OWC Shares Mid-2014 Retina MacBook Pro Unboxing, SSD Tests

Discussion in 'Mac Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Jul 29, 2014.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    Following this morning's release of Retina MacBook Pros with improved Haswell processors, OWC has procured both the entry-level 13-inch and and the entry-level 15-inch 2014 Retina MacBook Pro and provided a gallery of unboxing photos featuring the new devices.

    As expected, the packaging on the updated versions is the same as previous-generation Retina MacBook Pros. The site did a quick teardown as well, revealing the internals of the new machines, which also appear unchanged.

    [​IMG]
    Internal view of the mid-2014 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro

    OWC also conducted some speed tests on the solid state drives of the two machines, testing the 128 GB drive of the entry-level 13-inch version and the 256 GB drive of the entry-level 15-inch model using QuickBench 4.0.

    With the standard QuickBench 4.0 test, the 15-inch machine (equipped with a Samsung SSD) saw top random read/write speeds of 524/567 MB/s, and top sequential read/write speeds of 584/555 MB/s. Large tests saw read/write speeds of 741/714 MB/s.

    [​IMG]

    The 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro, meanwhile, saw top random read/write speeds of 438/310 MB/s and top sequential read/write speeds of 593/547 MB/s with its Marvell-controlled SanDisk SSD using the standard test. Large tests saw read/write speeds of 723/374 MB/s.

    [​IMG]

    Launched earlier today, the new Retina MacBook Pros feature upgraded Haswell processors, more standard RAM for entry-level machines (8 GB for the 13-inch model, 16 GB for the 15-inch model) and a $100 price cut for the high-end 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro. The refreshed Retina MacBook Pros are available at Apple retail stores and in its online store.

    For the full array of unboxing and teardown images, make sure to check out OWC's blog post.

    Update 7/30: This post has been updated to reflect additional disk speed tests conducted by OWC.

    Article Link: OWC Shares Mid-2014 Retina MacBook Pro Unboxing, SSD Tests
     
  2. iEdwinT macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 8, 2014
  3. OzyOly macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne, AU
    #3
    Is it me or does the 13" pciSSD perform much less than a budget Samsung Evo?
     
  4. ValSalva macrumors 68040

    ValSalva

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Location:
    Burpelson AFB
    #5
    The low end PCIe SSD's are often under-performers. It seems like only the 512GB and 1TB PCIe SSD's take advantage of the wider PCIe bus.
     
  5. OzyOly macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne, AU
    #6
    If I knew my 256GB would be slower than a £90 samsung SATA III SSD I would have upgraded to the 512GB model. :(
     
  6. kwikdeth macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Location:
    Tempe, AZ
    #7
    Is it just me are these supposedly "superior" flash drives actually fairly poor? My neutron gtx ssd in my 2010 macbook still posts scores after 2 years of use that absolutely smoke these...
     
  7. JesperA macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2012
    Location:
    Sweden
    #8
    Yeah, wasn't the last years model up to 700mb/s?
     
  8. Rayd5365 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    #9
    Because of the way the write, larger SSD's are pretty much ALWAYS much faster than smaller ones, even when they are otherwise identical.
    The larger ones have more banks of memory and when the writes are spread across multiple banks, speed goes up dramatically.
     
  9. OzyOly macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne, AU
    #10
    I was comparing to an equal sized drive (with a different controller).
    I think I might have to import an OWC drive...
     
  10. Peel macrumors 6502a

    Peel

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Location:
    Seattle
    #11
    Granted I'm not that familiar with how SSDs perform their reads/writes vis-a-vis against magnetic media, but the numbers cited in the article seem a little suspect:

    Code:
                 R-Read       R-Write         S-Read       S-Write
    256GB        194           322             262           245
    128GB        165           131             263           244
    
    How is a Random Write faster than anything else?
     
  11. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #12
    These are random reads and writes. In sequential read and write, the SanDisk 256GB SSDs in the 13" get 700MB/s read and 550MB/s write.

    The 256GB in the 15" is Samsung, which clocks in at 720MB/s read and 650MB/s write.

    These figures were obtained off some machines that I have, with SD0256F and SM0256F drives.

    All 512GB and 1TB drives are Samsung only.
     
  12. OzyOly macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne, AU
    #13
    Cheers buddy. :) I might call apple and cancel my order for a 512GB drive. ;)
     
  13. PocketSand11, Jul 29, 2014
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2014

    PocketSand11 macrumors 6502a

    PocketSand11

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Location:
    ~/
    #14
    This is why I don't upgrade my Macs with SSDs. Whatever eSATA (EDIT: I mean SATA) SSD I get will still be lame compared to these awesome PCIe SSDs and will probably cost around the same (high) price. One day, I'll just buy whatever is the latest Mac, and it'll be ridiculously fast by that time.
     
  14. Mac.User macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    #15
    esata? Why would you get an external sata drive for an upgrade and compare it to an internal drive?
     
  15. stiligFox macrumors 65816

    stiligFox

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2009
    Location:
    10.0.1.3
    #16
    Does anyone know if the motherboard has been updated to the Z97/H97 type? I haven't seen anything about that yet.
     
  16. Dayadan, Jul 29, 2014
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2014

    Dayadan macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    #17
    Not sure if I can compared these tests with my blackmagic disk test results, but the speeds I'm getting on my late 2013 13" Macbook Pro retina is around 710mMB/s+ writes and 720MB/s+ reads. Just bought it 3 weeks ago so the disk is pretty fresh.
     
  17. jclo Editor

    jclo

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2012
    Location:
    California
    #18
    I don't think the two tests are comparable. From what I understand, Blackmagic measures the read/write speeds of large chunks of data while this QuickBench test is measuring the read/write speeds of smaller chunks of data.
     
  18. macduke macrumors G3

    macduke

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Location:
    Central U.S.
    #19
    Away from my MacBook now, but I could have sworn my 2012 rMBP had reads around 400MB/s and writes around 500MB/s.
     
  19. jclo Editor

    jclo

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2012
    Location:
    California
    #20
    With Blackmagic? or QuickBench?
     
  20. PocketSand11 macrumors 6502a

    PocketSand11

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Location:
    ~/
    #21
    Oops, I meant SATA, not eSATA. I'd install the drive internally on either my desktop or laptop Mac.
     
  21. macduke macrumors G3

    macduke

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Location:
    Central U.S.
    #22
    Can't remember, but I'm pretty sure I've used both.
     
  22. MartiNZ macrumors 65816

    MartiNZ

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Location:
    Auckland, New Zealand
    #23
    Yeah .. that's good info to have lol. What else has a chance of being Samsung?
     
  23. JamesInLA macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    #24
    So can we reasonably assume that the 256 and 512 GB drives in the new 13" will have the better performance seen here in the 15"/256?
     
  24. HiRez macrumors 603

    HiRez

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Western US
    #25
    Why does my 2011 MacBook Air get better SSD performance than a 2014 MacBook "Pro"? That's just not right.
     

Share This Page