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

New 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro Lives Up to Apple's Claims, Reaches SSD Throughput Speeds of 2GB/s

This is faster than the SSDs in the 2013 nMP I just sent back in order to purchase the new MBP. I did it mainly for portability (obviously sacrificing power), but the read/write speeds on that machine (6 core 3.5 GHz with 512 SSD) were only ~900 mb/s read and write.
 
Muramasa said:
The fastest 2.5" SATA SSDs are also by Samsung, and they reach Read/Write speeds of around 520/540 MBps. That's 1/4th what this drive can do.
Click to expand...

Why to compare PCIe vs SATA? Intel DC P3700 2.8GB/s read and 2.0GB/s write - but it is expensive. Samsung XP941 is relatively cheap - 1.17GB/s read and 0.93GB/s write.
 
Wow... I wonder if this changes the calculus on compressing memory rather than paging it out.

I'm glad this article ran, because I completely missed the release announcement.
 
How are these speeds suddenly amazing?

PCI SSD's have always been fast. You can find drives that range from 1900mb/s to 2900mb/s in a few clicks.

Comparing SATA to PCI is silly at best and just stupid at worst.
 
MacHiavelli said:
Interesting. Personally, I expect a new design with Skylake in 3–9 months. Time will tell. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That's true. I usually look at past behavior, but they've drifted away from that lately. If you look at the previous redesigns, they didn't make minor tweaks to the old models in the generation preceding them. 3 months is absurd though. They wouldn't have released an update at all if that was the case, especially not one with updated graphics and trackpad.
 
joeblow7777 said:
I understand why this would be very exciting for users like you, but for the large majority of users it is probably overkill.

Don't get me wrong, improvements in technology allowing for better performance are always a good thing, but I don't think that this gives most users a reason to replace their machines if they weren't already planning to.
Click to expand...

uh, that's why they offer macbook airs and MacBooks. if the pro is too powerful for you, it's not aimed at you. hence pro moniker.

people are complaining about a product that isn't aimed at them, and insisting that they're tapped in to the 'vast majority' of apple users' whims and needs based on what they do with a computer they probably don't even need. but got it anyway because they like 'top of the line' -when they don't fully realize what kind of power video editing/rendering actually requires - especially when it's something you do daily.

THAT was one of the very top concerns when apple was designing/building the MBpro. if you don't do video editing/rendering, your machine is not living up to maybe half of its potential. so for Apple to concentrate on read/write speed over storage makes more than perfect sense, considering 'professionals' are most likely using manymany terabytes to handle their files, not half terabytes or 2 or 4....
 
my 2015 rMBP is about 1167.3 write/1020.0 read.

14 seconds though is pretty good though
 
Mother of WOW. This plus Skylake in the 5K iMac (which is probably going to be my next upgrade) is going to be amazing. Does anyone know the boot times on these new MBPs? I was blown away when I got my first SSD. This is like a whole other order of magnitude beyond what I have now, which is around 400MB/s. It sounds like going from spinning drives to SSDs all over again!! I want it!

Now only if my internet connection would keep up…
 
TechZeke said:
Given that a 3rd Party 250GB PCIe SSD costs $400, with a 1TB costing almost $1000 just to barely get 800-1000 MB/s, I don't think Apple is overcharging for their storage.
Click to expand...

Especially when their overpriced same price storage is 3-4 times faster than the same priced 6gb ssd
 
teslo said:
uh, that's why they offer macbook airs and MacBooks. if the pro is too powerful for you, it's not aimed at you. hence pro moniker.

people are complaining about a product that isn't aimed at them, and insisting that they're tapped in to the 'vast majority' of apple users' whims and needs based on what they do with a computer they probably don't even need. but got it anyway because they like 'top of the line' -when they don't fully realize what kind of power video editing/rendering actually requires - especially when it's something you do daily.

THAT was one of the very top concerns when apple was designing/building the MBpro. if you don't do video editing/rendering, your machine is not living up to maybe half of its potential. so for Apple to concentrate on read/write speed over storage makes more than perfect sense, considering 'professionals' are most likely using manymany terabytes to handle their files, not half terabytes or 2 or 4....
Click to expand...

I never complained. In fact, I noted that improvement in performance are a good thing. I just noted that most people won't need it because they don't do things like video editing. You're absolutely right that this is why there are so many different Macbook (and Windows PC) models.
 
HenryDJP said:
WOW! Good to hear. Sadly the naysayers will still complain. I'm probably going to purchase this one, but after WWDC. :)
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think it's so sad. Hilarious, maybe. Because they'll double down and go on and on.
 
With such improvements at every release, we'll see Macs without RAM in the near future. Just drop an SSD capable of doing 16000MB/s and we'll get a memory space as large as the free space on the SSD.
 
can someone tell me how this would compare to my late 2013 15" MBPr? sorry I'm not as familiar with this technology as most of you are...(let me know if you need my full specs)
 
kcamfork said:
Meh. I'd rather they not overcharge for their storage and have it be slower. But oh well. I'll stick with my 2013 MBA for now.
Click to expand...

Translation: You want older technology at prices below retail.

But can you really say they're overcharging when they're selling this kind of performance?
 
Wow, that's some amazing SSD speed! So, how does this affect real world performance?
 
Pfft - that's only 300-400 times faster than the SCSI interface in my 16 MHz Mac Plus. :p
 
Mobile processors only support 1 dual channel. Look it up.

edit:
Dual channel is 2 slots of RAM at 8GB max for each slot making it a limit of 16GB. This will be the case until DDR 4 comes out as it supports larger capacities.

cube said:
It IS Apple's fault. 4-slot laptops can take 32GiB of standard RAM. Intel provides guidance on supporting 32GiB RAM with 2 slots of Intelligent Memory on Broadwell. I guess this means I should actually be asking Apple for 64GiB.
Click to expand...
 
bpcookson said:
Translation: You want older technology at prices below retail.

But can you really say they're overcharging when they're selling this kind of performance?
Click to expand...

That's what I said and I'm sticking to it. The defense of the insane amount of overcharging on this forum makes me think the only people who frequent Macrumors are Apple stock holders. So be it.
 
joeblow7777 said:
I never complained. In fact, I noted that improvement in performance are a good thing. I just noted that most people won't need it because they don't do things like video editing. You're absolutely right that this is why there are so many different Macbook (and Windows PC) models.
Click to expand...

ah, right on, i thought you were the guy he originally replied to. complaining seems to be the norm tho, when there are so many models to choose from. half the time (regarding pros, at least), it's usually from people who just want faster netflix streaming and more storage for their 500 pirated movies. i see these same people on threads catered to professionals and their niche needs, mocking things they don't even try to comprehend. ce la vie i guess...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back