Slashdot Mirror
Apple Doubles MacBook Pro R/W Performance
Lucas123 writes Benchmark tests performed on the 2015 MacBook Pro revealed it does have twice the read/write performance as the mid-2014 model. Tests performed with the Blackmagic benchmark tool revealed read/write speeds of more than 1,300MBps/1,400MBps, respectively. So what's changed? The new MacBook Pro does have a faster Intel dual-core i7 2.9GHz processor and 1866MHz LPDDR3) RAM, but the real performance gain is in the latest PCIe M.2 flash module. The 2014 model used a PCIe 2.0 x2 card and the 2015 model uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 (four I/O lanes) card. Twice the lanes, twice the speed. While Apple uses a proprietary flash card made by Samsung, Intel, Micron and SanDisk are all working on similar technology, so it's likely to soon wind up in high-end PCs.
You mean like any other technology purchase :(
I know it's a little late, but for your next apple purchase (if there is one) be sure to check:
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
They generally stay on top of most of the rumors surrounding new product launches. Well enough to know if it's worth waiting for a few months before buying the new model or holding out till the next big Apple event.
You bought a Haswell-based MBP knowing full well that Broadwell had been released and would work its way into the MBP line shortly.
You also ignored the fact that Apple has been updating the Retina MacBook Pros like clockwork.
If you're miffed, be miffed at yourself. Nobody hid this from you.
What a missed opportunity for a semicolon after "Samsung", and what a confusing sentence as a result.
I'd check the benchmarks on real work you might be doing. Unless you're doing some very specific unusual tasks, doubling the continuous write and read speeds over an already fast SSD won't gain much.
face it. tech has the shelf life of fresh fruit.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Doubling performance of one subsystem only counts as 'doubling performance' against specific workloads(of which there are some, hence the enthusiasm among users of Big Serious Databases for buying SSDs that cost substantially more than this laptop, or even a pallet of these laptops, once you get the whole storage system up and running); but your usual laptop activities probably won't be quite as dramatic.
What is somewhat notable about this change is that these days are the first time in ages that storage systems(outside of contrived scenarios involving hanging gigantic fiber channel arrays off the lousiest PCI-X HBA you can find, then adding a cheapie PCI device to the same bus just to cut the bandwidth further, or similar silliness) have actually been bottlenecked by their connection to the rest of the system, rather than by their own inadequacy.
With HDDs, and the earlier SSDs, the alleged link speed was a mostly theoretical value that determined little except how fast you could access the drive's cache RAM. Now, it seems, adding a couple of extra PCIe lanes can actually double performance. Not bad at all.
Pretty much.
M.2 slots and SSDs are now fairly common place in laptops.
For desktops, direct PCIe flash drives have been around for years. PCIe adapters also exist if you want to use an M.2 drive now and your motherboard doesn't have an M.2 slot. Newer desktop boards ship with SATA Express ports, and drives should show up this summer offering the speed benefits of M.2 (running off PCIe lanes) as well as the benefits of NVMe, along with the possibility of being thrown into RAID (depending on your controller, of course). Many newer boards also feature a M.2 slot if you hate cables or are very space constrained.
If you're miffed, [libertarian bromide redacted]
On the other hand, other manufacturers (like Lenovo) are better at letting you make a return(within 30 days) for those kind of conditions.
That, and they're engineered to use standard parts, not exotic and maintenance-hostile ones.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
So you can hook up to an external monitor OR charge your Iphone OR make a powerpoint presentation! In 2016, it will be even lighter when they reduce the number of letters in the alphabet for the keyboard.
Dunno if you were joking or not, but in case you weren't, note that the MacBook Pro has (by my count) 8 ports. It's the new MacBook (not Pro) that has only the single USB-C port.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
It went from "faster than matters" to "even faster than matters". All SATA drives are fast enough, you don't notice the difference between normal ones and ultra fast ones.. I have a Samsung XP941 (the "proprietary" drive that you can easily buy) and a regular 840 Pro in my desktop. You can benchmark the difference easily, but you don't notice it, at all, in day to day operation.
It depends on where your bottleneck is. Hard drives are typically the lowest performing pieces of hardware, mostly because they're spinning media. You can have the fastest CPU in the world, but if you're waiting on a 5.25" full height MFM drive, your performance is going to suffer.
That is why I stopped buying the (lat/new)est stuff. I just get the older models for being cheaper, more stable, etc.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
The blackmagic benchmark they did, I would assume, is from BlackMagic, the company that makes video recording/production products.
So I am guessing it is benchmarking how fast you can write uncompressed video to your SSD, which, outside of that task, is probably not a relevant workload test.
According to this: http://blog.macsales.com/25878... OWC put a 4x PCIE SSD from a mac pro into a 2014 MBP and got the extra performance gain. i.e. the 2014 MBP has 4x PCIE wired to the connector, but by default ships with a 2x PCIE SSD. They expect to ship SSD upgrades for MBP "soon", so you're not out of luck if you have the previous model.
-- "This world is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel."
Nope, I can pretty much say you would get no benefit from the faster drive for transcoding. The cpu will be the limiter. You would see benefit for non-linear video editing where you are working with massive raw files but the conversion is going to be limited in other ways.
There's a bit of confusion, but essentially there is a big difference to flash memory that is presented as a replacement hard disk and talks over SATA, and a flash card that talks to the computer over PCIe through a motherboard PCIe slot.
Essentially, PCIe is a darn sight faster than SATA, so when you hook up a flash drive to it, it goes at ludicrous speeds.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
"Twice the lanes, twice the speed"...man someone doesnt understand the PCIe standard or how to do simple math. Its actually twice the lanes, FOUR* times the (theoretical) speed. 2x500MB/s vs 4x985MB/s * rounded up
Actually, when it comes to transcoding, the GPU is the limiter. Apple's codecs use it heavily.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Basiclly, this is just a bulk transfer rate benchmark of the SSD.
Like most other SSDs, the fastest ones will not actually result in quicker real-world performance, because your brain cannot see the files load on screen any faster.
Enjoy your overpowered 4x PCIe crap. I'll be just fine here with my SATA6 SSD I've had for four years.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
Agree.
I swapped my old Core 2 Duo E7200 (2.53) O/Ced to 3.8 with an OCZ Agility2 SSD for an i3 with a Kingston SSDnow 300 (*old* retired machine that was given to my dad). Altough the new machine boots way faster, and the new SSD is about twice as fast in benchmarks (even if low-end), I find it faster, but not *blew me out of my chair* faster.
Once you go from HDD to SSD, even the cheapest lowest performing SSD is gonna be much faster than anything with spinning platters.
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
The raw bandwidth available for transfers isn't doubled, it's quadrupled. PCIe 3.0 is twice as fast as PCIe 2.0, channel for channel, so the bandwidth would have doubled even if they had not added two more channels. They doubled it in two different ways at the same time.
That said, the old flash was probably not being that badly constricted by the older standard, and the current generation is only capable of twice the throughput. However, adding even more bandwidth than that is a nice bit of future-proofing and quite welcome.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Not referring to the drive in the article, but if you think it's all marketing bull, measure it yourself. In NVMe's case, getting rid of the SATA and SAS translation layer has cut out over 60% of the CPU overhead, and cutting out the max 6Gbps or 12Gbps speed means the drives can go insanely fast. That's a lot of real change by using NVMe. Now, I am one of those marketing guys who work for one of these companies, but I can tell you it's not all BS.
Maybe but Lenovo simply gives you much slower ssd and cpu FOR THE SAME OR EVEN BIGGER PRICE (x1 carbon).
The terminology police hereby fine you for incorrect terms. There is no "SATA6". You probably mean SATA3, which is 6 Gbps.
Which in no way detracts from your point, which is entirely correct.
Agree.
I swapped my old Core 2 Duo E7200 (2.53) O/Ced to 3.8 with an OCZ Agility2 SSD for an i3 with a Kingston SSDnow 300 (*old* retired machine that was given to my dad). Altough the new machine boots way faster, and the new SSD is about twice as fast in benchmarks (even if low-end), I find it faster, but not *blew me out of my chair* faster.
Once you go from HDD to SSD, even the cheapest lowest performing SSD is gonna be much faster than anything with spinning platters.
True, that is simply "diminishing returns". Just going from a HDD to ANY SSD will make your computer incredibly faster, but then going to any faster SSD will not give the same benefits, because that one only will be faster on continuous access (like copying large files). Booting the OS or accessing small random files will not benefit much anymore. So going for a super expensive SSD will only be worth it if a.) you read/write lots of LARGE files (e.g. movie editing) or b.) need the long-term reliability of a SSD designed for multi-year writing of tons of data.
This is so wrong in so many ways.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/