Is 256GB SSD slower than 512GB?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by johngwheeler, Nov 12, 2014.

  1. johngwheeler macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Location:
    I come from a land down-under...
    #1
    Hi,

    I'm thinking of getting a base rMBP 15, and was wondering whether there is a chance that the 256GB will have worse performance than the 512GB version?

    I know the 128GB SSDs in the MBA are somewhat slower, and was wondering whether the same applies to the 256 & 512 SSDs.

    Also, does Apple use both Samsung & other brands in the 256GB? I had heard that they only use Samsung in the 512GB & 1TB, and that the Samsung SSD are considerably better (and faster) than other brands.

    Any ideas?

    Thanks!
     
  2. venom600 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #2
    From what I recall it isn't size related. Apple used significantly slower SSDs in the current batch of Macbook Airs, likely to save money. I don't think they did the same with the Macbook Pro though.
     
  3. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #3
    Larger-capacity SSDs are usually faster than lower-capacity ones, because they use more storage chips that are working in parallel. But you will only really notice the difference when copying very large files on a regular basis, which is not a typical usage scenario.
     
  4. blooperz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2013
    #4
    the 128 is slower than the rest of the bunch...the rest are more or less the same as far as I know
     
  5. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #5
    128GB and 256GB are a lottery between SanDisk and Samsung. SanDisk variants are significantly slower.

    For instance, the SD0256F is 150MB/s slower in writes than the SM0256F.

    512GB and 1TB are Samsung only, SM0512F and SM1024F respectively.

    The 1TB ones are connected in a 4-lane configuration in the rMBPs, so they get 1GB/s in reads and writes. The 1TB ones in the iMacs are connected in a 2-lane configuration, so they get the same speed as a SM0512F, as the other two lanes are occupied by the extra two USB ports on the iMac.
     
  6. johngwheeler thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Location:
    I come from a land down-under...
    #6
    That's usual information. I see you are based in Australia - do you know whether the machines shipped to Oz tend to have more likelihood of being Samsung or SanDisk? My MBA has a Samsung, and is super fast - I wouldn't want to go backwards in performance with a rMBP.

    Anyone know whether the speed difference is noticeable in normal usage (other than copying massive files)?
     
  7. Weaselboy Moderator

    Weaselboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Location:
    California
    #7
    Unless you are sitting there running benchmark apps side by side, you will never notice the difference during routine usage. I would just get the size you really need and not sweat this.
     
  8. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #8
    Listen to the weasel!
    There is also more to ssd performancde than just the bm read/write speed test.
     
  9. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #9
    It's a lucky draw all over the world.

    You'll see a difference if you do I/O intensive stuff like me. I edit 4K all the time, so I need every bit of performance I can get.
     

Share This Page