MacBook Pro 2016 SSD performance ... keep it or return it???

[OKGO76]

Hi all,

I got my new MacBook Pro 15'' TB 2,6 i7 with 1 TB SSD last week. AJA System Test shows just 1845 MB/sec write and 2362 MB/sec read performance. And that was the best result of multiple test runs. Should the 1 TB SSD not be any quicker? So should I return the MacBook and hope to get a replacement with faster SSD or keep it and be happy with that results?


OK GO

 

[robvas]

You're way too worried about. just keep it

 

[maflynn]

How much faster were you hoping it would be. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems wicked fast too me.

 

[keysofanxiety]

Check through Blackmagic Speed Test instead.

 

[OKGO76]

How much faster were you hoping it would be. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems wicked fast too me.

I hoped it would be as fast as Apple has announced the new SSD´s. They said, the new SSD´s have read transfer rates of up to 3,1 GB/sec.
[doublepost=1492171947][/doublepost]

Check through Blackmagic Speed Test instead.

the Blackmagic Speed Test doesn't´t measure anything beyond the 2000 MB/sec limit.

 

[maflynn]

I hoped it would be as fast as Apple has announced the new SSD´s. They said, the new SSD´s have read transfer rates of up to 3,1 GB/sec.

I think the keyword is up too. Yet, if you're not happy with the performance, call apple.

 

[anubis1980]

im sure thats fine!

my 2015 rmbp 512gb ssd gets 1509mb read and 1875 write, so yours is a lot quicker, sounds about right to me.

 

[Fishrrman]

OP wrote:
"So should I return the MacBook and hope to get a replacement with faster SSD or keep it and be happy with that results?"

Let's get this straight.
You're seeing reads of 2362 and writes of 1845 -- and you're unhappy?

Like maflynn writes:
How much faster do you hope for it to be?

 

[Sanpete]

Curiously, the claim about the new SSD reading at up to 3.1 Gbps doesn't appear on Apple's website, as far as I can tell. I think they claimed that in the announcement, or so it was reported. In searching I noticed that a discussion at Apple.com that claimed the Apple website included that claim was removed (it's only viewable in Google cache).

The SSD does undoubtedly read that fast for some tasks, which you can see by looking at the details of the tests, but apparently it isn't that fast for the standard benchmarks.

 

[ZapNZs]

While I have not used AJA, I've observed huge discrepancies across different benchmark Apps.
What type of data does the test use?
What results are you getting from other programs?

 

[OKGO76]

you can find the claim on the Apple Homepage - see the screenshots...

There are different reviews oft the MBP which get lot better benchmarks than the claimed 3,1 GB/sec. So I thought, mine could be faulty. But you´re all right ... This MacBook is ridiculously fast!

 

[jerryk]

I wouldn't worry. It seems to be performing as expected. I run Samsung drives that are a bit faster on my rigs and the only really want to get them to meet the advertised program is run very specific benchmarks. On most general benchmarks they are close enough. And once you get past 1.0 GB/sec you will never notice the different unless you are doing massive large sequential reads.

 

[Weaselboy]

Should the 1 TB SSD not be any quicker?

No... I don't think so. It depends on how you test. I suspect Apple is using a large file in a sequential test to get that advertised speed, but in real usage (what those test apps simulate with different file sizes) it will be slower.

Read this test where they only manage to get the 3.1 when not booted to the drive, but the chart at the lower part of the article lists what would be more like normal usage and close to what you are seeing.

See this post with another user seeing the same as you under AJA.

tl;dr I think what you are seeing is normal.

 

[Sanpete]

you can find the claim on the Apple Homepage - see the screenshots...

Ah, you have to click to expand the page, and then it shows on the MBP main page. (And they use a / instead of p in Gbps, which I missed in my search.)

 

[Chicane-UK]

That SSD performance is insanely good. There is nothing wrong with it.

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

I could possibly understand OPs stance, if he had to read/write many multiple TB files every day... But really...?

 

[Kcetech1]

in the 1T model that sounds about right. I don't have one anymore but I think my test unit was about 2200 and 1900. I do know the 512GB unit could get around 3000 and the 2T unit about the same ( they must be configured differently ).

the 960 Pro M2 cards seem a little bit snappier ( of which we seem to have a soldered on version of )

 

[akdj]

The higher the amount of storage, the faster your R/W speeds will be
You have the 1TB, & they're selling a 2TB model. The 2TB is/will be the model capable of the advertised >3,000mb/s read speeds.

You have a faster drive than the 512s, which are quicker than the 256s. None are anemic and all represent a significant jump in performance in comparison with the older SATA SSDs @ around 500/550, they're saturated. Don't fret, just enjoy each time the system insists on a System/OS update, or smile while installing a massive new piece of software, or media library -- as it's near instantaneous install speeds are something special!
Hands down the biggest, most obvious and useful bump in computer performance in a while, solid state storage is amazing.

J

 

[OKGO76]

Hi all,
thank you for your support and opinions. I´ll keep the MacBok. It´s really blazing fast. I work a lot with Virtualbox Virtualization and the speed of the ssd is more than enough. (Now) I think, numbers are not the only truth

OK GO

 

[mcpryon2]

I think the reaction to the 2016 MBP has some of us subconsciously looking for faults in it. I agonized over which to get, the 13" or the 15" and I ended up with the 15" 2.7GHz/1TB/460, but not after thinking about it. I'd think, well, it DOES make case noise if I flex it THIS way. Or yes, the screen blinked black for a fraction of a second when I put the GPU under load. It's defective!

Then I just used it to do my job for a few days and when my co-workers started commenting on how awesome this thing is I realized I was going out of my way to justify it not being perfect.

Benchmarks and claims should usually be taken with a grain of salt. It's kind of like when you get speakers and they are "100w" RMS...yeah, at a specific frequency in a manner no person actually uses them.

The bottom line is it's a great computer and I'm really happy with what I can do with it.

 

[zarathu]

People get carried away with numbers on tests, and in the real world they usually mean little. So the transfer is 3 seconds faster. Are your really having your work flow disrupted by 3 seconds loss in speed?

According to GeekBEnch, my very very late 2013 is only 4% slower in the cpu than the one the TS has(its haswell with 2.6 ghz and 3.8 ghz boost). Of course the graphics card is twice as fast. But it only matters if you are doing really high level stuff, and for that you will probably either be using a desktop, or an add on graphics card that is 10 times faster and isn't very portable .

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

99.999999% of users and applications will never be able to tap anywhere close to the maximum bandwidth of these new generation of SSDs.

Several forum members were desperate to upgrade to the fastest SSDs and even RAID them for greater speed. When I asked them to load up their hugest multi layer 4K video editing projects and run an I/O meter in the background they were reporting around 800MB/s read and 100MB/s write speeds. Content and application will dictate how much of the bandwidth you can use.

RED's 8K and 6K cameras are still shooting RAW video on SATA 2 drives at around 230MB/s.

Unfortunately we're brainwashed as consumers to believe we must have the highest numbers. Corporate marketing departments tap into these insecurities every year. Bigger, better, faster, more.