These SSD speeds worthy?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by close2reality, Jan 23, 2015.

  1. close2reality macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    #1
    Mid '14 Retina MBP 2.6GHz, 256GB, 8GB RAM
     

    Attached Files:

  2. close2reality thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    #2
    For the record, it is the Samsung.


    APPLE SSD SM0256F Media
     
  3. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #3
    I got the same results on my SM0256F in my 21.5" iMac.

    The SanDisk ones are far slower in writes.

    So yes, it's alright.

    My SM0512F in my two 27" iMacs are barely any faster (720MB/s in writes and 730MB/s in reads).

    The SM1024F in my 15" rMBP is another story altogether. 1000+MB/s in both reads and writes, because it has 4 PCIe lanes.
     
  4. redheeler macrumors 603

    redheeler

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    #4
    Yup, I got similar speeds testing the 256 GB in my 13" rMBP. Same drive, the Samsung-made SM0256F SSD. Perfectly normal for this SSD and quite quick compared to most others.
     
  5. close2reality thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
  6. close2reality thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    #6
    Another question, I just purchased this MBP, primarily for the increase in portability and retina display. Prior I had a Mid-2012 MBP with the following:

    - 2.9GHz Intel Core i7
    - 8GB 1600 DDR3
    - Intel HD Graphics 4000 1024MB
    - 512GB SSD (I do not know specifics aside from the size and it was a SSD)

    This new retina is:
    - 2.6GHz Intel Core i5
    - 8GB 1600 DDR3
    - Intel Iris 1536MB
    - 256GB SSD (SM0256F)

    I'm just asking if I took a nominal step back in overall performance aside from the actual size of the HD storage capacity.

    I know that my Mid-2012 was an i7, but were those set of processors made inferior by the newer set of processors that are now in today's rMBP's? I'm just trying to figure out if intact I took a step back, and by how much of a margin.

    With all that said, I couldn't be more satisfied as of right now, time will tell. My favorite aspect of these new retina's are the ability to have a 1680x1050 display. Such a small, crisp, and neat looking display when it's set to that, not to mention the space is free's up on your display and how much more your able to see whether it's a document or a webpage.

    Thanks in advance.
     
  7. cbautis2 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2013
    #7
    Not worth the money IMO. The new 2014 Haswell Refreshed i5 is just on-par with the 2012 i7.

    See results
    http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/1744122
    http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/1766098

    You just get a more efficient CPU without performance boost and faster SSD which is negligible in everyday real work applications, and an Iris GPU which is still way below the performance of a mid-level mobile NVIDIA 650M dGPU. Even Iris Pro can't match the 650M which is 3 Generations behind the 9XXM dGPU.

    I would wait 2 - 3 more years before I upgrade where CPU would be double the performance of the 2012 i7, iGPU that can match or be better than the NVIDIA 750M. Heck my 2011 MBA still works amazingly and can hold another 3 years easily since I can edit, convert, 1080p videos fast enough while doing all of my every tasks (web browsing, productivity, video streaming, etc.) without slowing down at all.
     
  8. close2reality thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    #8

    No, I already purchased the retina MBP. Asking if i had taken a step back doing so from the Mid-2012 i7 I previously had.
     
  9. cbautis2 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2013
    #9
    The bottomline is you didn't step down except for storage capacity. Retina Display >> non HiDPI, 2014 i5 = 2012 i7 and Iris > HD 4000. 2014 SSD > 2012 SSD speed. To me, it isn't worth the upgrade unless the 2014 rMBP is 2x faster than 2012 in CPU speed (fyi the 15" rMBP with 2.5 GHz i7 quad core is 2x the speed of 2012 2.9 GHz i7 dual core) or that the 2012 model has a hardware failure and it would be wiser to just spend on a new machine rather than costly repairs without Apple care.
     
  10. close2reality thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    #10
    Ok thanks. Good to know.
     

Share This Page