Why does Apple not say a word about speed of SSD?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by rawCpoppa, Oct 24, 2010.

  1. rawCpoppa macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    #1
    In both the features and configuration pages for Macbook Pros the SSDs are mentioned only in relation to having improved durability.

    Am I wrong in thinking Apple SSDs are faster than their 7200 RPM HDD in ALL scenarios of real world use?
     
  2. Bernard SG macrumors 65816

    Bernard SG

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2010
    #2
    In the Back To The Mac Keynote, the "Instant-On" ability of the MBA was fairly advertised and linked to SSD.
    In a Mac Book Pro context, it's probably not very relevant marketing-wise. MBP buyers, especially 13" MBP, are very focused on price rather than sheer performance features, while SSD as of now, are still very expensive in terms of $/GB.
     
  3. wirelessmacuser macrumors 68000

    wirelessmacuser

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Location:
    Planet.Earth
    #3
    While SSD's do indeed offer substantial speed increases, Apple is no longer focused (despite what they might say) on the computer as a major part of it's business.

    Instead they are coasting on past accomplishments in the computer arena. Recent developments like the new MBA are more of a token gesture.

    Apples highest priority is now on consumer electronics like the iPhone / iPod / iPad / iTunes and retail toy stores.
     
  4. rawCpoppa thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    #4
    Sorry but neither of these replies are based on facts. Both pages listed go into some details about features on different aspects of the MBP. The speed increase of SSDs can't correlate to the excuses put forward in your replies so far.

    As such there must be another reason why Apple doesn't state the obvious speed of SSDs. Right?
     
  5. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #5
    Apple in general chooses not to disclose a lot of specifics.

    if someone can identify the flash chips, then we'll know.
     
  6. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #6
    Apple never releases very specified specs of their products. If you're really interested, the Toshiba HG2 SSDs that Apple uses have 230MB/s read and 180MB/s write (sequential).
     
  7. pastrychef macrumors 601

    pastrychef

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    New York City, NY
    #7
    I agree with toxic and Hellhammer. If Apple had a choice, they probably wouldn't even tell us what the MHz/GHz is for the CPUs of the computers they sell.
     
  8. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #8
    have a look for yourself. there are plenty of xbench and AJAX comparisons around these threads clearly showing that all aspects of SSDs will out perform that of HDDs. original SSDs suffered large amounts of degradation due to their lack of development but it is slightly starting to change and hopefully write amplification will eventually be eradicated.

    as for Apple - apparently they have their own implementation of GC in the latest MBAs, apparently built into the firmware, we will see what advantages this has (which will likely be to keep degradation to a minimum). linky
     
  9. mr0c macrumors regular

    mr0c

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Location:
    Virginia, US
    #9
    The answer is simple marketing:

    Can you quantify what 250Mbs does? It's not easily understandable ...

    Instant On - everyone can understand that and see the benefit ... they don't have to know the details they see the benefit and understand what it does for them and of course what they're willing to pay for it.

    Apple is about selling benefits: integrated systems, no viruses ... and now instant on.
     
  10. daneoni macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    #10
    This post makes no sense whatsoever and is in no way related to the OP's question.

    As for the OP, Apple hasn't really been one to tout specs unless it is/was the Mac Pro/Powermac. In terms of portable electornics its all about the battery life, portability and the materials used for construction. The End.

    That said, when Steve first introduced the MBA at Macworld he did mention the superior speeds of SSDs then. Everyone now knows SSDs are fast...it's no longer news worthy.
     
  11. grahamnp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #11
    Apple has traditionally not drawn attention to the advantages of add-on upgrades, I know SSDs are a bigger deal but the 7200rpm HDD option doesn't get much attention either. Apple's SSDs are generally poorer performing than what you can get from a 3rd party, maybe they don't want to draw too much attention because the HDD -> SSD upgrade price is probably more than an outright SSD. Also, the SSD option does not set them apart from the competition, and their upgrade price is not competitive with other manufacturers.

    They also only brag about core features, like switchable graphics. This might explain why flash storage is mentioned for the MBA and not anything else.

    Side note: I hope the MBA is starting a precedent for all macbooks. Instant wake from sleep and built in flash storage WITHOUT removing the option for traditional HDD/SSD would fulfill a very nice requirement for most people.
     
  12. AdamRock macrumors 6502a

    AdamRock

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Location:
    Toronto
    #12
    doesnt crucials SSD read 300mb/s???

    apple should stop cheaping out on hardware and actually use name branded stuff (other then Toshiba)
     
  13. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #13
    Crucial states that C300 should get up to 355MB/s read when using SATA 6Gb/s. These benchmarks beg to differ, 228MB/s read with SATA 3Gb/s.

    Apple should use SandForce based drives, they are the fastest (up to 285MB/s read)
     
  14. filfortugno macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Location:
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    #14
    because they're slowwww

    the reason they don't advertise it is because they're way overcharging for one of the slowest ssds out there. In my mbp 15" i mistakenly upgraded the hdd to sdd through apple and saw what i thought was good performance, until i did tests like file duplication and installation of large programs i realized that as far as ssds go apple is laughing all the way to the bank. I then bought a 120 gb owc drive from macsales.com and wow, was blown away; was at least 3 times faster
     
  15. exigentsky macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    #15
    Maybe they get them from different manufacturers that aren't all the same speed? I don't know... but it must be so you feel less ripped off than you actually would if you had all the data. Apple has been greedier than ever lately and certainly hasn't had a problem with using their new-found muscle to strong-arm others. Their decisions on Java and Flash are the latest examples of this trend.
     
  16. George Knighton macrumors 6502a

    George Knighton

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    #16
    Well, that might answer the question about why the performance isn't advertised.

    Although those specifications indicate a very clear and definite advantage over the 7200 and 5400 hard drives, it's clear that they're not offering the very fastest SSD that are available, and they're charging quite a premium for them.

    That's not intended to be as much a criticism as might appear. I know that they might have any number of other reasons for picking those particular SSD with those particular chips, not the least of which reasons might involve either a specific corporate relationship, or a specific concept of performance that is unique to Apple.

    It's hard to judge something definitively without all the facts.

    Hell, it's hard to be a judge even when you have all the facts or have the power to compel testimony!
     
  17. rawCpoppa thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    #17
    Thanks for the info.

    Just to clarify, I do NOT expect Apple to post actual throughput figures for SSDs as they tend to dumb down the pages for alot of the features on their pages. However since Apple does like to keep things simple/stupid I'd have thought they would AT LEAST just say SSDs are also faster than standard harddrives (even though Apple SSDs may not be the fastest SSDs onthe market)

    I have another question from a friend of mine looking to purchase 15 inch MBP:
    Core i5 2.4 with SSD vs Core i7 + 7200 RPM HDD - which would the user appreciate more in general usage? I'm leaning towards the former.
     
  18. George Knighton macrumors 6502a

    George Knighton

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    #18
    If those are the two choices available, I'd agree with you.
     
  19. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #19
    what's he do? is he just the average user, or does he do content creation?

    if the former, the i5 will be better. if the latter, the i7. in both cases he should have enough RAM to never need to page out. SSDs do relatively little for productivity within an application, considering how much they cost.
     
  20. mrsir2009 macrumors 604

    mrsir2009

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #20
    @wirelessmacuser: Yes, Apple are slipping away from computers - Despite the Back2Mac thing...
     
  21. NintendoFan macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #21
    Not to divert the discussion, but I don't think that's the case completely. I think the definition of what a computer IS is changing and Apple is just trying to be out in front of that.
     
  22. mrsir2009 macrumors 604

    mrsir2009

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #22
    Well they certainly need to update the Mac Pro a LOT. :eek:

    Hopefully the MBP is also in for a moderate re-design :rolleyes:
     
  23. trigonometry macrumors 6502

    trigonometry

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2010
    Location:
    South Carolina
    #23
    I agree.
     
  24. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #24
    i disagree to a degree - i dont see the conventional desktop computer changing that much - you still will have a screen, keyboard and mouse (or similar) type interface to interact with the screen. touch screen is NOT the way forward for desktops.

    if apple cared about this, they would be bringing out more desktop "advanced" - the imac was slightly this, but its getting old too.

    the MBA is following the "get everything as slim as possible" thing, but the battery life is shocking. the power is decent though.

    i could personally never work on anything less then a 15" screen.
     
  25. Newfiejudd macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    #25
    No Trim support On SSD's

    What about the fact that Apple still have not released any support for trim!!
    A little late to the game on that one. I mean really I haven't seen any slow down with my SSD's but the fact is they are late to the game. If they were to start pointing out the speed of SSD's maybe competition would start stating the fact that trim support still isn't supported. Just my thoughts there. Out of sight out mind.
     

Share This Page