Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

How many returns?

yjchua95

macrumors 604
Apr 23, 2011
6,725
231
GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
Again, second sourcing is itself not the problem. Second sourcing with a part that is 20% slower than the alternative is the problem. Show me two sticks of ram with the same specs that have 20% different performance. You can't, because there is no such performance difference so second sourcing is irrelevant.

Whenever there is a 20% performance difference I guarantee you that some subset of enthusiasts is going to care and will return return return until they get the faster one. And I don't understand why anybody is outraged by that.

At the very least, Apple should have tested the products from their suppliers before approving it for usage. For instance, Apple should have benchmarked the SD0256F and rejected it for use in the retina MBPs because performance isn't consistent with other parts.

On the other hand, the SM0256F performs very closely to the SM0512F, so generally it can be said that Samsung parts are pretty consistent.
 
Comment

Trek2100

macrumors 6502a
Oct 20, 2009
547
1
Sevierville, TN
Maybe I am being to paranoid , from what i am reading on the forums. Thank for your feedback!

+1 Compared to the total number of units sold there are very few problems. All PC's (PC and MAC) have a small percentage of issues. Anywhere from hard drives to mother boards. You never hear from the vast majority of users who have zero problems and it's only a very small number of owners on these forums. When I worked I had charge of a lot of PC's. Once in a while a drive would go bad, a graphics card would go south, a mother board would fry or a monitor would need replacing, etc. It will always happen to a small degree. Don't get bogged down in the quagmire of BS. It will consume you. If you stare at the screen long and hard enough it will have a yellow tint. (Old Joke). Folks were staring so hard they were convincing themselves the screens were bad when they were not. There were some issues but most were perfectly fine. Enjoy whatever you buy. If there really are any problems Apple will fix it. Of the 5 MAC's in this house (Powermac G4, quad core 27" i7 iMac, 27" i5 duo core, late 2006 17" MBP and my new late 2013 rMBP, I've never had 1 problem except for a super drive which Apple replaced immediately.
 
Comment

thundersteele

macrumors 68030
Oct 19, 2011
2,984
8
Switzerland
At the very least, Apple should have tested the products from their suppliers before approving it for usage. For instance, Apple should have benchmarked the SD0256F and rejected it for use in the retina MBPs because performance isn't consistent with other parts.

On the other hand, the SM0256F performs very closely to the SM0512F, so generally it can be said that Samsung parts are pretty consistent.

OK right now I am looking at the 13'' rMBP review on notebookcheck: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Apple-MacBook-Pro-Retina-13-Late-2013-Notebook.105035.0.html

The numbers are a bit hidden, but they test the SM0256F and find sequential write/read speeds of 592/711 MB/s. I just ran BlackMagic on my 256 Sandisk and got up to 560/730 MB/s. So I am not seeing that huge performance gap right now. (note also my system was not fully idle and not clean)

It is hard to find more numbers. OWC has some: http://blog.macsales.com/20862-2013...isplay-13-and-15-initial-ssd-speed-comparison
670/730 with the 256 Samsung, very different from the above review. This would indicate a somewhat large gap in write, but not in read speeds.

OK apart from those numbers, one should also look at real world performance. Anandtech reports 300 MB/s reads/writes when copying large files (this is from the 13'' Air review). They also find very high sequential rates (710/800) using an optimised (?) benchmark with a high queue depth. Really hard to compare.

A side by side comparison done using identical benchmark tools would be useful. Finally one should not forget that other parameters, like random reads, access times, and power consumption are also important, and we know very little about how the two SSDs compare in those categories. AnandTech where are you...
 
Comment

yjchua95

macrumors 604
Apr 23, 2011
6,725
231
GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
OK right now I am looking at the 13'' rMBP review on notebookcheck: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Apple-MacBook-Pro-Retina-13-Late-2013-Notebook.105035.0.html

The numbers are a bit hidden, but they test the SM0256F and find sequential write/read speeds of 592/711 MB/s. I just ran BlackMagic on my 256 Sandisk and got up to 560/730 MB/s. So I am not seeing that huge performance gap right now. (note also my system was not fully idle and not clean)

It is hard to find more numbers. OWC has some: http://blog.macsales.com/20862-2013...isplay-13-and-15-initial-ssd-speed-comparison
670/730 with the 256 Samsung, very different from the above review. This would indicate a somewhat large gap in write, but not in read speeds.

OK apart from those numbers, one should also look at real world performance. Anandtech reports 300 MB/s reads/writes when copying large files (this is from the 13'' Air review). They also find very high sequential rates (710/800) using an optimised (?) benchmark with a high queue depth. Really hard to compare.

A side by side comparison done using identical benchmark tools would be useful. Finally one should not forget that other parameters, like random reads, access times, and power consumption are also important, and we know very little about how the two SSDs compare in those categories. AnandTech where are you...

This is from my SM0256F.

I don't know where on earth you got the figures of 592/711 from that page. Under CrystalDiskMark 3.0 in that page, it shows 634/705, which is a big difference in writes. Meanwhile the screenshot attached in the NoteBookCheck site showed 674/730, which is more consistent with my readings and the 634/705 shown under CrystalDiskMark.
 

Attachments

  • 256GB SSD speed.png
    256GB SSD speed.png
    3.3 MB · Views: 50
Comment

thundersteele

macrumors 68030
Oct 19, 2011
2,984
8
Switzerland
This is from my SM0256F.

I don't know where on earth you got the figures of 592/711 from that page. Under CrystalDiskMark 3.0 in that page, it shows 634/705, which is a big difference in writes. Meanwhile the screenshot attached in the NoteBookCheck site showed 674/730, which is more consistent with my readings and the 634/705 shown under CrystalDiskMark.

Thanks!

Somehow I was being blind. There are two tabs in the review, both showing benchmark results. I somehow managed to ignore the first one (showing 634/705) and read the second tab (590/710).

I still wonder how Anandtech managed to get 710/800 on the 13'' Air with 256 GB Samsung SSD.
 
Comment

yjchua95

macrumors 604
Apr 23, 2011
6,725
231
GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
Thanks!

Somehow I was being blind. There are two tabs in the review, both showing benchmark results. I somehow managed to ignore the first one (showing 634/705) and read the second tab (590/710).

I still wonder how Anandtech managed to get 710/800 on the 13'' Air with 256 GB Samsung SSD.

It's possible to get that by booting from an external disk on the Air and then opening up Blackmagic in that external boot disk to benchmark the internal one. It's faster that way since there's no OS overhead slowing down the drive if the OS isn't running on the drive that's benchmarked.
 
Comment

phositadc

macrumors 6502
Dec 9, 2012
460
36
Thanks!



Somehow I was being blind. There are two tabs in the review, both showing benchmark results. I somehow managed to ignore the first one (showing 634/705) and read the second tab (590/710).



I still wonder how Anandtech managed to get 710/800 on the 13'' Air with 256 GB Samsung SSD.


Yeah the most typical numbers I see for a 256 gb Samsung are about 680/720. Some variation of course, but that is most common.
 
Comment

thundersteele

macrumors 68030
Oct 19, 2011
2,984
8
Switzerland
It's possible to get that by booting from an external disk on the Air and then opening up Blackmagic in that external boot disk to benchmark the internal one. It's faster that way since there's no OS overhead slowing down the drive if the OS isn't running on the drive that's benchmarked.

I see. So it is really not very useful to compare results from different reviews. I wonder if someone can do the same on a SD equipped Mac. I'm not sure I have a large enough USB stick.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.