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.
Read/Write Speeds?
- Thread starter tom vilsack
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I get about the same as above with FV2 active. I have my MB set up to my liking now. I mention this because I have several programs in the background which may/may not be using the disk or CPU during the test.
To those getting goofy reads and writes from this specific app, just let it run. In a few cycles you'll see it posting the "full" amounts. Whether that means there's still firmware improvements to be had on the SSD or whether the app itself just needs to be optimised for the new MB in a future version, I don't know.
To those getting goofy reads and writes from this specific app, just let it run. In a few cycles you'll see it posting the "full" amounts. Whether that means there's still firmware improvements to be had on the SSD or whether the app itself just needs to be optimised for the new MB in a future version, I don't know.
That seems rather slow no? The new air get's write speeds of 629.9MB/s and average read speeds of 1285.4MB/s.
I wonder why Apple didn't include the air's ssd...or the (above link) samsung's super fast new SM951-NVMe.
I wonder why Apple didn't include the air's ssd...or the (above link) samsung's super fast new SM951-NVMe.
It's slow for spec-whores. In real world use you'll probably never notice that.
1. 4-channel vs 2-channel PCI-e.
2. Arguably irrelevant except for measurbating. The rest of the system is going to come into play in real life and is not fast enough to really get any benefits out of 1200+ mb/s.
As a spec whore myself, I actually posted several times on the SSD. The speed made me think that rMB uses PXIe x2 rather than x4, but from the system info which shows NVMe, it also shows PCIe x4, which confused me.
Now my best guess is that due to the extreme limited space available, rMB only can acommodate 2 NAND MLC flash (confirmed by iFixit, and this answers OP's question why SM951 is not an option for rMB), which is the bottleneck of the performance.
Larger SSDs (SM951 and almost every other one on the market) have 4 or more NAND chips, which can provide greater throughput when utilized parallelly by the controller.
Now my best guess is that due to the extreme limited space available, rMB only can acommodate 2 NAND MLC flash (confirmed by iFixit, and this answers OP's question why SM951 is not an option for rMB), which is the bottleneck of the performance.
Larger SSDs (SM951 and almost every other one on the market) have 4 or more NAND chips, which can provide greater throughput when utilized parallelly by the controller.
I do not own a MacBook but those numbers seem pretty slow. Here's my reads from my 2015 11" Air.
MacBook Air (11-inch, Early 2015)
Processor Intel i7 2.2 Ghz Dual-Core
Memory 8 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
SSD APPLE 512 GB SSD SM0512G Media
Attachments
Right. As discussed, the new Macbook does not have the speedier bus now offered in Air's and MBP's. So they are not unreasonably "slow".
You're comparing apples to oranges. No rMB, and no pre-2015 MBA or rMBP, is going to show those numbers. They're also so far ahead of the rest of the system that they're irrelevant for most purposes.
Or at least the difference between, say, 550 mb/s and 1100 mb/s. But even in the MBA and rMBP, no corresponding speed increases have been made for RAM or the CPU, and program code is what it is. There are a lot of speed bumps between 1100 mb/s and a noticeable real life impact.
Latency is the key metric, not throughput
For most normal usage, it is the latency of the storage that has the biggest impact on the speed, rather than absolute throughput. Your operating system is going to access *lots* of small files nearly all of the time. The data throughput of small files, randomly accessed is way slower than the large file transfers that yield these >1GB/s transfer rates.
The advantage of the NVMe protocol (which replaces AHCI) is that it has half the latency. This is about 2000 times faster (c. 2.8 micro-second seek times, I've read) than most magnetic disks.
The absolute read/write speeds of SSDs only become relevant if you're doing a lot of big file transfers. The other aspects of SSD performance, normally ignored in benchmarks, are more important for most people.
For most normal usage, it is the latency of the storage that has the biggest impact on the speed, rather than absolute throughput. Your operating system is going to access *lots* of small files nearly all of the time. The data throughput of small files, randomly accessed is way slower than the large file transfers that yield these >1GB/s transfer rates.
The advantage of the NVMe protocol (which replaces AHCI) is that it has half the latency. This is about 2000 times faster (c. 2.8 micro-second seek times, I've read) than most magnetic disks.
The absolute read/write speeds of SSDs only become relevant if you're doing a lot of big file transfers. The other aspects of SSD performance, normally ignored in benchmarks, are more important for most people.
