSD
EDIT: The original one by laptopmag and follow the links to the computers they mentioned.
Unless they are testing wrong, they have more facts than yourself.
I would say MLC for sure. TLC can’t hit these speeds even using the SLC caching, which when full drops the write speed to about 3-400MBps.
It is very dumb to test theAPFS formatted SSD speed by using file copy. On APFS when you copy data, no data is actually duplicated. It would be fun to try the same test on an APFS formatted hard drive.
[doublepost=1531543316][/doublepost]
I have to agree with the above. I recently acquired an older second hand Alienware laptop. I bought a BRAND NEW battery from Dell, tossed out the Hard Drive and installed an SSD then installed Linux. I can drain the factory fresh battery in 20 minutes. There are two big heat sinks and two fans, one the the GPU and one for the CPU. I'm using it for a specialized use involving robotics and I don't care about the the short battery life or heat.
For normal use, like editing text files and reading reference materials and sending emails the tank-like Alienware is no faster than the MacBook Air. But there is no comparison when it comes to number crunching. Crunching numbers turns battery charge into heat, really fast. There is no easy why around this.
[doublepost=1531543316][/doublepost]
I have to agree with the above. I recently acquired an older second hand Alienware laptop. I bought a BRAND NEW battery from Dell, tossed out the Hard Drive and installed an SSD then installed Linux. I can drain the factory fresh battery in 20 minutes. There are two big heat sinks and two fans, one the the GPU and one for the CPU. I'm using it for a specialized use involving robotics and I don't care about the the short battery life or heat.
For normal use, like editing text files and reading reference materials and sending emails the tank-like Alienware is no faster than the MacBook Air. But there is no comparison when it comes to number crunching. Crunching numbers turns battery charge into heat, really fast. There is no easy why around this.
Last edited:
You’re like the bazillionth person to say that. That’s not how the BlackMagic test works. My 2015 MBP got around 760Mb/s write on HFS+ and still does on APFS. It’s just a component where Apple have spent heavily in the last few years. Not so much on the GPU, a bit more on the SSD.
Do people seriously think that BlackMagic just has a 1Gb, 2Gb, 5Gb etc set of files hanging around on your drive and does a copy? It doesn’t. The write speed test comes first, where it generates a file, then the read speed, then the temporary file is deleted.
Yeah my thought exactly. It could be some caching or buffering mechanism that allows a file to appear to be moved or copied but it could be just accelerated by the cache. The test didn't specify the volume of the SSDs, which could affect the results as well. It would be more accurate to run tests with different file sizes and conditions, like what crystal disk mark does.
And yet I looked on Notebookcheck and saw that the 1,000$ model got a write speed of over 2700 mb/s on CrystalDiskMark 5.2. So that's weird.
Could you link that? That’s not what I’m seeing. Maybe we’re looking at a different model.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Dell-XPS-13-9370-Core-i5-FHD-Laptop-Review.280518.0.html
That's exactly what I was thinking. Copy on write is trivially fast. And in case anyone is wondering, you can basically get the same result on any Mac (even using jHFS+) with a Terminal command:
Code:
ln bigfile.zip bigfileduplicate.zipSurprise, surprise. It's done pretty much as soon as you press return. APFS is doing that type of stuff behind the scenes.
For these guys to say "a win is a win" ruins their credibility.
That’s a soft link, its not copy on write. Again that’s not what’s happening or the test would have taken milliseconds, not two seconds. The “a win is a win” was nonsense, I’ll give you that.
It's a hard-link. A soft link would be if I added the "-s" argument.
No. It's not technically copy on write, which I said in my original post. But creating a hard link is functionally the same thing. Data stays in one place, new entry in the file system. The difference, of course, is that if I modify a hard-linked file, both files are identical (i.e. they're not copied into separate, distinct files).
Oops, my bad, was watching TV and not fully paying attention. Even so, an fs link takes milliseconds, it’s a few bytes, hard or soft. Not two seconds. It’s bizarre how much people are trying to explain this away. The test does not copy an existing file, it creates one, then reads it.
haha! such ignorance. someone seems to be compensating for something small. You need to understand my job. I screen false advertising sites for clients who claim other companies are using their brands and advertising them as original. Then have them closed and at times help my clients sue. Most of these false adverts are pop ups that I need to check out and verify if they are indeed existing and equally as often these lead you to low security sites. With my mac, I didn't have issues doing this. With Windows...umm.
There's no doubt these drives are fast. I'm guessing Apple picked some good chips, with their own controller, probably running some form of hardware RAID.
I still question the methodology of the testers though. Something doesn't seem right and their comments don't inspire confidence (in me, anyway).
I question it too. The reviewer clearly had no clue what they’re talking about insinuating the result had anything to do with APFS. For sure more credible tests will follow, but it’s not like the very fast SSD performance is anything new.
2015
https://www.computerworld.com/artic...e-new-macbook-literally-is-twice-as-fast.html
2016 - user testing from this site
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/2016-mbps-ssd-speed-difference.2017527/
2017 - again user testing from here
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...test-benchmark-improvement-over-2016.2053413/
Thr truth is they are comparing a SATA SSD to a nvme ssd,. It's a ridiculous comparison. All those of laptops can be speced with nvme ssd's as well which will give similar speeds to the new Mac's. Some people need to lay off the apple cool aid.
No, they’re not. Here’s the Dell XPS 2017. It is most certainly not SATA. It’s NVMe.
https://hothardware.com/reviews/del...rks-more-bang-intel-8th-gen-core-i7-processor
“HotHardware” said:
People keep saying these results are not possible, PCs are faster than claimed here, the Mac results are due to caching or filesytem etc. etc. but somehow no-one has been able to produce any actual data. Funny that.
[doublepost=1531548580][/doublepost]BTW there are definitely, for sure, laptop PCs with numbers better than the ones listed and even some of those that are listed are suspect. I really don’t think it will change the pecking order though. It must be terribly disappointing for pseudo-techies who live in the “Macs are slow” bubble. I get that.
Last edited:
The Samsung 970 NVME pro SSD which can be put in a PC laptop has 3.5gb/s read and 2.3gb/s write. Enough said, Apple is not doing anything groundbreaking here and I would not be surprised if its actually the Samsung 970 pro SSD that Apple is using.
Yes, good drives can be put in PCs. I never claimed otherwise. You on the other hand claimed that the tests presented were of SATA drives, and not NVMe. I proved otherwise. Not all NVMe drives are created equally. Far from it, as you can see.
In 2018 these speeds are normal. The ssd/nvme in the 15 inch Xiaomi Mi Pro that costs $890 it's pretty fast, too.
source: https://techtablets.com/2017/12/xiaomi-mi-notebook-pro-nvme-ssd-bios-pcie-x2-fix/
source: https://techtablets.com/2017/12/xiaomi-mi-notebook-pro-nvme-ssd-bios-pcie-x2-fix/
haha! such ignorance. someone seems to be compensating for something small. You need to understand my job. I screen false advertising sites for clients who claim other companies are using their brands and advertising them as original. Then have them closed and at times help my clients sue. Most of these false adverts are pop ups that I need to check out and verify if they are indeed existing and equally as often these lead you to low security sites. With my mac, I didn't have issues doing this. With Windows...umm.
You didn't get problems coded to work on Windows on your Mac? You don't say! I'm just saying my 52 year old mom had fewer issues with her laptop than you do.
Yes sorry I didn't realise they picked PC Laptops with lower end NVME drives. I saw 400MB/s and assumed it had to be SATA as NVME is capable of MUCH faster speeds.