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.
Macbook Pro 2017 - Disk Speed Test Benchmark - Improvement over 2016?
- Thread starter MikeX
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There were loads of these tests when the 2016s came out, as that's when they started using these newer controllers and SSDs. The 2017 uses the same stuff, so it's exactly the same.
A 512GB drive will be slightly faster than a 256GB though. And I think the software capped out at 2000Mb/s originally.
Just ran the test for you. Thats a 2016 15" 512GB SSD. With stuff running and about 170GB free if it makes a difference.
A 512GB drive will be slightly faster than a 256GB though. And I think the software capped out at 2000Mb/s originally.
Just ran the test for you. Thats a 2016 15" 512GB SSD. With stuff running and about 170GB free if it makes a difference.
Last edited:
I'm coming from a late 2008 MBP so the difference is night and day. Even with an SSD upgrade, the 2008 MBP is completely outclassed by the 2017 MBP.Were they previously?
Oh yes. I am coming to a 2016 MBP from a Late 2011 MBP upgraded to an SSD and 16GB RAM. The only thing I miss is 16GB RAM. 8GB often goes into swapping after a while.
This screenshot is just with Safari and nothing else open. I really only just miss 16GB for the price I paid, that's it. I am happy otherwise.
Attachments
Were they previously?
My 2015 15" are in the 1,700+ MB/sec read; 1,500 MB/sec write.
You've got to look at memory pressure not used memory, the system will use as much RAM as it can as it's wasteful to leave it untouched. Right now I've only really got the basics open other than Affinity using something like 600mb.
Sidenote: I swear I've said that a dozen times this week, I may just make a sig... Or maybe we could get a FAQ on this forum??
Of course, memory pressure is always green, and considering that my base memory pressure is double that of 16GB shows that OS X is functioning just fine. But, isn't that swap use implying writing to disk? Why would it do that under normal (low memory pressure) circumstances?
It's only a very recent implementation of RAM, and we all grew up with limited Bus speeds and an increasing demand for RAM. But as I said the OS manages it really well to optimise the use of what's available.
Essentially, the swap drive is being used to cache, and it is going to do that when using things like browsers - as you're downloading scripts and cookies to make things run faster. So what the OS does is put recently used caches, or data that isn't as critical into a swap drive. From here it can carry on using super fast memory so that you won't see a slowdown. And if you suddenly call up a recently opened tab or something, it can access the data from the (Still super fast) SSD. As opposed to downloading it again. It's all completely normal and again you want it to make use of it rather than wasting valuable system resources on internet Ads or anything.
I found this that you might find a useful read https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT201464 (Click on memory). I think it explains things quite well.
I only highlight it as there is still the old idea of RAM, and a lot of people don't realise that 16GB today is a lot more than 16GB was 5 years ago due to its implementation; with it being significantly faster to write and access data. And RAM is becoming less of a necessity as Bus, and SSD speeds quickly outpace it (Still a large factor slower for now though).
TL;DR, always look at memory pressure to determine if your system is struggling with RAM.
Absolutely true. However, my 16GB MBP doesn't use swap. I always thought using swap would cause unnecessary write cycles on my SSD.
[doublepost=1498563455][/doublepost]
This is roughly 400 more in the write department from my 256GB 2016. Be happy! My write is 1396. However, my read is roughly 200 more than yours at 2480.
[doublepost=1498563455][/doublepost]
This is roughly 400 more in the write department from my 256GB 2016. Be happy! My write is 1396. However, my read is roughly 200 more than yours at 2480.
Last edited:
Well I don't know what your use case is, I'm a creative designer so tend to have an assortment of apps and files about, usually about 1GB of swap is being used on 16GB of RAM.
It does, however this was marginally a concern on spinning disk platters, and is of little to no concern on a modern SSD. Remember things like TRIM and MacOS are very crafty with these things, and will try its best to not write 4k blocks and stuff. Even the cheapest SSD's you find will last at least 7-10 years without any help (Far longer than a traditional HDD).
Check out a reasonable drive here http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/storage-ssd-mx300 that can write 220TB of data in its lifetime. So assuming you had a drive that was 512GB, and you managed to write 512GB of data every day, it would last 430 days. In reality it's a lot lower, on average perhaps 10GB of data a day, which would mean it lasts 60 years.
Look at the Intel calculator here http://estimator.intel.com/ssdendurance/. Which is looking right at the top end. Writing around 30% of the drives capacity each day (150GB), would mean it would last 150 years!
So it's fair to say Apple are using pretty premium SSD's in their computers, given the incredible read/write speed of them, you'll be looking at the top end of lifespan. And you can take those numbers with a fairly large pinch of salt and the drive will still last well beyond your personal use of it. Whilst a lot of factors can come into play of course, just looking at the average cases here, but most people will be looking at a replacement long before the SSD dies even in the worst case scenario.
That helps, surely. Understand, that I look so sceptic because I paid roughly $500 to procure a Samsung 256GB 840 Pro model in November 2012 in India, and 3 months later, in February, the disk went belly up suddenly. I paid so much because of shipping costs, and I thought I am buying a fantastic disk that will give me long years of performance. Since then, I bought Crucuial M4 256GB and Plextor M5 Pro 256GB and both have been working very good. Only lately, Crucial stopped responding. I may not be performing a power reset properly, or something. but Plextor has been very good and reliable so far. It is during that bad experience with Samsung that I came to understand that write cycles can kill an SSD and that they should never be completely filled (which I never did, in fact I never fill a mechanical disk more than 80% and an SSD more than 50% ever).
So, I come from that background with regards to SSDs. It is good to know that Apple SSDs can be trusted. This MBP 2016 is my first Apple SSD.
Thanks for your post.
That helps, surely. Understand, that I look so sceptic because I paid roughly $500 to procure a Samsung 256GB 840 Pro model in November 2012 in India, and 3 months later, in February, the disk went belly up suddenly. I paid so much because of shipping costs, and I thought I am buying a fantastic disk that will give me long years of performance. Since then, I bought Crucuial M4 256GB and Plextor M5 Pro 256GB and both have been working very good. Only lately, Crucial stopped responding. I may not be performing a power reset properly, or something. but Plextor has been very good and reliable so far. It is during that bad experience with Samsung that I came to understand that write cycles can kill an SSD and that they should never be completely filled (which I never did, in fact I never fill a mechanical disk more than 80% and an SSD more than 50% ever).
So, I come from that background with regards to SSDs. It is good to know that Apple SSDs can be trusted. This MBP 2016 is my first Apple SSD.
It's fine, there were and still are a lot of myths and rumours which make everything more complicated I think. SSD technology was based on RAM, so it should be just as reliable. However as with anything, there were a lot of cheap one's initially that caused a lot of the issues. The Samsung just sounds like a dud sadly, these things happen. Otherwise if you'd installed these into a Mac yourself, then TRIM support would not have been enabled unless you did it yourself. Which can have a large impact on the life of the drive.
I'm not saying even the newest Apple SSD's are bullet proof, and you can always have an issue (But they are using very expensive SSD's so you'd hope they're good ones!). But the margin of error is so large it's just not worth concerning yourself with. Just use the computer as you want, you'll likely replace it long before anything happens!
It's fine, there were and still are a lot of myths and rumours which make everything more complicated I think. SSD technology was based on RAM, so it should be just as reliable. However as with anything, there were a lot of cheap one's initially that caused a lot of the issues. The Samsung just sounds like a dud sadly, these things happen. Otherwise if you'd installed these into a Mac yourself, then TRIM support would not have been enabled unless you did it yourself. Which can have a large impact on the life of the drive.
I'm not saying even the newest Apple SSD's are bullet proof, and you can always have an issue (But they are using very expensive SSD's so you'd hope they're good ones!). But the margin of error is so large it's just not worth concerning yourself with. Just use the computer as you want, you'll likely replace it long before anything happens!
Yeah, fortunately I had backups, as I do even today.
That all seems fine, looking at that I would assume you've recently closed down some Apps? It's holding a few gig in the cache incase you wanted to reopen a recently closed app or website by the looks of it.
Macrumours is pretty ad intensive too so sites like this tend to use comparatively more RAM than you would expect, just as you have a half dozen tabs open. Again it just uses as much as it can though, I have 16GB of RAM and only the 1 version of MR open (This), and it's giving it some 350mb.