I agree with you that the speed increment in 1.3 is probably small. However, I am still willing to pay the $250 for this small but significant speed increment. For me, I want to use the best rMB setup.
+1 here.
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.
Received 1.3/512 SG Today - GeekBench Results
- Thread starter southerndoc
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
+1 here.
Aside from being slightly faster in years 1-3, these bumps to the original specs tend to be important for getting you through years 4-6 when the base models are really struggling to keep up with new software. Not having a user-replaceable battery is kind of a painful expense at that point, though.
I'm referring to the date of shipment apple gives on apple.com under orders.
What does it say there.
Depends how much storage space you are going to use. Just keep in mind that you can't upgrade it yourself later on.
Is 512GB faster? Sound like a stupid question, but I got the 2015 rMBP with 1TB after I killed a brand new 2015 rMBP with 512 GB within 5 days (my son + glas of water) and the 1TB SDD feels even faster.
In the rMBP, there is a difference in speed between the various sizes. My 1TB SSD in my 13" rMBP is blazing faster. But I don't think there's a speed difference on the rMB.
The bigger the SSD the faster it is as long as you don't have it close to filling max capacity.
Personally I don't think you would notice the difference in real world usage , but you will see the difference in benchmarks.
Not true.
Historically, when there were two identical SSD's (apart from the size), the smaller one usually outperformed the larger one.
Well, my day - work wise has just taken a bit of a turn with a twist. I just got a text telling me my 1.3 rMB has hit the Apple store two days early and before I leave town on business. Turning around now to go pick up!
To work: "screw you guys, I'm going home"
Signed,
Eric Cartman
We need more Dongle!
Thanks. A couple of first impression items. First arriving at the store for pick up I realized If I wanted to use part of my time machine back-up I would need a Dongle. The "Genius" must have been really new as he had no idea what I was talking about. I walked him to the accessories and explained to him what USB-C was. Alas, I find a $20.00 adaptor to get me to full size USB.
Home: Ironic that as I initiated set up and indicated restore from back up I was alerted not to proceed because I was on battery. Please plug in before restoring!! Not possible due to one port and no means to Dongle my way out, I proceeded on Battery
Stay tuned!
Ha, great news and great timing!
Thanks. A couple of first impression items. First arriving at the store for pick up I realized If I wanted to use part of my time machine back-up I would need a Dongle. The "Genius" must have been really new as he had no idea what I was talking about. I walked him to the accessories and explained to him what USB-C was. Alas, I find a $20.00 adaptor to get me to full size USB.
Home: Ironic that as I initiated set up and indicated restore from back up I was alerted not to proceed because I was on battery. Please plug in before restoring!! Not possible due to one port and no means to Dongle my way out, I proceeded on Battery
Stay tuned!
The dongle: a temporary but completely foreseeable issue, just another mis-step on the launch of a genuinely brilliant little machine. :-/ It deserved better...
Wrong.
~256 GB SSD seems to be the sweet spot in most SSD tests. Most SSD's beyond 256 are actually slower.
In previous Apple SSD's the larger capacity drive is almost always faster. The 2013/2014 rMBP's, the 1 TB drive is almost always guaranteed to be faster as it uses 4 PCIe lanes vs 2 on the smaller drives. This trend just reversed recently as Samsung's latest 850 Pro & Evo drives in which the lower capacity drives are close to equal and sometimes outperform the larger drives. Considering that Apple's latest PCIe SSD's are Samsung based and all now use 4 lanes on the MBA 13 & rMBP 13, what you're saying may be true. However, a 256gb filled with 250gb of data will always be slower than the same 512gb model filled with the same 250gb of data. So it's dumb to pick a smaller drive for speed only if you're going to be running it close to capacity.
P.S. we don't really know who makes the NVMe controller on the rMB so would like to see benchmarks comparing the 2 capacities.
Most tests reveal the complete opposite. Random Google search with SSD tests on the same drive with different capacities: http://www.storagereview.com/corsair_force_series_gt_family_review. As you can see, the 480 GB drive is outperformed by the lower capacity drives in most speed tests. And the 240 GB drive outperforms them all. Same is true with most other brands, including OCZ, etc.
If the 512 GB Samsung SSD in the new MacBook ends up being faster than an otherwise identical 256 GB counterpart, it will be a very rare occurrence. I can bet this won't be the case.
Also, nobody said anything about picking a smaller drive for speed only. Some people - like me - pick the smaller drive because they know that they will never use the extra space. So why pay extra for it?
I don't store movies or music on any of my computers. I browse the internet, store my photos (about 10k of them, which take up roughly 20 GB), and send email. That's it. Why on earth would I ever need more than 256 GB of storage?
Thats really damn impressive. Seing these results make me question my decision to wait for gen 2.
At the moment I really don't know if I should get this generation rMB at summer or wait for generation 2. I want this incredible machine so hard.
It also depends on how much you plan on filling your drive. I you are going to use 240 GB of your 256GB drive, then it will be slower as the computer tries to figure out which empty blocks of memory to write your data. If you will never use close to 256, I don't think there's that much difference between the same drive that has 256 vs 512.
If you are going to get close to using up your 256 drive, then I would go for the 512.
The basic reason is that blocks that are deleted are smaller than those that are written, so you end up having your data divided into different empty sections once you get close to filling up your drive.