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 Still Using SSDs With Varying Speeds on New MacBook Air
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
To be fair to both sides, Apple never advertised anything about write speeds, its a 128 gb ssd drive, thats all they owed the buyer with just that.
But on the other hand, every unit of one model SHOULD, in a perfect world, be exactly the same.
I want a air, hopefully get one soon. If I find a Toshiba SSD in it will I send it back? No. There is no application for which I would ever find that incefficient.
Even if you were to write up the entire SSD drive at once with data, theres no way to get that Data on the air to match the SSD speeds. Tb isn't fast enough, theres no internet connection commercially available thats fast enough. Even if you were a creative or data heavy user, all you would find is seconds on the write time, if that. I rather take a few more seconds then all the time it would take to send Apple back my Air, have them replace it and send it back. That would litteraly take second for second more time then the slow SSD would with its extra second or two writing data in the entire life of that product.
But on the other hand, every unit of one model SHOULD, in a perfect world, be exactly the same.
I want a air, hopefully get one soon. If I find a Toshiba SSD in it will I send it back? No. There is no application for which I would ever find that incefficient.
Even if you were to write up the entire SSD drive at once with data, theres no way to get that Data on the air to match the SSD speeds. Tb isn't fast enough, theres no internet connection commercially available thats fast enough. Even if you were a creative or data heavy user, all you would find is seconds on the write time, if that. I rather take a few more seconds then all the time it would take to send Apple back my Air, have them replace it and send it back. That would litteraly take second for second more time then the slow SSD would with its extra second or two writing data in the entire life of that product.
Those are some pretty pathetic numbers even with the faster drive. OCZ Agility 3 in the 2011 15 inch Macbook Pro, and I'm getting 460 read and 447 write speeds... YUM!
Glad I chose performance over pretty, slim and sexy.
You obviously never convert video using Handbrake or other tools. Those speeds mean real world performance increases when encoding audio, video, etc. I'm a DJ and I work with WAV files a lot, and the faster my SSD goes, the quicker my remixes compile.
Glad I chose performance over pretty, slim and sexy.
You obviously never convert video using Handbrake or other tools. Those speeds mean real world performance increases when encoding audio, video, etc. I'm a DJ and I work with WAV files a lot, and the faster my SSD goes, the quicker my remixes compile.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have one of those too. I keep it in the trunk of my car while I carry the Macbook Air in my front pant pocket.
I do actually, I rip all my DVD's for a home theater experiance.
But doesn't that have more to do with your processor? Your SSD isn't encoding video or audio.
You've had 4 years to save and you still haven't updated? The i3-7 kicks core 2 duo's ass.
Has anyone with a Toshiba SSD called Apple Support?
I thought this wouldn't bother me... but it does. Look, I was ready to buy 3 months ago, but waited (and waited!) for the new Airs to come out to make sure I get the freshest hardware... and now I find out I don't have it?
I thought this wouldn't bother me... but it does. Look, I was ready to buy 3 months ago, but waited (and waited!) for the new Airs to come out to make sure I get the freshest hardware... and now I find out I don't have it?
Given your options, the answer is 1, or 3, with a strong bias towards 1. It's disrespectful to customers to make it a gamble which components they get. Perhaps they have done nothing illegal, you buy what their specs advertise after all, but it is immoral. If they want to sell SSD's that can do X MB/s, everyone buying it should get the same kit.
The 4th, and most honest option that you left out, is that if they want to sell a million units, but can't source the components, they should make it a choice for the user at purchase time, charging more the components for which there is less supply. I'm happy to pay more to get the best, which is why I come to Apple in the first place. I think it's immoral, and goes against what Apple should stand for to make me gamble for better components. 95% of people may never know or care, but it's that 5% that do that are Apple's most loyal followers.
In a perfect world, yes. But these types of components (RAM, storage, subsystem ICs, etc.) are a commodity and are therefore fungible. Every PC manufacturer does this.
A lawsuit concerning that matter would not have much strength given that the only specification promised is drive size. Not drive transfer rate. Moreover, with SSDs, depending on how they are used, their transfer rate can decline over time. Then there is the issue of longevity. What if the faster Samsung NANDs are 25nm but the Toshiba's are 34nm?
What would be most accommodating is for Apple to realize that there are enough of their customers that do care about more detailed specifications and design their hardware to be more user serviceable with regard to storage.
In any event, the SSD speed difference on the Air is mostly inconsequential considering its mission and likely use. I mean, the difference in speed would be measured in seconds when transferring a 5GB file. Can't see a few seconds mattering in the grand scheme of things unless of course one's time is actually money. But of it were, they wouldn't be using the Air for that particular mission.
Well, it's been a while since I've bothered looking at the various non Apple PC's on the market, but back in the day most components were very specifically detailed. You would know your getting a Toshiba 7000rpm blah blah, but maybe things have moved on. Even if everyone in the world is doing it, it doesn't make it right. Yes in an ideal world every component would be exactly the same, but we should least have the same major system components.
Quite, that's why I said it wasn't illegal, but it does seem immoral.
Or as I suggested, let us choose the major system components for a price difference if they cannot be sourced reliably. By major I mean display, drive, ram, cpu, audio chipset, graphics chipset. Most of these components are already fixed and specced, perhaps adding RAM, display, and drive to this list (if they are going to differ in performance) would be more fair. They can still supply "stock" machines with the lower end components to those who simply dont care.
I maybe wrong again, and yes SSD's have many factors that should be weighed up, but looking at the benchmarks we would be talking something like 20 seconds vs 33 seconds for reading 5gig off the drives. That matters.
Pink∆Floyd;13046671 said:
About this Mac > More info > System report > Serial-ATA
TS = Toshiba
SM = Samsung
I have to stand with Apple on this one
Actually, I think that the situation on the PC side is very much the opposite. Parts are sourced from multiple suppliers, and offers are deliberately vague about the specs (same as Apple).
You order a system with a "7200 RPM 32 MiB cache" drive. You aren't told any other specs, and many different drives of different speeds can match the specs that you're told.
You order a system with "1333 MHz" memory. The order doesn't specify CL info and other pertinent specs.
You order a system with an "Nvidia GT 545" GPU and 1.5 GiB VRAM. The order doesn't say whether it's the GDDR3 model of the GT 545 or the GDDR5 model. If it has a Radeon, you should be upset. You shouldn't be upset if you got a GDDR3 model instead of the GDDR5 model.
To me, I think that talk of lawsuits and stuff is absurd - Apple sold you a system with vague specs, and the system meets those specs. Unless Apple guaranteed certain sequential read/write speeds, a leg to stand on you don't have.
And BTW, IOPS is probably a lot more important than MB/sec for responsiveness. If you're copying a large video file, MB/sec is important - for the rest of your life IOPS translate into "snappier".
The only place where Apple could have a potential liability would be if their ads/promo materials have specific benchmark claims that only the faster components can meet. But Apple's been lying about benchmarks for years, and hasn't been taken to task for that.
Actually, I think that the situation on the PC side is very much the opposite. Parts are sourced from multiple suppliers, and offers are deliberately vague about the specs (same as Apple).
You order a system with a "7200 RPM 32 MiB cache" drive. You aren't told any other specs, and many different drives of different speeds can match the specs that you're told.
You order a system with "1333 MHz" memory. The order doesn't specify CL info and other pertinent specs.
You order a system with an "Nvidia GT 545" GPU and 1.5 GiB VRAM. The order doesn't say whether it's the GDDR3 model of the GT 545 or the GDDR5 model. If it has a Radeon, you should be upset. You shouldn't be upset if you got a GDDR3 model instead of the GDDR5 model.
To me, I think that talk of lawsuits and stuff is absurd - Apple sold you a system with vague specs, and the system meets those specs. Unless Apple guaranteed certain sequential read/write speeds, a leg to stand on you don't have.
And BTW, IOPS is probably a lot more important than MB/sec for responsiveness. If you're copying a large video file, MB/sec is important - for the rest of your life IOPS translate into "snappier".
The only place where Apple could have a potential liability would be if their ads/promo materials have specific benchmark claims that only the faster components can meet. But Apple's been lying about benchmarks for years, and hasn't been taken to task for that.
Yes, I'd be fine as long as the engine power is at least what was listed in the specs in their documentation.
What do you care what other people have? How does that affect you?
Pink∆Floyd;13046671 said:
The easiest way for any average person to find out about any of their Macs hardware is to open system profiler and right click on any part number then click "Search in Google".
I have included an example for the hard drive in my MacBook:
Last edited by a moderator:
Given that Apple can't source enough SSD drives that are exactly the same, what do you suggest Apple does?
That's a no-no, though most users probably won't give much attention to this. Still you would expect any particular product lineup to be identical, surely. Ain't right.
My abbreviated .02
There's a lot of talk on this thread about getting what you paid for, bad analogies about cars, etc and that Apple just promised x not y.
The truth is - these machines are/should be built to spec. Apple must deem the difference "within" spec. Whether or not we agree is another matter.
But these horrible analogies have to stop because they are invalid.
There's a lot of talk on this thread about getting what you paid for, bad analogies about cars, etc and that Apple just promised x not y.
The truth is - these machines are/should be built to spec. Apple must deem the difference "within" spec. Whether or not we agree is another matter.
But these horrible analogies have to stop because they are invalid.
So true. I have a new 13" high-end MBA on its way (delivery is 7/28), and if this thing has the slower SSD, I'm gonna be pi55ed! Slower is slower, I don't care what apps I'm using.