Following this morning's release of Retina MacBook Pros with improved Haswell processors, OWC has procured both the entry-level 13-inch and and the entry-level 15-inch 2014 Retina MacBook Pro and provided a gallery of unboxing photos featuring the new devices.
As expected, the packaging on the updated versions is the same as previous-generation Retina MacBook Pros. The site did a quick teardown as well, revealing the internals of the new machines, which also appear unchanged.
/article-new/2014/07/retinamacbookpro13.jpg?lossy)
OWC also conducted some speed tests on the solid state drives of the two machines, testing the 128 GB drive of the entry-level 13-inch version and the 256 GB drive of the entry-level 15-inch model using QuickBench 4.0.
With the standard QuickBench 4.0 test, the 15-inch machine (equipped with a Samsung SSD) saw top random read/write speeds of 524/567 MB/s, and top sequential read/write speeds of 584/555 MB/s. Large tests saw read/write speeds of 741/714 MB/s.
The 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro, meanwhile, saw top random read/write speeds of 438/310 MB/s and top sequential read/write speeds of 593/547 MB/s with its Marvell-controlled SanDisk SSD using the standard test. Large tests saw read/write speeds of 723/374 MB/s.
Launched earlier today, the new Retina MacBook Pros feature upgraded Haswell processors, more standard RAM for entry-level machines (8 GB for the 13-inch model, 16 GB for the 15-inch model) and a $100 price cut for the high-end 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro. The refreshed Retina MacBook Pros are available at Apple retail stores and in its online store.
For the full array of unboxing and teardown images, make sure to check out OWC's blog post.
Update 7/30: This post has been updated to reflect additional disk speed tests conducted by OWC.
Top Rated Comments
The SSDs are the same as in the original Haswell rMBP, so to be honest there is nothing to see here. Bad tests and even worse analysis are just confusing everyone now.
I didn't realize how much MR dropped the ball on this one until I clicked over to the OWC article. Besides MR listing the average speed instead of the top speed (OWC just posted the screenshot and didn't single out the pointless "average" number), OWC has two more tests for each drive with larger file sizes and much higher numbers.
http://blog.macsales.com/25770-owc-unboxes-tests-ssd-speeds-of-new-13-and-15-retina-macbook-pros
Top numbers were actually 791 read 744 write for the 256G and 762 read 454 write for the 128G. Those are really good numbers, faster than any SATA drive can handle and I suspect comparable the previous generation of these machines if not a bit faster.
Really misleading spin by MR, you guys really should correct your article as you give the opposite impression of what the actual speeds of these drives are.
The analysis is extremely poor. You should not be looking at the average data rate when testing multiple transfer sizes because the difference between 4KB and 1024KB transfer speeds is close to tenfold. OWC's testing is also fairly bad because they only ran the standard suite, which tops out at the IO size of 1024KB and thus cannot take full advantage of the drive.
FYI, OWC updated its original post several hours after it posted the first two tests, which were the only available at the time. I've updated the post based on your feedback and the new tests.The SSDs are the same as in the original Haswell rMBP, so to be honest there is nothing to see here. Bad tests and even worse analysis are just confusing everyone now.
R-Read R-Write S-Read S-Write
256GB 194 322 262 245
128GB 165 131 263 244
How is a Random Write faster than anything else?
The analysis is extremely poor. You should not be looking at the average data rate when testing multiple transfer sizes because the difference between 4KB and 1024KB transfer speeds is close to tenfold. OWC's testing is also fairly bad because they only ran the standard suite, which tops out at the IO size of 1024KB and thus cannot take full advantage of the drive.
The SSDs are the same as in the original Haswell rMBP, so to be honest there is nothing to see here. Bad tests and even worse analysis are just confusing everyone now.
Thank you. That makes much more sense now. Shame on MR for the very misleading spin.