SSD Speed Variations in 2014 MacBook Air Still Due to Drive Brand Mix, Not Broader Changes

[snprintf]

I'd just be worried that the reliability of the Toshiba drives.

----------

Get back to me when you're still using the same SSD for over 20 years.

People who slam TLC are just regurgitating what they read on the internet. It's not going to run out of writes anytime in it's realistic lifespan.

Well, I AM very happy that my 23-year-old Macintosh Classic II from an e-waste drive still has a working hard drive. I just had to wash the motherboard in a sink to remove grime, and it booted!

 

[Menneisyys2]

I thought Apple selected the best components. that's what has always been said here.

Yeah, 3GS batteries swelling like mad (happened to two 3GS'es at work), iPhone5 batteries dying after half a year (happened to me), Home / Power button dying problems etc. Certainly "quality".

 

[MacsAre1]

THERE IS NO 2014 MACBOOK AIR. There was a price drop in 2014 on the 2013 model along with a reconfiguration of the lowest end model. My fully upgraded 2013 Air is the same thing Apple still sells today, for slightly less money.

 

[travis64]

of course my 2013 air is a scan disk
i am getting 315 700

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

SSD Speed Variations in 2014 MacBook Air Still Due to Drive Brand Mix, Not Broader Changes

Finally some important info about the newer MBAs. Thanks MR!

 

[Sandollars]

Fire up a PC. You will be happy with you Mac.... LOL!

 

[the-msa]

Samsung's SSD is a junk. It's fast but they use TLC; cheap and weak.

http://us.hardware.info/reviews/417...-with-final-conclusion-final-update-20-6-2013

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

another word...2014 model sucks.

No. You do not understand the article.

 

[Mr. Gates]

I hate to be the one to say it but it's still strange that the older models STILL perform a couple points better than the newer models.
Especially with the updated processors.

Nearly identical, but still worse.

That should not be the case.

Perhaps they requested some artificially crippled CPU's from INTEL to mitigate power consumption.

There is no reason why Macbook Airs of a similar build to an Ultrabook should get so much more battery life. Windows power management in 8.1 is quite good.

I'm almost certain there is more to this story.

 

[The Mercurian]

THERE IS NO 2014 MACBOOK AIR. There was a price drop in 2014 on the 2013 model along with a reconfiguration of the lowest end model. My fully upgraded 2013 Air is same thing Apple still sells today, for slightly money.

Alledgedly improved battery life in 2014 ?

 

[JAT]

What if, you paid that much money on a machine that was gauarnateed to get 200MB/s..

you both got 200MB/s.. he just happened to luck out and get more.

Its not a "loss" for you.. just a happy surprise for him..

I think that's how the Vietnam War started.

 

[Parasprite]

THERE IS NO 2014 MACBOOK AIR. There was a price drop in 2014 on the 2013 model along with a reconfiguration of the lowest end model. My fully upgraded 2013 Air is same thing Apple still sells today, for slightly money.

In a year or two, it will nonetheless be referred to as the late 2013/early 2014 MBA, and this is a convenient way to say "the different version they sell now".

 

[macs4nw]

If people are seriously disappointed at +/- 5 MB/s when speeds are 700MB/s+.. there are some other serious issues..

True, and I'd also be more interested in the difference in longevity/MTBF (if any) amongst those various drives.
For me, that would be a much more important factor, than the reportedly relatively minor, speed discrepancies.

However stats on that will likely take time to surface, eg when large numbers of drives of a particular make start failing.

 

[koban4max]

No. You do not understand the article.

what...the fact that SSD is a junk? or what

----------

Samsung's SSD is a junk. It's fast but they use TLC; cheap and weak.

try evo...you'll change your mind quick.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Testing a Sandisk v Sandisk only proves the Sandisk speed stayed virtually the same. I would like to see a test with comparable models with SSD's from Sandisk, Toshiba, and Samsung. Only then will we have a better indication if there is really an issue. This test and the one from MacWorld with mixed drive capacities only serve to confuse rather than elucidate.

This is the only logical way to compare the performance and what if any differences there are between brands of the same size.

----------

Samsung's SSD is a junk. It's fast but they use TLC; cheap and weak.

Why not link to some credible sources proving Samsung SSD's are junk? Maybe show the failure rates, lack of longevity, etc? What you've stated is contrary to most reports.

 

[bluespark]

what...the fact that SSD is a junk? or what

What? The point of the article was that the 2014 MBAs have SSDs that perform similarly to the 2013 MBAs, although that performance varies in either year by the brand of SSD.

 

[Eidorian]

Alledgedly improved battery life in 2014 ?

I think at this point they need to run the "2014" build on the Mid 2013 Macbook Air to see if it is just build number magic.

It is still 54‑watt‑hour for the 13.3" model.

 

[xmichaelp]

I'd just be worried that the reliability of the Toshiba drives.

----------



Well, I AM very happy that my 23-year-old Macintosh Classic II from an e-waste drive still has a working hard drive. I just had to wash the motherboard in a sink to remove grime, and it booted!

Actually, according to tests a TLC SSD should last even longer than that doing high amounts of writing per day. It's impressive your mac classic still works but I'm sure it hasn't been in regular use in 15 years. TLC drives are just fine longevity wise was my point.

 

[pragmatous]

That's pretty bad to be honest. You spend all that money and there's a chance you'll get the worst SSD possibly made. That's just terrible.

[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]


For many years, Apple has used different suppliers for the solid-state drives (SSDs) in its MacBook Air models, with drive performance varying among manufacturer brands. A recent study by Macworld demonstrated rather dramatic differences in SSD read and write speeds between tested 2013 and 2014 models, but at the time it was unclear whether the poorer performance for the 2014 models was still simply due to drive brand variances or if there was something specific to the 2014 machines causing an overall degradation in performance.

Other World Computing (OWC) has now performed some apples-to-apples testing between 2013 and 2014 models with SanDisk SSDs, and has found that performance is nearly identical.

In OWC's testing using Blackmagic Disk Speed Test, the new MacBook Air model with a 128 GB SanDisk SSD reported read/write speeds of 705/315 MBps, while the 2013 version also with a 128 GB SanDisk drive scored similarly with read/write speeds of 711/316 MBps.

Image​

Macworld's testing of four machines (various combinations of 2013/2014 models at 11 and 13 inches) had included drives of two different capacities from three different manufacturers, making it difficult to determine the exact cause of the performance differences.

This variability in brand performance was noticed years ago, when Apple started using both Toshiba and Samsung SSDs in its MacBook Air models. Apple continues to use drives from different manufacturers in its 2014 models, including units from Samsung, Toshiba and SanDisk. How various batches of drives from the different manufacturers are assigned to various machines is unknown, and consumers are unable determine which brand of SSD is in their MacBook Air without opening the box and either booting the machine to examine system profile information or physically opening the machine.

Apple's new MacBook Airs are available from Apple's website beginning at $899, while the 2013 models are being sold at significant discounts through a number of retailers.

Article Link: SSD Speed Variations in 2014 MacBook Air Still Due to Drive Brand Mix, Not Broader Changes

 

[JoshAlfie]

My 2013, 512GB MacBook Air

 

[jlc1978]

So, in other words, Macworld was being stupid and they should be ashamed of themselves.

If you want to get mad at Apple because you can't tell which hard drive you're getting, then that's a completely rational complaint. The argument can be made that Apple should source components that are similar in performance. If a particular SSD supplier can't keep up with quality, then Apple should cut them from the mix.

Or, Apple simply sets minimum standards and as long as the manufacturers meet them all is well. If Apple said XXX speed and you got 1/2XXX then you'd have a gripe; but that is not the case here so no one is being cheated. Suppliers sometimes send higher spec parts when they don't have enough of lower ones just to keep the supply chain moving.

 

[DesterWallaboo]

The pictures compares Sandisk 2013 vs 2014 and it's meant to show that Sandisk is consistently slow. Not sure about Samsung's performance in 2014, but if they are consistent with 2013's benchmarks too if you happen to get a model with a Samsung SSD you will get about twice the write speed compared to a Sandisk model:

http://blog.macsales.com/19008-performance-testing-not-all-2013-macbook-air-ssds-are-the-same

From the macsales site:

"128GB cannot be compared to 512GB (512GB has more parallelism than 128GB thus higher performance)
Also 11″ has a different thermal envelope than 13″. bottom line – this is not apples to apples comparison."

 

[The Mercurian]

I think at this point they need to run the "2014" build on the Mid 2013 Macbook Air to see if it is just build number magic.

It is still 54‑watt‑hour for the 13.3" model.

I'm wondering if they were just conservative advertising the battery life in 2013, and are being more accurate now ? Or is there a difference someone can measure ? It is possible they made minor tweaks to improve efficiency somehow I suppose

 

[Jeff5i]

My 2013 512mb was very similar to yours. The larger SSDs generally have better performace.

I'm so happy with the macbook air!

My 2013, 512GB MacBook Air

 

[macintoshi]

If people are seriously disappointed at +/- 5 MB/s when speeds are 700MB/s+.. there are some other serious issues..

Unless those pictures are a lie to make people buy...