Apple wants $600 for 1TB SSD while Samsung's 1TB m.2 sells for $229

[pl1984]

Again, quit making the assumption that it is the same quality ssds as those. Performance speaks for itself compared to a lot of other laptops out there.

I am making no such assumptions about the quality of either SSD...you are. You are saying Apple's SSDs are of better quality. That may or may not be the case but you have yet to provide anything to support your assumption.

Meanwhile I've pointed you to a "competitor" which offers the same performance with a longer warranty and at a lower cost. Regardless of the quality that "competitor" may be it offers everything the Apple SSD does at a lower cost.

 

[IdentityCrisis]

I am making no such assumptions about the quality of either SSD...you are. You are saying Apple's SSDs are of better quality. That may or may not be the case but you have yet to provide anything to support your assumption.

Meanwhile I've pointed you to a "competitor" which offers the same performance with a longer warranty and at a lower cost. Regardless of the quality that "competitor" may be it offers a better value.

Benchmarks show that it is a better quality ssd. Not just the total speed, but the actual complete package of read and write. No other SSD writes to 2600mb a second like the new SSD in the 2018 MBP.

To say they aren't good quality you would be blind to think that with these numbers that not even a pro model of Samsungs can touch.

https://wccftech.com/macbook-pro-2018-fastest-ssds-ever/
[doublepost=1543958433][/doublepost]The 970 Pro doesn't even get to those speeds. It gets close, but it doesn't. That proves my point it's a higher grade ssd. Cheaper chips do not perform like that, like the 970 EVO.

 

[pl1984]

Benchmarks show that it is a better quality ssd. Not just the total speed, but the actual complete package of read and write. No other SSD writes to 2600mb a second like the new SSD in the 2018 MBP.

When did we start discussing the MBP? This is the Mini forum and the thread title is about Mini's SSD compared to Samsung's offerings. The 970 EVO (not the Pro which offers better performance) benchmarks (see reference I provided to you in post #147) with the same performance as the Apple SSD and comes with a 5 year warranty (as opposed to Apple's 1 year warranty) all at a cost less than Apple's.

If your metric of quality is performance than the 970 EVO is of the same quality as the Apple SSD. As the performance is the same as Apple's and the warranty is five times as long I would have to conclude the Samsung quality is better.

To say they aren't good quality you would be blind to think that with these numbers that not even a pro model of Samsungs can touch.

Who is saying Apple's SSDs aren't of good quality? What I am saying is you have yet to demonstrate they're of better quality.

 

[Falhófnir]

NAND flash has been slowly drifting lower in price throughout the year and a building oversupply is beginning to bring prices down more significantly again after their (relatively small) upward blip in 2017. Good for padding Apple's margins I guess? I'd like to think the 128GB options will finally be retired soon, but as they've just introduced new products with it as an option I think that's grasping a bit at this point. For the industry as a whole, I think if they can start getting 512GB SSDs into computers where 256 is currently the offering, HDDs will begin to fully recede to very low end offerings, and machines that offer very large storage capacities (2TB+).

 

[IdentityCrisis]

970 EVO vs 970 Pro

When did we start discussing the MBP? This is the Mini forum and the thread title is about Mini's SSD compared to Samsung's offerings. The 970 EVO (not the Pro which offers better performance) benchmarks (see reference I provided to you in post #147) with the same performance as the Apple SSD and comes with a 5 year warranty (as opposed to Apple's 1 year warranty) all at a cost less than Apple's.

If your metric of quality is performance than the 970 EVO is of the same quality as the Apple SSD. As the performance is the same as Apple's and the warranty is five times as long I would have to conclude the Samsung quality is better.


Who is saying Apple's SSDs aren't of good quality? What I am saying is you have yet to demonstrate they're of better quality.

You are still ignoring the whole picture here. Multi-Read/Write. Don't look at the whole total # period. The Pro shows the same speed as the EVO in the top # almost, but it's the other numbers the Pro does better on. Which is what the Apple SSD does better on.

Apple uses the same SSD in the MBP as they do in the Mini.

Keep thinking that apple put the same quality of SSD as a EVO Samsung is. I am not going to continue this argument with someone who doesn't understand technology and how it works.

 

[pl1984]

You are still ignoring the whole picture here. Multi-Read/Write. Don't look at the whole total # period. The Pro shows the same speed as the EVO in the top # almost, but it's the other numbers the Pro does better on. Which is what the Apple SSD does better on.

Apple uses the same SSD in the MBP as they do in the Mini.

Keep thinking that apple put the same quality of SSD as a EVO Samsung is. I am not going to continue this argument with someone who doesn't understand technology and how it works.

The benchmark I provided shows the 970 Evo has the same performance as that in the Apple systems. By your metric, performance, the 970 Evo is the same quality as the Apple.

 

[Cashmonee]

970 EVO vs 970 Pro




You are still ignoring the whole picture here. Multi-Read/Write. Don't look at the whole total # period. The Pro shows the same speed as the EVO in the top # almost, but it's the other numbers the Pro does better on. Which is what the Apple SSD does better on.

Apple uses the same SSD in the MBP as they do in the Mini.

Keep thinking that apple put the same quality of SSD as a EVO Samsung is. I am not going to continue this argument with someone who doesn't understand technology and how it works.

I guess the thing is that there is no real evidence that they are using any higher quality part other than speed, which is at least partially explained by the interface and the T2. On the other hand, there is a fair amount of evidence that they are likely not using anything special. Apple has historically not specced something as standard that only 1% of users would ever notice or know about. There is no real business reason to use a higher end drive. They have not publicized using a "better than the average" drive, which would make sense if they were while presumably charging a premium because of it. Lastly, it has become clear that Apple is trying to compensate for lost revenue due to lower unit sales by increasing margins. You don't do that by speccing high-end parts that add significantly to the build cost when most people would never even know you had.

I understand that there is a desire to try to find reasons for Apple's pricing of late, but it seems that they are gouging their customers simply because they can.

 

[IdentityCrisis]

The benchmark I provided shows the 970 Evo has the same performance as that in the Apple systems. By your metric, performance, the 970 Evo is the same quality as the Apple.

Again, you are blind. The benchmark you provided was just a total. EOD.

 

[pl1984]

I guess the thing is that there is no real evidence that they are using any higher quality part other than speed, which is at least partially explained by the interface and the T2. On the other hand, there is a fair amount of evidence that they are likely not using anything special. Apple has historically not specced something as standard that only 1% of users would ever notice or know about. There is no real business reason to use a higher end drive. They have not publicized using a "better than the average" drive, which would make sense if they were while presumably charging a premium because of it. Lastly, it has become clear that Apple is trying to compensate for lost revenue due to lower unit sales by increasing margins. You don't do that by speccing high-end parts that add significantly to the build cost when most people would never even know you had.

I understand that there is a desire to try to find reasons for Apple's pricing of late, but it seems that they are gouging their customers simply because they can.

There's no "other than speed". According to this benchmark, which I provided back in post #147, shows the 1TB 970 Evo is just as fast as the Apple SSD:

​

That's 2.5GB/sec, the Apple SSD benchmarked at 2.6GB/sec:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mac-mini-2018-128gb-ssd-speed.2153608/#post-26785124
[doublepost=1543960735][/doublepost]

Again, you are blind. The benchmark you provided was just a total. EOD.

Is just a total? What do you mean "just a total"?

 

[Ploki]

970 EVO vs 970 Pro




You are still ignoring the whole picture here. Multi-Read/Write. Don't look at the whole total # period. The Pro shows the same speed as the EVO in the top # almost, but it's the other numbers the Pro does better on. Which is what the Apple SSD does better on.

Apple uses the same SSD in the MBP as they do in the Mini.

Keep thinking that apple put the same quality of SSD as a EVO Samsung is. I am not going to continue this argument with someone who doesn't understand technology and how it works.

Except apple ssd are coil whining toshibas, and by using samsung via nvme you get 1,9/2,6 of apple + additional 2,4/2,5 rw by external tb3 nvme drive, total throughput being much higher than using only an internal apple SSD.

Also the trick with apple is that t2 works as a RAID controller for two sets of chips usually - thats why iMac Pro has a single drive but fed from two proprietary blades.

Larger size >> more parallelism >> more speed.

So apples 512gb doesnt reach the speed of samsung evo 970 pro - ever.
1tb does, but it costs 3x as much.

Fwiw, two evo 970 pro via raid0 would run the apple internal into ground. While not having a whining coil.

My 2tb i9 barely pulled 2,6/2,7 gb/s.
Will test nvme 970 EVO when i get the new mini with 512gb + tb3 external 1tb for 5x less cash.

 

[IdentityCrisis]

There's no "other than speed". According to this benchmark, which I provided back in post #147, shows the 1TB 970 Evo is just as fast as the Apple SSD:

View attachment 808443​

That's 2.5GB/sec, the Apple SSD benchmarked at 2.6GB/sec:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mac-mini-2018-128gb-ssd-speed.2153608/#post-26785124
[doublepost=1543960735][/doublepost]
Is just a total? What do you mean "just a total"?

And there is the proof you don't know what you are talking about. Again. it's more than just "total" number that you keep throwing around.

How about sequential read/write times or Random read/write? And other types of performance data. Why is there a 970 Pro if the 970 Evo performs the same? Laugh.

I'm done.
[doublepost=1543961569][/doublepost]

Except apple ssd are coil whining toshibas, and by using samsung via nvme you get 1,9/2,6 of apple + additional 2,4/2,5 rw by external tb3 nvme drive, total throughput being much higher than using only an internal apple SSD.

Also the trick with apple is that t2 works as a RAID controller for two sets of chips usually - thats why iMac Pro has a single drive but fed from two proprietary blades.

Larger size >> more parallelism >> more speed.

So apples 512gb doesnt reach the speed of samsung evo 970 pro - ever.
1tb does, but it costs 3x as much

A 512gb Apple SSD and 970 Pro at the same size are pretty equal.

 

[Ploki]

And there is the proof you don't know what you are talking about. Again. it's more than just "total" number that you keep throwing around.

How about sequential read/write times or Random read/write? And other types of performance data. Why is there a 970 Pro if the 970 Evo performs the same? Laugh.

I'm done.
[doublepost=1543961569][/doublepost]

A 512gb Apple SSD and 970 Pro at the same size are pretty equal.

https://www.trustedreviews.com/reviews/samsung-970-pro-512gb
No its not.
Apple 512: 1,9 write, 2,5 read
Samsung 970 pro 512: 2,5 write, 3,4 read

Did i mention samsung does it without coil whine?

 

[pl1984]

And there is the proof you don't know what you are talking about. Again. it's more than just "total" number that you keep throwing around.

How about sequential read/write times or Random read/write? And other types of performance data. Why is there a 970 Pro if the 970 Evo performs the same? Laugh.

All of this information is available at the link I referenced in post #147. Since you continue to ask me for it I can only assume you haven't taken the time to read it.

With that said let's see your performance data for the Mini. You keep mentioning how superior it is but I have yet to see you show as much. Time to put up.

 

[IdentityCrisis]

https://www.trustedreviews.com/reviews/samsung-970-pro-512gb
No its not.
Apple 512: 1,9 write, 2,5 read
Samsung 970 pro 512: 2,5 write, 3,4 read

Did i mention samsung does it without coil whine?

Hmm, per what I see apples 512gb is what did those numbers I posted of 2600 write. Try again.

 

[Ploki]

Apple SSD used to be amazing in 2016 - but they stayed there and samsung took the lead with better chips and NVMe speeds apple can only dream of.
Samsung 970 pro 512 performs better than apple 1tb in every relevant metric for LESS MONEY
[doublepost=1543962072][/doublepost]

Hmm, per what I see apples 512gb is what did those numbers I posted of 2600 write. Try again.

What?
Every bench of apple 512gb ssd is less than 2gb/s write...

 

[IdentityCrisis]

All of this information is available at the link I referenced in post #147. Since you continue to ask me for it I can only assume you haven't taken the time to read it.

With that said let's see your performance data for the Mini. You keep mentioning how superior it is but I have yet to see you show as much. Time to put up.

Nope, you didn't provide that at all in your link. Maybe you need to go back and look.
[doublepost=1543962139][/doublepost]

Apple SSD used to be amazing in 2016 - but they stayed there and samsung took the lead with better chips and NVMe speeds apple can only dream of.
Samsung 970 pro 512 performs better than apple 1tb in every relevant metric for LESS MONEY
[doublepost=1543962072][/doublepost]
What?
Every bench of apple 512gb ssd is less than 2gb/s write...

Really?

https://www.macrumors.com/2018/07/13/2018-macbook-pro-fastest-laptop-ssd-ever/

"The site's tests were performed on the $2,499 13-inch MacBook Pro with Touch Bar equipped with a 2.7GHz quad-core 8th-generation Core i7 processor, 16GB RAM, Intel Iris Plus 655, and a 512GB SSD.

A file copy test of the SSD in the new MacBook Pro, which Apple says supports sequential read speeds of up to 3.2GB/s and sequential write speeds up to 2.2GB/s, led Laptop Mag to declare the SSD in the MacBook Pro "the fastest ever" in a laptop. Higher capacity SSDs may see even faster speeds on disk speeds tests. A BlackMagic Disk Speed test was also conducted, resulting in an average write speed of 2,682 MB/s."

--

Thank you for proving you both don't know what you are talking about. I'm done. I don't have time to continue wasting on two that refuse to educate themselves.

 

[pl1984]

Nope, you didn't provide that at all in your link. Maybe you need to go back and look.

Sigh, from the link:

There's your read speeds. There are many more graphs representing different aspects of testing. I suggest you head on over and look at it before responding. That way you can respond from a position of knowledge and not ignorance.

Really?

https://www.macrumors.com/2018/07/13/2018-macbook-pro-fastest-laptop-ssd-ever/

"The site's tests were performed on the $2,499 13-inch MacBook Pro with Touch Bar equipped with a 2.7GHz quad-core 8th-generation Core i7 processor, 16GB RAM, Intel Iris Plus 655, and a 512GB SSD.

A file copy test of the SSD in the new MacBook Pro, which Apple says supports sequential read speeds of up to 3.2GB/s and sequential write speeds up to 2.2GB/s, led Laptop Mag to declare the SSD in the MacBook Pro "the fastest ever" in a laptop. Higher capacity SSDs may see even faster speeds on disk speeds tests. A BlackMagic Disk Speed test was also conducted, resulting in an average write speed of 2,682 MB/s."

Again we're discussing the Mini and the Samsung, not laptops. Stop trying to move the goal posts.

 

[Ploki]

Nope, you didn't provide that at all in your link. Maybe you need to go back and look.
[doublepost=1543962139][/doublepost]


Really?

https://www.macrumors.com/2018/07/13/2018-macbook-pro-fastest-laptop-ssd-ever/

"The site's tests were performed on the $2,499 13-inch MacBook Pro with Touch Bar equipped with a 2.7GHz quad-core 8th-generation Core i7 processor, 16GB RAM, Intel Iris Plus 655, and a 512GB SSD.

A file copy test of the SSD in the new MacBook Pro, which Apple says supports sequential read speeds of up to 3.2GB/s and sequential write speeds up to 2.2GB/s, led Laptop Mag to declare the SSD in the MacBook Pro "the fastest ever" in a laptop. Higher capacity SSDs may see even faster speeds on disk speeds tests. A BlackMagic Disk Speed test was also conducted, resulting in an average write speed of 2,682 MB/s."

--

Thank you for proving you both don't know what you are talking about. I'm done. I don't have time to continue wasting on two that refuse to educate themselves.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/does-my-2018-macbook-pro-15-512gb-have-slow-ssd-speeds.2132647/

Apple has inferior SSD chips and performance in 2018. Period.
970 pro 512 has 30% more performance via NVMe and can match it easily via thunderbolt3...

 

[pl1984]

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/does-my-2018-macbook-pro-15-512gb-have-slow-ssd-speeds.2132647/

Apple has inferior SSD chips and performance in 2018. Period.
970 pro 512 has 30% more performance via NVMe and can match it easily via thunderbolt3...

Thus far there has been zero evidence to demonstrate they have a better (or worse) quality SSDs. The only sure thing we can say is that Apple charges more for the same capacity SSD than the competition. I'm OK with that, Apple is free to charge what they want for their products. I don't have to like it but then I don't feel Apple's upgrade pricing is out of line with HP, at least not when it comes to their Z series offerings. Large OEMs tend to charge more..that's just the way it is.

 

[Ploki]

Thus far there has been zero evidence to demonstrate they have a better (or worse) quality SSDs. The only sure thing we can say is that Apple charges more for the same capacity SSD than the competition. I'm OK with that, Apple is free to charge what they want for their products. I don't have to like it but then I don't feel Apple's upgrade pricing is out of line with HP, at least not when it comes to their Z series offerings. Large OEMs tend to charge more..that's just the way it is.

I know that nobody is complaining about whining coils on samsung and they bench 30% higher per same capacity.
Also, my 2012 samsung apple ssd didnt coil whine.

The problem here is that in 2016 where speeds where crazy, you paid for actually the fastest ssd in a laptop.

Now you pay 3x as much for a coil whine and less than stellar speeds - especially in sub1tb capacities

 

[Cashmonee]

Hmm, per what I see apples 512gb is what did those numbers I posted of 2600 write. Try again.

I don't think I have seen any Mac mini 512 GB being benchmarked at that speed. The benchmarks I have seen show that performance varies greatly as size increases. The 128 had write speeds around 600 while the 512 was at 1900ish. The 1 TB was at the 2600 you quote.

 

[Ploki]

I don't think I have seen any Mac mini 512 GB being benchmarked at that speed. The benchmarks I have seen show that performance varies greatly as size increases. The 128 had write speeds around 600 while the 512 was at 1900ish. The 1 TB was at the 2600 you quote.

yep, thats consistent across T2 devices.

 

[IdentityCrisis]

yep, thats consistent across T2 devices.

But that isn't true. My link was proof of that from Macrumors tested the MBP 2018 15" with the 512gb did 2600 write and 3200 read.

https://www.macrumors.com/2018/07/13/2018-macbook-pro-fastest-laptop-ssd-ever/

 

[Cashmonee]

But that isn't true. My link was proof of that from Macrumors tested the MBP 2018 15" with the 512gb did 2600 write and 3200 read.

https://www.macrumors.com/2018/07/13/2018-macbook-pro-fastest-laptop-ssd-ever/

Can you link to another benchmark that shows this? You keep linking to one that seemed poorly done. Also, do you have any Mac mini benchmarks? I understand that you believe the performance of the two to be the same or similar, but the benchmarks are not lining up.

 

[Ploki]

But that isn't true. My link was proof of that from Macrumors tested the MBP 2018 15" with the 512gb did 2600 write and 3200 read.

https://www.macrumors.com/2018/07/13/2018-macbook-pro-fastest-laptop-ssd-ever/

Sample size 1 tho.
In the thread i linked there’s sample size 10 for 1,9.

Fwiw, blackmagic on my i9 was 2,6 write and 2,7 read.

Here’s another thread
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...b-ssd-should-be-the-same-performance.2131810/
[doublepost=1543968394][/doublepost]Fwiw i’m getting a mac mini and a 13”, both 512, so i can run a bench when i
get them (couple of weeks).
One reason i was considering 1tb was actually faster speeds.

Decided its not worth it since nvme has same speeds over tb3