This whole "contamination" issue sounds like a fake cover story and very convenient, especially considering how many modules have apparently been affected and no word yet if any of these ended up in hardware. As others have stated, NAND prices are dropping which means more people can purchase NAND products at reduced costs, however this reduces profit. It's more along the lines that a "problem" was "created" to increase prices for more profit. With all the quality controls and expensive equipment they use to manufacture NAND, this seems way too coincidental and way too perfectly timed. It's very similar to cartel behaviour and don't be surprised that heads will roll.
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.
Apple SSD Supplier Hit With Contamination Disaster, Flash Storage Prices Expected to Spike
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Don't compare SSD in an external box to an internal SSD.
Samsung SSD hit 3500MB/s write and read speeds when it is connected to PCI-e.
So my old MacBook Air (bottom end 8Gb / 256Gb)
New MacBook Pro 14" (bottom end 16Gb / 512Gb)
My backup SSD is in the car at the moment and I can't be arsed to go and get it. The M1Pro MBP is insane on reads though!
So M1 is on par with same size Samsung EVO, and M1 pro 512 is about 30-40% faster than 256 Samsung. Interesting. I thought results were better in Apple's favor.
I remember Apple's insane storage prices (pre-M1) being justified with superior performance, but it seems it wasn't true.
I remember Apple's insane storage prices (pre-M1) being justified with superior performance, but it seems it wasn't true.
Ah ok, you are talking about the M1 Pro and M1 Max.
Yeah, the M1 Max has a faster SSD with speeds up to 7000MB/s.
See above for actual measured Air performance. 2400 write, 3300 read. I've got an M1 mini as well. Same result.
Either way the point is moot here at the end of the day. You know what you're getting when you buy the Mac. When you buy an OEM PC laptop you literally have no idea what organs it has in it. I bought a few Lenovo ThinkPad machines a few months back from the same series (T495) with the same configuration all from the same distributor. We needed them quick so bought an off the shelf config without enough RAM and upgraded them ourselves. When we cracked them open we found some had Intel SSDs in, some Samsung and they had measurably different performance between them.
And lets not even go into Dell which seem to build their stuff out of harvested organs.
I’ve generally found Apple’s storage worth the markup because it is more secure and the controller is so much faster then anything else on the market, but we don’t need all of our storage to be fast and secure. It would be nice if Apple continues to bring back support for SD cards.
Because the stuff they use in their most recent machines is nearly twice as fast
I feel so sorry for people that believe that everything is a conspiracy. Heads may roll in the QC department depending on the reason that this escaped inspection.
As noted by others WD is a publicly traded company. This contamination problem will likely result in a write-off/write-down of hundreds of millions of billions of dollars. That is something the company is obligated to inform their shareholders of.
No one even mentions SK Hynix? Apple has been using their nand chips for a few years. This incident will have little impact on the world wide supply of nand.
Thats really slow comparably. In a M1 24" Mac I am getting ~ 3000 MB/s R/W, in a M1 Max MBP its ~ 5000 MB/s R/W.
Last edited:
worth the markup with???
No way to replace / swap / upgrade with out an 2rd system on an $5K+ mac pro
Only raid 0 on the mac pro with no raid 1 choice
markup that is un needed.
Upcoming PCIe 5.0 NVMe doubles that to 14,000MB/s seq read and 7,000MB/s seq write.
This is great news. We're pushing performance up the memory hierarchy some more. I look forward to the days when our SSDs are mapped into RAM without the OS getting in the way.
RAM endurance is probably much higher than SSD endurance. Wouldn't want to kill SSD prematurely.
I would dare to say it’s one of the most important part. Everything else you can replace or repair. But if the storage gets ****ed, then your data is forever lost.
You could even do an instant transfer to a new computer in the case of catastrophic failure IF it wasn’t soldered.
At least apple used to have a dedicated port on the motherboard you could use for data recovery. Now it’s impossible
Yep. We just need the latency to improve. Then we can finally remove RAM and just use our SSD as RAM as instant access.
Imagine running your GPU with 1TB of memory without the need to transfer data
Well are you sure about that bub?
Backblaze Data Shows SSDs Failing Almost as Often as Hard Drives
It seems SSDs aren't as failure-resistant as many of us thought.