SSD SD0256F (SanDisk) vs SM0256F (Samsung)

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by nhhc, Jan 22, 2014.

  1. nhhc macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    #1
    There are two sources for 256GB SSD on our Retina 13".

    I, unfortunately, got the SanDisk one and my Write speed 550MB/s is 150MBs slower than what the Samsung one gets according to BlackMagic Design Disk Test.

    I would like to know what other SanDisk SSD MacBook Retina 13" owners are getting for their Write Speed. Is SanDisk SD0256F consistently 150MB/s slower than Samsung SM0256F counterpart?

    Here is a great benchmark that includes both drives and also other MacBook Pro SSD options (512, 1024, etc).

    http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/ssd.html


    Appreciate any inputs, thank you!
     
  2. TheEnthusiast macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2013
    #2
    The drive is still pretty fast :D. I'm willing to bet that other Sandisk SSDs share similar speeds. The difference between brands is probably down to the use of different controllers. Even then, the difference won't be noticeable during real world usage, which is probably why Apple uses SSDs with variable speeds; The difference won't matter for most consumers. If anything, the difference would probably be noticeable if all a user does is transfer large files all day. The random read/write speeds (not the sustained ones you are focusing on) are important too, though I don't know the figures off the top of my head. Ultimately, it's up to you to do something if you feel hard done by it, or if you know that you're going to lose sleep over it.

    My advice: considering this is the second thread you've made in relation in to this topic today, you'd be best served doing an exchange or return. You should also check for those display issues people here complain about.
     
  3. nhhc thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    #3
    Thank you. Your input has been really helpful. I think I am going to visit the store just to see what options I have.
     
  4. jackchew21 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2014
    #4

    I got the same issues over here. Let us know if Apple able to do something about this :D
     

    Attached Files:

  5. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #5
    It's all fast. That's all that should matter.

    Yes the Samsung is the fastest.

    Oh the 1TB is drive is even faster still; only comes in the Samsung version, so it's hard to compare to others.
     
  6. nhhc thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    #6
    Yes I agree it's already faster than old models but if we are paying the same dollars as other MBP owners with Samsung SSD, then it feels really terrible knowing that you could have gotten the same one.

    As far as I know, a person with the same spec as mine got a Samsung version and he ordered just ten days before me. so I would really like to know if it's possible to catch good luck as it seems to be totally random. i hope they let you specify.
     
  7. yjchua95, Jan 22, 2014
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2014

    yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #7
    Here's my 1TB SSD :)
     

    Attached Files:

  8. iizmoo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2014
    #8
    Write speed is not that important, read speed is. The test is also doing sequential read/write, which while it look nice, is also useless for actual usage that's more dependent on random I/O. Without knowing random I/O performance, it's not really a real difference.
     
  9. paularas macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2013
  10. fskywalker macrumors 65816

    fskywalker

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    #10
    Are those results from the OEM 1TB Samsung SSD or from a third party SSD? I have the OEM 1TB PCIe on my max out 13" Haswell rMBP and my results are not that high
     
  11. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #11
    OEM 1TB SSD (Apple SSD SM1024F)

    Edit: Mine's on a 15" rMBP (2.6GHz, 16GB RAM, 2GB GT750M and 1TB SSD)
     
  12. fskywalker macrumors 65816

    fskywalker

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    #12
    Thanks, will re-run the test tonight and post my results
     
  13. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #13
    PS if it helps, my drive was completely empty after a fresh install (no preloaded bloatware like iWork and iLife).
     
  14. UBS28 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    #14
    The 2012 rMBP had issues with the Sandisk SSD. So I would go for a Samsung SSD just to be safe :)
     
  15. nhhc thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    #15
    i did a test on my 256GB SanDisk on rMBP 13 (late model). It is not the Samsung 256GB mind you.

    I did it after installing of iWork, iMovie, iPhoto, and garage band. iWork is very small at about 1GB at the most. All these apps only take up no more than 5GB as I calculated.

    Realizing the app installation may have impacted the hard drive performance, i removed these apps and ran the test again.

    The result is about the same.

    I don't know iLife because i did not install it. But just to comment on that previous comment, iWork should not play a significant role in hard drive testing if you are using BlackMagic Design Disk Test like the screen shot.
     
  16. fskywalker, Jan 24, 2014
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2014

    fskywalker macrumors 65816

    fskywalker

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    #16
    I'm getting 976 write 881 read MB/s with 545gb of data in my drive, all apps closed:

    [​IMG]

    Not bad at all, but lower than your results. Can you re-run it with your apps and data already installed to make a better comparisson?
     
  17. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #17
    iLife means GarageBand, iMovie and iPhoto combined.
     
  18. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #18
    While we're all comparing our 1TB drives, here's mine with just about everything on my computer working and FileVault (drive encryption) turned on:
    Screen Shot 2014-01-25 at 8.23.37 AM.png

    That's the problem a lot people have. They think it matters much on paper, but can you really tell the difference?
     
  19. jeremiah239 macrumors 6502a

    jeremiah239

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Location:
    239 Area, FL
    #19
    I have a samsung 256 in my 13" rMBP and I'm getting 680 write and 732 read.
     
  20. vmflapem macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2013
    #20
    This is bs.
    We pay the same price and the ssd we get are lottery
     
  21. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #21
    I fired off an email to Tim Cook over this issue. Let's hope he replies.
     
  22. fskywalker macrumors 65816

    fskywalker

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    #22
    Yes, same as the screen lotery with the Samsung / LG variants.
     
  23. nhhc thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    #23
    Samsung 256GB people do you mind sharing the part number listed on the label on the back of the box/package?

    I compared my SD 256 with another owner's SM 256 and we noticed a few digits are off in the part number (not serial number). We both have the same 256GB with 16GB upgrade. So the only difference between ours is the SSD.

    ----------

    If I paid $500 dollars for the macbook I would have probably let it go. But this is a $1600 item and it's VERY DIFFICULT not to examine every detail. I guess what I am trying to say is, I hope others have more empathy.

    Sure the the software only tested one aspect of the SSD performance. But I also looked at other tests done and Samsung one still shows better OVERALL performance than SanDisk. The key difference is likely the controller IC (read up on SandForce/LSI vs Marvell vs BigFoot from OCZ).
     
  24. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #24
    How slow are you talking about the SanDisk, a couple of miliseconds? Unless the performance is significant, I'd not worry about it.
     
  25. l.a.rossmann macrumors 65816

    l.a.rossmann

    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    #25
    That wallpaper is awesome, I want!
     

Share This Page