I am just curious about this. Usually, higher capacity has higher performance in ssd. Is it same for flash?
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.
Is 768gb flash going to be faster than 512 one?
- Thread starter conandoyle
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
From the reviews I've read at anandtech, there's a considerable jump in performance when going from 120 to 240. Above 240 though, there's not much marginal improvement IIRC.
That's in general. The rMBP could be different, but I doubt it.
That's in general. The rMBP could be different, but I doubt it.
No. Unless. they have put more flash in parallel on the board to increase data throughput. But I highly doubt they went to those lengths.
It's just additional storage space. It doesn't act like a hard drive (HDD) where some parts of the device are farther away thus making it slower.
It's just additional storage space. It doesn't act like a hard drive (HDD) where some parts of the device are farther away thus making it slower.
Nope, he is not. The bigger the SSD, the more channels it is likely to come in (separate NAND packages going through its own line to the same controller) and the more you can pipeline those channels into the same controller.
So the more NANDs you have, the faster you can read and write data through because you can parallelize all of those NANDs dies into the same controller.
I don't think 512GB and 768GB is going to be a huge jump in speed because there's a limit to how much you can pipe into the same controller. You need a much bigger controller to handle more channels before you can see more speed. I doubt rMBP has those types since it's space-constrained and on a custom smaller package.
He is confused actually, because he thinks that Apple labeling their drives as "Flash" means they aren't SSD's.
From apple.com feature list for the rMBP. Confusing apples with... er... apples.
Attachments
Last edited:
What does that prove?
Apple is just calling it 'Flash' so that people will think 'oooh, flash! That must be really fast!'
Flash = SSD
It proves that an Apple is an Orange?What does that prove?
Apple is just calling it 'Flash' so that people will think 'oooh, flash! That must be really fast!'
Flash = SSD
IDK... I'm just trying to make the OP feel better.
Oh, I skimmed through the first post too fast. Now, I got it.
OP: Apple's all flash storage just means custom SSD system, it's the same thing as having an SSD but it has a different connector.
The OP is confused because Apple's calling their SSD setup as "all-flash storage" as in Flash != SSD but they're both the same.
There is a speed boost with higher capacity. However, the speed boost is not in the read capacity, but the write capacity.
More parallel NAND flash modules mean faster write speeds.
I think the 768GB version is already being limited by the controller (not enough channels) and then further limited by the storage interface, thus the overall performance gain over 512GB is going to be negligible.
We need to move from SATA3 to PCIe (reportedly the next SATA revision would communicate through PCIe) before we'll see any performance increases past 550MB/s.
We need to move from SATA3 to PCIe (reportedly the next SATA revision would communicate through PCIe) before we'll see any performance increases past 550MB/s.
Well, I knew it functions just like ssd, but it certainly does not look like normal 2.5' ssd that you can swap it out and in according to the early tear down .