Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iPhone 7/7 Plus SSD storage speed test 32/128/256GB

Wow, you people act like it will take more than several seconds to launch a app if the nand was slow..even if it did its still only several seconds of your lives.....nand speed really doesn't matter much to make such a big deal about it. If a app launches in a sufficient amount of time, no one will notice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gathomblipoob and Setarip
It's widely known higher density SSD are faster.

If you keep looking at the numbers, you are going to go crazy. I ask, do you really notice the difference or does it bother you not be the king of the heap?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gathomblipoob
On the Phone Doctor storage test, my 256 Plus had read/write times of:
Write: 604MB/s
Read: 1165MB/s
[doublepost=1475006577][/doublepost] IMG_3819.PNG
 
I thought I would post my numbers from an iPhone 6 (128GB)

It seems my numbers are way behind the ones of an iPhone 7 ... :(

image.jpeg
 
Setarip said:
Honestly I don't doubt it. I've owned iPhones from 16gb to 256gb. Speed has never been an issue. It's cool to think about how fast the 128 and 256 is, but I don't think people will notice it unless they are moving GB's of data at a time.
Click to expand...

I agree with you!
 
U
jamesrick80 said:
Wow, you people act like it will take more than several seconds to launch a app if the nand was slow..even if it did its still only several seconds of your lives.....nand speed really doesn't matter much to make such a big deal about it. If a app launches in a sufficient amount of time, no one will notice.
Click to expand...
Using that logic, Apple shouldn't bother with making their own SoCs and use Qualcomm's.
 
I made the test just before exchanging my 7+ 32 for a 256.

7+ 32GB
write: 123 MB/sec
read: 933 MB/sec
IMG_2463 32.PNG


7+ 256GB
write: 603 MB/sec
read: 1195 MB/sec
IMG_2463 256.PNG
 
  • Like
Reactions: blackberrycubed
DeSlaye said:
U

Using that logic, Apple shouldn't bother with making their own SoCs and use Qualcomm's.
Click to expand...
No. That would be an enormous logical leap especially since Apple designing their own SoCs seems to be more about profit, control and power efficiency. Apple uses multiple suppliers on many components and most consumers don't notice, and even where they design the components they still don't manufacture them. iPhone 6s had SoCs made by Samsung and TSMC, this year the major differentiator seems to be in modem baseband Qualcomm vs Intel. Many have noted differences in performance between the two (substantiated or not), but the reality is Apple saves on CDMA licensing fees on every Intel GSM model they sell vs Qualcomm.
 
Has anyone made a topic about this? I ran a test, and my 128gb model gets 1117mb read/275mb write. Anybody run a test on the 256gb model?
 
  • Like
Reactions: keysofanxiety
Zellio said:
Has anyone made a topic about this? I ran a test, and my 128gb model gets 1117mb read/275mb write. Anybody run a test on the 256gb model?
Click to expand...

Wait, what?! That's ludicrous. Those read speeds are double that of the SSD in my 15" MBP. And here's me waiting for all my Logic plugins to load, like the sucker I am.

What benchmarking software did you use to check this, please? I'd be interested to see what my iPhone 5S is boasting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shirasaki
keysofanxiety said:
Wait, what?! That's ludicrous. Those read speeds are double that of the SSD in my 15" MBP. And here's me waiting for all my Logic plugins to load, like the sucker I am.

What benchmarking software did you use to check this, please? I'd be interested to see what my iPhone 5S is boasting.
Click to expand...
The programs are in the first post of the thread, someone with an iPhone 6 256GB had scores aproximately 5 times less then a 7 128GB.
 
It looks like my score was 780/79 for my iPhone 7 plus 32gb. I guess what I'm wondering, will I notice a difference in usage between this and a 128gb phone doing normal things? If so I will return and try to get a 128gb.
 
uwdude said:
It looks like my score was 780/79 for my iPhone 7 plus 32gb. I guess what I'm wondering, will I notice a difference in usage between this and a 128gb phone doing normal things? If so I will return and try to get a 128gb.
Click to expand...

I have both - you will not notice a difference doing normal things.

iPhone 7+ 32GB: 71/971
iPhone 7+ 128GB: 511/1117

IMG_0026.png


IMG_0022.jpg
 
uwdude said:
It looks like my score was 780/79 for my iPhone 7 plus 32gb. I guess what I'm wondering, will I notice a difference in usage between this and a 128gb phone doing normal things? If so I will return and try to get a 128gb.
Click to expand...
You won't notice when opening apps, but if you're writing large files such as installing apps then yeah the difference will be noticeable.
 
If this is true, I feel kind of ripped off with my 7+. I wasn't told that the storage internals were different other than the capacity.
 
uwdude said:
If this is true, I feel kind of ripped off with my 7+. I wasn't told that the storage internals were different other than the capacity.
Click to expand...

Flash nand speeds are always different and always faster for the higher density ssd drives as I believe they use a form of raid on each flash chip, but it hasn't been this severe in awhile...

But then again, 32 gb ssds haven't exactly been on the market in awhile either.
 
And it's probably going to be a while until they have stock at T-Mobile to trade it in, IF they'll let me trade it in. Sigh. May be just stuck with the 32.
 
Here is mine regular 7 32gb

Should I upgrade to 128gb? But I'm outside the 2 week swap period :(
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0304.PNG
    IMG_0304.PNG
    73.1 KB · Views: 268
Anandtech reports that the speeds of the NAND are heavily influenced by free space due to the MLC/SLC setup. Can someone test this by filling up your 128GB until you have about 20GB left?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back