Is the 32GB model "slower" than the 128GB model?

[JoshDunc]

So I noticed this with Apple. There 32GB model was a lot slower than the 128GB and 256GB variant. I have the 32GB Pixel XL but have not seen or used the 128GB model to test this. Anyone know?

 

[88horizon5speed]

Both phones have the same exact hardware except for the screen size and resolution and battery size.

There is no noticeable difference in speed. Technically speaking..since the regular pixel has a lower resolution screen it would be quicker because it is less graphics intensive, but this is so minute you couldn't tell. So nope, no difference. I think apple has some differences in the actual processor and ram between it's models that's why there is a noticeable difference

 

[Zendroid1]

Larger drives run marginally faster by nature.

 

[JoshDunc]

Larger drives run marginally faster by nature.

I knew that was the case with Apple. Was not sure if it was the same with Android. Thanks!

 

[Jeremy8000]

As you start running out of available storage you'll note a sizable difference. I.e., at 31 of 32GB used, it'll be markedly different than 30/128GB.

 

[Richard Servello]

Larger drives run marginally faster by nature.

Only when you choose to cheap out on hardware for higher margins.

 

[maxburn]

I knew that was the case with Apple. Was not sure if it was the same with Android. Thanks!

I think it's more the nature of flash storage, having more allows more parallel operations. Can see this in computer SSD also.

 

[jam4775]

Only when you choose to cheap out on hardware for higher margins.

Has nothing to do with cheep hardware... When they add more storage they do this by adding another NAND storage chip... by doing this it allows them to use another channel on the storage controller on the drive to this chip thus doubling the throughput in theory.

 

[Rukbat]

eMMC storage doesn't work like hard drives, so size isn't really an issue. And Linux, the OS underlying Android, doesn't fragment files in storage, so that's not an issue either. There may be measurable differences, but do you really care if a file that takes 3 seconds to load loads in a microsecond more or less?

 

[maxburn]

eMMC storage doesn't work like hard drives, so size isn't really an issue. And Linux, the OS underlying Android, doesn't fragment files in storage, so that's not an issue either. There may be measurable differences, but do you really care if a file that takes 3 seconds to load loads in a microsecond more or less?

Yes, it adds up. Anyone that's upgraded from spinning disk to SSD has seen it first hand. First gen SSD a couple years ago are slow compared to what we have today. Storage is a huge bottleneck.

 

[JoshDunc]

Yes, it adds up. Anyone that's upgraded from spinning disk to SSD has seen it first hand. First gen SSD a couple years ago are slow compared to what we have today. Storage is a huge bottleneck.

So you think the larger storage is faster?

 

[dennisharrison]

So you think the larger storage is faster?

It's not, usually. In some specific (and somewhat usual, currently) cases it can be. We can go into much detail, but first I would point you to learning about MLC & SLC, et al.

Not sure what NAND type/implementation the Pixels use, but none of the sane options would have poorer performance as they 'fill up'. The only concern would be longevity of the device (with the probable worst case scenario still being many more years than you will want to own the phone), and not speed.

 

[Impulses]

It's not, usually. In some specific (and somewhat usual, currently) cases it can be. We can go into much detail, but first I would point you to learning about MLC & SLC, et al.

Not sure what NAND type/implementation the Pixels use, but none of the sane options would have poorer performance as they 'fill up'. The only concern would be longevity of the device (with the probable worst case scenario still being many more years than you will want to own the phone), and not speed.

Most NAND based storage solutions tend to be a little faster in their larger iterations, specially when you're dealing with better controllers like those in SSD and smartphones (but it's even true in cheaper flash drives at times). It's usually not a drastic difference tho, and in the case of the Pixel it seems the 32GB version runs faster (see the Anandtech review), rather counterintuitive.

The Pixel uses a UFS 2.0 module which is the evolutionary successor to old eMMC based solutions most phones used just a year or two ago (and some flagships still use, like the HTC 10). The controllers are much more advanced and closer to that of modern PC SSDs...

Most NAND solutions do indeed have issues as they fill up, feel free to Google any of Anandtech's 4-5 year old SSD articles (use keyword anthology), it's all still relevant as phone storage is barely now catching up to the first decent second gen desktop/laptop SATA SSDs...

There's all sorts of garbage collection routines that the controllers run either to manage pages marked deleted (but still partially filed with data) or to implement wear leveling (so the entirety of that drive ages evenly and you don't burn out cells early). All those subroutines run better when the drive has some empty space to work with. In fact many SSD drives come preset with what they call over provisioning which is space reserved for just these purposes (can't see it easily, much less partition it).

It is ABSOLUTELY advisable not to run around with your phone at 90%+ of storage capacity (I'd go 80% max tbh), it will ABSOLUTELY have an impact in long term performance. Before Android implemented the TRIM command (first Nexus 7 never got it for one) this was even more magnified.

 

[Matty]

So I noticed this with Apple. There 32GB model was a lot slower than the 128GB and 256GB variant. I have the 32GB Pixel XL but have not seen or used the 128GB model to test this. Anyone know?

Rest assure, Google wouldn't do this to their customers. Both storage sizes are similar in speed. Nothing like Apple's drastic speed differences.

 

[iOS Gravity]

Its the same type of memory, just with a larger capacity on the 128GB, so theoretically speed should be the same, but the 128GB might be slightly faster since its more memory.

 

[Topweasel]

Rest assure, Google wouldn't do this to their customers. Both storage sizes are similar in speed. Nothing like Apple's drastic speed differences.

That's the real thing to be noted here and seems to be missing from other posts. There will be a natural tendency for the larger Flash storage on the same platform to perform better. More store equals more nand chips which equals more parallel processes. Manufacturers have been known to use older process nand chips with lower capacity to keep performance closer. But none of this explains the performance delta with the new Iphones. It isn't slightly slower, or much slower, its incredibly slower. The 128+ Iphone performs like an SSD while the 32GB performs like a kind of crappy MicroSD card. To me that's insulting, it's like they going out of the way to penalize their customers for going "cheap" on a $700+ phone.

 

[D13H4RD2L1V3]

Usually, the higher capacity NAND modules would have slightly better I/O performance.

 

[Matty]

That's the real thing to be noted here and seems to be missing from other posts. There will be a natural tendency for the larger Flash storage on the same platform to perform better. More store equals more nand chips which equals more parallel processes. Manufacturers have been known to use older process nand chips with lower capacity to keep performance closer. But none of this explains the performance delta with the new Iphones. It isn't slightly slower, or much slower, its incredibly slower. The 128+ Iphone performs like an SSD while the 32GB performs like a kind of crappy MicroSD card. To me that's insulting, it's like they going out of the way to penalize their customers for going "cheap" on a $700+ phone.

Agreed. Often you will see on SSDs that the read and write speeds are slightly different depending on the storage size. But nothing drastic. This is because as you said, more space available, more and chips ect. Apple just flat out put a slower drive inside lol.

 

[mhw100]

Don't notice a speed difference but I believe the battery life is much better on the 128 xl vs the 32 xl.

 

[Impulses]

Agreed. Often you will see on SSDs that the read and write speeds are slightly different depending on the storage size. But nothing drastic. This is because as you said, more space available, more and chips ect. Apple just flat out put a slower drive inside lol.

Haven't really kept up with that topic, in all likelihood they used two completely different UFS solutions from two different suppliers tho... They've been trying to do that with most components, not that it excuses anything, they do it on $2-3,000 Macs too tho.

Now if it comes out that they used say, an older eMMC drive for 32GB and an UFS for 128GB, I'd totally cry bloody murder over that. This is one of those things where that whole "specs and benchmarks don't matter" (propagated by both Apple and sites like AndroidCentral) really ends up hurting users.

Because no one cares about something as basic and fundamental as sequential or random read/writes on the storage solution (never mind the finer points), Apple (and others) can just not advertise it and get away with this kinda disparity across models or even rolling changes thru the device's lifetime (which does happen).

I'm all for subjective overall-experience reviews, but without some balance this industry would revert to a much worse place.