Extremely slow SSD in Surface Book

I can't say I've had an especially bad experience with my surface book, as most of the issues I've seen have been more to do with Windows 10 specifically. Anything else seems to be easily fixed with updates, so I'm being patient. However, I am totally disappointed realizing how badly Microsoft screwed us with their poor choice of SSD. I thought I was buying a high-end device, but the beating heart of said device is a crippled mess hardly worthy of a budget laptop. I'm especially disappointed in that I actually read a lot of magazine reviews before making the purchase, so I feel like I was mislead. The fact that Microsoft sent out review units that were fitted with vastly superior drives, but gives us consumers something far less capable seems criminally deceitful. I feel taken advantage of, and I am sure I'm not the only one. If I was able to actually swap it out for a better drive it perhaps wouldn't be as big a deal, but the fact the surface line is sealed and I'm stuck with what I have makes it that much more of a slap in the face.

Right? It's supposed to be dual-sourced, but I haven't met a single Surface Book owner who has an MLC SSD.

:( 

You're right: it's not exactly a speed problem (though I'm just psychologically wary of Samsung's TLC after the 840 EVO hardware defects), but a brand/trust issue.

Microsoft isn't one to be open about their hardware decisions, but they'll scream "Ultimate Laptop" from the rooftops. You want more deceit? Check out Panos' completely bold-faced lie about sleep drain. Funny, how this bug that affects 100% of SBs somehow eluded him. Really weird. 

There is no redeeming feature about this issue: it's willful deceit. The TLC drive was absolutely chosen for cost: it's the same drive in the $1000 Dell XPS 13. Samsung won out here: put out a TLC M.2 drive, but make it sound premium by giving it NVMe and run it on PCIe--pure profit. Microsoft went, "oooohh, ahhhh" and saw how to buff their profit margins.

1. If they used TLC drives for power use or heat output, why would they give "worse" MLC drives to reviewers?
2. If they needed dual-sourcing, why wouldn't they pick two more equivalent drives?
3. If it is actually dual-sourcing, why haven't we seen a single SB owner with an MLC drive, even from the most recent lot numbers?

I know other OEMs have faults, but at least they don't charge $$$$ for their devices, nor claim they are the "ultimate laptop", nor willfully send reviewers and consumers two completely different SSDs, nor have insider knowledge of Windows by virtue of literally making both the hardware and the software.

Not touching the Surface Book until revision 2 comes out later this year with Kaby Lake (and its TB3/USB type-C integration).

The vast majority of larger file work I do with my Surface Book is with RAW video files.  The file size for my camera is 20.4 Megabytes.  What is the timing difference between the two drives you talk about for this file size?  How long will it take to read and write this file with each drive you talk about?  And what speed difference would I experience?

Well, practically speaking, if you have a Surface Book, it has the TLC (slower) drive, the Samsung PM951. Microsoft isn't interested in exchanging SSDs. 

Theoretically, if there was a possibility, take a look at these benchmarks from Anandtech. Here's the 512GB MLC Toshiba:


And here's the 512GB TLC Samsung:


Sequential is what you're looking for, as 4K is for very small files (important for loading Windows and all applications). They're both fast, but the MLC Toshiba is nearly 2x faster in writing. However, these are 512GB drives. As you get to smaller drives, the difference between them gets even bigger.

The bottleneck will only happen if you are reading/writing from an relatively speedy external drive (no USB thumb drives, but external SSDs) OR copying within a drive. Moving files within a drive isn't affected by the drive's speeds. And it only really matters if you do it often.

Say you have 100 of these 20.4MB RAW files; that's 2.04GB. To copy those files (for a backup), the 512GB Toshiba would take ~2 seconds, while the 512GB Samsung would take ~4 seconds.  Once you go smaller, you'll see an even bigger difference. Copying those same files on a 256GB Toshiba would take ~4 seconds, but a 256GB Samsung would take ~7 seconds.

Not a lot, but if you do it often (and with more files), the differences compound. The 128GB versions are pitifully slow on the Samsung; it would take you ~14 seconds to copy 2.04GB. I've not seen any benches on the 128GB Toshiba, but it should be close to ~5 seconds (if we guesstimate a bit).

Well, I don't see things so grave.  I'll still buy Surface for my next one.  A Samsung SSD doesn't destroy anything.