Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Populus

macrumors 604
Original poster
A few years ago, I was accused of FUD because I suggested Apple might start using the infamous QLC NAND on their devices to cut costs and maximize their benefits per device sold.

Now, a recent rumor points towards some 1TB & 2TB iPhone 18 Pro are randomly getting this type of NAND cell that has a poorer performance and, more importantly, a much shorter lifespan.


While this remains to be seen, given how closed iOS is, it may be difficult to check (well, maybe using the diagnostics trick used to check display manufacturers). But what about macOS?

See, I placed an order for a 1TB/32GB MacBook Air before the price rise, and given the supply constraints I’m not going to receive it until August. When I receive it, I would like to check if my NAND is TLC or QLC. I know it is unlikely to happen, but given the delay and the cost increase, maybe they just started using cheaper QLC NAND in some units.

I know a lower random write/read speed is a good indicator of having a QLC based drive but, is there a more accurate way to determine it that doesn’t imply opening the back of the MacBook and peeling off the graphite sticker that covers the NAND modules?

Would looking at the device info menu reveal the NAND model and serial number, thus, revealing the type of NAND?

I’d refuse to keep an expensive machine like this knowing that it uses a lower quality NAND that is not only slower, but also with a shorter lifespan.

Thank you.
 
Care to put a number on that lifespan? I'm guessing that it's still way outside the anticipated lifespan of the phone itself.
I’m not talking about an iPhone, I’m asking about the way to check it on macOS, hence why I opened the thread on the macOS forum.

If the average iPhone consumer replaces their devices every 2-3 years, I don’t think that could become a problem, but some of us hold onto our devices for all the lifespan of it (replacing the battery when it’s necessary) to make the most out of our investment and to reduce the e-waste.

That means that a deteriorated SSD may be a problem with poorer performance or some unexpected failures after many years of usage. Especially with a Mac. That’s why, if I can check the type of NAND on my computer, I will. I don’t care that theoretically a QLC will endure the typical cycle of the average Apple consumer that replaces their devices every few years. I pay high prices for quality.
 
I feel you’re strongly overthinking this. With that out of the way, I think your best bet is to inquire in the SSD upgrade thread:


They’d probably know if such information is available via any software method. Additionally, some of them may have already or at least be willing to tear down a recently received/produced M5 MacBook.

Care to put a number on that lifespan? I'm guessing that it's still way outside the anticipated lifespan of the phone itself.
That means that a deteriorated SSD may be a problem with poorer performance or some unexpected failures after many years of usage. Especially with a Mac. That’s why, if I can check the type of NAND on my computer, I will. I don’t care that theoretically a QLC will endure the typical cycle of the average Apple consumer that replaces their devices every few years. I pay high prices for quality.
Despite all of the (loud) claims/accusations/theories, there’s more than just a sliver of proof Apple’s selected NAND’s are typically able to endure petabytes of writes before ever breaking a sweat:


Also from the soldered SSD upgrade thread (see point #3 of the linked post):


To give you a picture of the longevity. Assuming the NAND can withstand 3 PBW (i.e., petabytes), almost 822 GB per day (on average) of data could be written to the drive spanning 10 years. Even if we assume a single petabyte, that’s still an average of up to ~274 GB per day.

By the way, DriveDX has a trial period:

 
To give you a picture of the longevity. Assuming the NAND can withstand 3 PBW (i.e., petabytes), almost 822 GB per day (on average) of data could be written to the drive spanning 10 years.
Yeah, those are amazing numbers. That’s why I want the MacBook I’ve ordered to come with those TLC NAND chips.
 
Presumably, there are also numbers available for the other sort of chip? I'd be surprised if the difference was anything more than a small fraction of the total. Even if was 50% less, 411 GB per day for 10 years is going to be more than you'll need.

Unless someone determines that Apple is using one sort of chip for a certain size of storage, you're not going to be able to select a Mac with one type of component.
 
Yeah, those are amazing numbers. That’s why I want the MacBook I’ve ordered to come with those TLC NAND chips.
I noticed another (good) example/sample:


The quick, simple math puts the average at ~600 GB per day written — definitely well above the typical. This is also a “base M1 MacBook Pro,” which, if my assumption were correct, would coincide with the "M1 13” MBP" in the member’s signature. That model would feature 8GB of RAM and 256GB of storage. A 256GB SSD is no doubt going to have a notably lower endurance than the 1TB SSD of your recent MBA purchase. Yet, that lowly 256GB SSD/NAND lasted five years already with heavy abuse and, sticking with simple math, should be able to endure another ~300 TBW and presumably two more years, if it were to be under the same conditions. But that’s also not to say it couldn’t last a full 10 years or more.

So, hopefully, this puts your mind at ease — regarding this topic at least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Populus
If the QLC is significantly cheap enough that Apple over-provisions it, (basically putting 1.25TB of NAND but only making 1TB of it accessible), write wear really wont be much of an issue and should last about as long as TLC. On speed, the number one thing to remember is that Apple makes their own SSD controller and it is baked into the SOC. Meaning they can heavily optimize performance

Yeah, those are amazing numbers. That’s why I want the MacBook I’ve ordered to come with those TLC NAND chips.
I doubt Apple would put QLC in a Mac. Putting it in the iPhone makes more sense as there are not a lot of storage intensive workflows where you'd notice a slight difference in speed. The tasks with the heaviest storage loads already require an external SSD (High framerate ProRes and ProRes RAW recording).
 
I doubt Apple would put QLC in a Mac. Putting it in the iPhone makes more sense as there are not a lot of storage intensive workflows where you'd notice a slight difference in speed. The tasks with the heaviest storage loads already require an external SSD (High framerate ProRes and ProRes RAW recording).

So, hopefully, this puts your mind at ease — regarding this topic at least.

Yeah, thank you both for your replies, they give me some piece of mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacCheetah3
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.