While the rMBP has a smaller footprint, at 1.8 vs 1.7 mm, it's also slightly thicker than the MBA at its thickest point.
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.
Teardown Reveals New 13-Inch MacBook Air SSD is Nearly Twice as Fast as SSD in New 11-Inch MacBook Air
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
While the rMBP has a smaller footprint, at 1.8 vs 1.7 mm, it's also slightly thicker than the MBA at its thickest point.
I'm pretty sure they also said the new SSD was updated in the Pro at the same time. Along with Force Touch. This article was just talking about the Air
You missed my point. I can venture out and say that everyone here would prefer a MacBook Air with a Retina display, and the option to upgrade the SSD to more than 512 GB, and the more powerful Iris graphics card.
Or a even a Macbook with more than one (stupid) port.
Again, the point is that Apple differentiates the machines it makes in a bogus artificial fashion that forces you to trade something off.
So my point is that it's not that Apple can't build it, it's that they choose not to.
They bash their phones, not their components. Are you using Samsung's components directly day to day; have a Samsung ssd in your pocket?
Last edited:
I can't wait until they tear down the new MacBook. As thin as it is it'll probably be nearly impossible...
You're right. I did a year long bachelor in engineering project on multi core-processors/multi memory, multi bus systems to see what factors were most important to performance. Simulated tons of different factors and it was undoubtedly memory speed that was the key to high performance (that was in 1992). Running those simulations took A LOT of cpu time on powerful workstations back then
They tried to go around the limitations of external memory by increasing SOC cache speed and size (and Apple is seemingly aggressive with that in the A8, despite the low core count). This is a major differentiation point with competitors.
Right now increase in memory, solid storage, cpu, gpu speed is more important for battery life than to speeding up the whole system since like you said, there is no hope of really catching up, and most mobile applications are rarely resource hogs.
That's not what I said, the implication was that there is a lot to gain from improving these parts since the performance gap is increasing. With more resources available, more interesting things can be done in software, regardless of current state of most mobile applications, this is a laptop.
Theres some truth to that, yes, but I really do think in a lot of cases they aren't willing to compromise something else because then people would bitch. There are some tech restrictions they have to work around that other companies are more likely to breach just for the sake of checking a box on a chart.
But the only way they're going to learn is if people don't buy their products. I'm amazed people even buy the MBA with the terrible screen. They would be forced to improve that product besides CPU refreshes if people stopped buying them. But then you can look around a college classroom and 25-50% of laptops people are using are MBA's. It's taken a long time for the PC crew to start making innovative and quality designs and in a lot of cases they still come up short. So Apple is in a position where they can leverage their position in the market, their marketing, and brand to do less than they could do. Sometimes businesses do that and take risks. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. But not many businesses become a brand anywhere near Apple's if they don't take risks. They are there to make a profit and Apple is not immune to that nor are they are a charity. From where they've been as a business to where they are now is really remarkable. They didn't get where they are today by playing things safe nor just flooding the market with the kitchen sink to have appeal to 'everyone.'
Being a bit sarcastic. And when I say a bit, I mean a lot. I wish it had a Retina display, but right now it's my only computer since my iMac is on the fritz and it's hanging in there very well for me. I also love how much lighter it is than my previous Gateway PC (although that one only cost $250 to be fair) and the fact that the battery life might as well be listed as "forever."
Soon is relative here, "Back in June" might be soon for you, but sure isn't for Apple. Or what Apple expects from their customers.
Many people suggest what you have, but I wonder where you or anyone else gets this information from. On the other hand, I have real-world knowledge of customer RAM upgrades, as I previously worked at an authorized Apple retail and repair store. The two most common service requests? RAM & HDDs. And we had a lot of service orders.
Additionally, while end users may not feel comfortable doing this themselves, many still will pay someone else to do so. With soldered components, this isn't possible.
Further, there is still no reason to solder the RAM on the logic board-- the amount of additional space that non-soldered RAM consumes is negligible. It's a money grab from Apple, plain & simple. I hate to admit it, but that's today's Apple.
Last edited:
Maybe not but the imrovements to this machine make it a real option relative to the MBP.
Hmm, RAM hard disk option soon? This is amazing. Makes my Mac Pro look like a piece of junk, even though it has an SSD in it (SATA unfortunately; should've at least considered PCIe).
----------
Just wait until they update the rMBP.
This is amazing. Makes my Mac Pro look like a piece of junk, even though it has an SSD in it (SATA unfortunately; should've at least considered PCIe).----------
Just wait until they update the rMBP.
I think it's a great advancement to have twice the speed.... Atleast it's not going in reverse.... I think this was a good update....
I'm not arguing that it wouldn't give better performance.
I'm just telling you that it isn't easy or cheap right now.
For memory, they could simply integrate all memory in the SOC! Apple has a big amount of caching in the SOC itself. Putting all the memory in the SOC would be very very expensive right now. Those SOC's would be huge; yields, probably terrible.
In embedded systems right now, 60% of the die is memory on average, and this trend is accelerating.
That would solve memory issues, but not solve the arguably less critical external storage speed issue. At least, less urgent until the first is solved.
Samsung Evo Vs Pro Real World Experience?
I'm upgrading my SSHD (I Love It) in my 2012 MBP in the next few weeks to a full SSD. A 1tb Evo is $399 vs. the Pro model at $549. And the Crucial is $379. I'm leaning towards the Crucial.
Anyone have any real world opinions (beyond just pointing me to a spec sheet)?
I'm going with full SSD because the SSHD breathed new life into my 2012 MBP, but now I want to go all in on the flash goodness
I'm upgrading my SSHD (I Love It) in my 2012 MBP in the next few weeks to a full SSD. A 1tb Evo is $399 vs. the Pro model at $549. And the Crucial is $379. I'm leaning towards the Crucial.
Anyone have any real world opinions (beyond just pointing me to a spec sheet)?
I'm going with full SSD because the SSHD breathed new life into my 2012 MBP, but now I want to go all in on the flash goodness
Last edited: