SSD... In real world performance...

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Kal-037, Apr 24, 2015.

  1. Kal-037 macrumors 6502a

    Kal-037

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2015
    Location:
    Depends on the day, but usually I live all over.
    #1
    How much faster is the MBPr 13" SSD speed than last update? Is boot time or opening apps any faster or is it mostly transfering and copying files that are noticeable and if so by how much? Thanks to anyone for any help or info. I am just curious what "double the flash storage" means in terms of real use, not just "blackmagic speed test numbers" :)


    Kal.
     
  2. T5BRICK macrumors 604

    T5BRICK

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon
    #2
    It's fast, but unless you were timing the two systems I doubt you'd notice a difference in day to day tasks.
     
  3. vanimal macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2014
    #3
    You would ABSOLUTELY notice, on boot up and app opening. I remember i put a SSD 120GB in a older 2009 iMac with a core two duo, and it GREATLY helped. It would normally take like a minute and change to boot up. With the SSD it booted up in like 25 secs. Not to mention how much faster apps opened etc.
     
  4. T5BRICK macrumors 604

    T5BRICK

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon
    #4
    OP is asking about the SSD in the current rMBP compared to the SSD in mid 2014 rMBP.

    The SSD in the 2015 is faster for sure, but it isn't going to be very noticeable compared to the 2014 model.
     
  5. BrettApple macrumors 65816

    BrettApple

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Location:
    Heart of the midwest
    #5
    As others have said, in the real world, it's negligible.

    I've got a Late 2013 2.4/8/256 13" rMBP and a friend of mine recently got the newest 2015 model. It's nearly identical, but I'm still on Mavericks where he has Yosemite. Not that it has anything to do with the SSD speeds, but mine actually booted faster :rolleyes:

    My 2013 gets around 750 MB/s tops (read and write) in BlackMagic for reference. 256GB Samsung SSD.
     
  6. vanimal macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2014
    #6
    Yosemite is A LOT heavier feature wise compared to Mavericks. If you have to transfer larger files on the 2015 with SSD it will CRUSH the 2013. The read and write speed on the 2015 is A LOT higher. A SSD does more than just boot up and launch apps faster.
     
  7. simonsi macrumors 601

    simonsi

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2014
    Location:
    Auckland
    #7
    Transferring will be limited by the interface used, not be the SSD speed in either case... :rolleyes:
     
  8. vanimal macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2014
    #8
    My apologies, i completely read his post wrong. I guess i was "skim" reading while watching TV. I thought he meant if he replaced a standard HDD with a SSD LMAO. :confused::mad:

    Guess the title didn't explain it all for me.
     
  9. dusk007 macrumors 68040

    dusk007

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    #9
    In real world performance these SSDs are not even as fast as some that look much slower. The random performance isn't that impressive and has not gotten better. It is a lot of sequential speed that looks good on a spec sheet but that is it.
    You may rarely find yourself in the situation to copy a file on the SSD because anytime you copy to any thing external that usb 3 or whatever will limit. But even in the rare case I doubt you would notice the difference if you didn't use a stop watch. Both will feel very fast.
    Anything else it is either random read/write performance that is called for and/or the cpu will limit. If you unpack a rar or install a game or app the CPU will limit long before you even reach what the last generation SSDs could do.
    The main problem is you need a much much faster CPU to get anything of a speed boost out of these SSDs. On a notebook like the 13" Macs it is purely for looking good on a spec sheet and nothing else.
     
  10. Kal-037 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Kal-037

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2015
    Location:
    Depends on the day, but usually I live all over.
    #10
    Thanks for all the input everyone. I appreciate it. I wonder if USB and CPU speeds will be on the same page as SSDs eventually, can you imagine transferring/copying a 10gb file in 10 seconds? :)



    Kal.
     
  11. Anand953 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2015
    #11
    Negligible on a day to day task basis.. Depends for what purpose you require double the speed...
     
  12. snaky69 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    #12
    We're at the point where one couldn't really distinguish between the two.
     
  13. dusk007 macrumors 68040

    dusk007

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    #13
    Here are real world benchmarks with various SSDs including the 2000MB/s SM951 Samsung PCIe SSD.
    http://www.computerbase.de/2015-05/...fuer-den-m.2-slot/4/#diagramm-anwendungsstart
    As you can see once you got any SSD which one doesn't really matter. They used to put HDDs in the graph and those are 4 times slower even the fastest hdds.
    Even the ridiculously fast new SSD barely gets you 5% over on paper much slower SSDs.
    unpacking uncompressed images is the only use case which can actually get real use out of the PCIe sequential speed. But add just a light compression in an archive and the cpu will limit there as well.
     
  14. Freyqq macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    #14
    It's not a bottleneck anymore for most things, so you won't notice it much. First launch of programs before it is loaded into ram is probably the most noticeable. Not like it was slow on the 2013 model anyway.
     
  15. dsmedic10 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2015
    #15
    The better/newer SSD in the new MBP uses PCIe-x4 and is therefore a faster interface than the SATA3 interface of the older MBP. As others have said, in the real world the difference is probably not noticeable. However if you stream to your SSD or load huge files, or in my case, save/open large Logic projects, then the faster SSD would be noticed. But even in my case, opening a 5GB project took 22 seconds on my 2012 MBA; the same project file opened on a new MBP at the local Apple Store took 15 seconds. Yes a noticeable difference, but I have no plans on selling my MBA and buying a new MBP for that reason alone. Speed of opening/saving files is not solely based on SSD speed.
     
  16. dagamer34 macrumors 65816

    dagamer34

    Joined:
    May 1, 2007
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #16
    We're at the point where raw speed isn't the point of SSD speed increases, it's about battery life. The faster you get data to the CPU, the quicker it can do its tasks and get back to a low power mode.

    I recommend reading this excellent AnandTech article about why we still need faster SSDs: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7843/testing-sata-express-with-asus
     
  17. Kal-037 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Kal-037

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2015
    Location:
    Depends on the day, but usually I live all over.
    #17
    The question is, what SSD does the 2014 rMBP 15" use on that page you linked? :)


    Kal.
     
  18. dusk007 macrumors 68040

    dusk007

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    #18
    Something similar but not quite as fast as the SM951 while the XP941 is about what the last gen 1000MB/s SSDs were equal to.
    I don't know if they use the very same Samsung controllers with a slightly different firmware but anyway same difference.
    The extra speed on paper amounts to next to nothing in actual performance benefits.
     
  19. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #19
    The 15"s from late-2013 to mid-2014 use the XP941-based SSDs, but they perform much faster than the 128GB XP941 shown in that German site.

    The 128GB is much slower compared to the 256GB and 512GB XP941s (these two perform at around 650-750MB/s), while the 1TB XP941 performs around 950MB/s-1000MB/s.
     

Share This Page