More SSD and HDD Comparisons and Testing Methodology

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Walt Mossberg weighs in (http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20080207/solid-state-drives-challenge-hard-drives-in-speed-but-not-value/) on the Solid State Drive (SSD) vs Hard Disk Drive (HDD) debate. The issue has become relevant now that Apple offers a SSD option on the MacBook Air, and this feature will certainly trickle down to future Apple laptops.

An earlier comparison (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/02/06/macbook-air-ssd-vs-hdd/) from Arstechnica was difficult to interpret due to differences in machines (1.6GHz vs 1.8GHz) and non-standardized testing.

Mossberg offers at least one piece of standardized data on the SSD vs HDD comparison in the MacBook Air. He compared two 1.6GHz processor MacBook Airs which only differed in the type of hard drive (SSD vs HDD) and ran a standardized test case: "turn off all power-saving software, set screen brightness to maximum, turn on the Wi-Fi and play an endless loop of music."

As always these tests come with some considerations. After some investigation, it appears that iTunes explicitly turns off Mac OS X's file caching, so the drives are being accessed with regularity in this test. This drive access, however, is small and sequential which does not take advantage of SSD's strengths (random non-sequential). With these notes in mind, the results of the test revealed almost no difference (5 minutes in favor of SSD).

Not all SSDs, HDDs and laptops are made equally, however. Mossberg also compared a Toshiba Portege R500 with a 1.8" HDD and a 1.8" SSD drive. In the same test, Mossberg found the Portege R500 ran 1 hour and 21 minutes (36%) longer with the SSD. Now, the reason for this large difference is unclear. Update/Correction: the Toshiba also uses the 1.8" drive, not the 2.5" drive previously reported here.

Similarly, MacLife found (http://www.maclife.com/article/dv_nation_mtron_32gb_sata_ssd) that the 32GB DVNation SSD drive installed in a MacBook Pro saw 55% increased write speeds and 88% increased read speeds compared to the stock HDD. They also saw similarly dramatic speed increases in "real world" tasks as well as a 14% battery life gain with the SSD drive.

As a result of these discrepant findings, the SSD vs HDD debate will likely be reintroduced with every new laptop introduced, as findings seem to vary by individual model and task. At this point, however, it seems the accepted advantages for the SSD drive in the MacBook Air is a more responsive user experience, and less vulnerability to data loss.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/02/06/more-ssd-and-hdd-comparisons-and-testing-methodology/)

[deathshrub]

As a result of these discrepant findings, the SSD vs HDD debate will likely be reintroduced with every new laptop introduced

Gee, that sounds like it will be fun.

Edit: @Shingo: Massive fail.

[Gunga Din]

Woo Hoo!

If people have to go to this much trouble to decide which drive is better, than obviously SSD is not worth it. Its gotta be clear cut or to me SSD is a scam at this point to get more money out of our pockets. Now don't get me wrong, one day i'm sure it will SSD FTW but not right now.

I mean, how can there be a debate about a $1000 f ing upgrade?

[nagromme]

Clear cut?

An SSD has no moving parts. That's VERY clear cut. Reliability is the biggest reason I would want SSD.

Speed and battery life have not YET been measured adequately, but that will come. Meanwhile I don't think "scam" is justified.

And yes it's expensive--it's new technology, worth it to only a few. As prices drop it will be worth it to more. Nothing unusual about that pattern.

[AppleMojo]

If people have to go to this much trouble to decide which drive is better, than obviously SSD is not worth it. Its gotta be clear cut or to me SSD is a scam at this point to get more money out of our pockets. Now don't get me wrong, one day i'm sure it will SSD FTW but not right now.

I mean, how can there be a debate about a $1000 f ing upgrade?

Your last statement is accurate. It's obvious that SSD is a better all around and future technology. The benefits out weigh current storage mechanisms in nearly every aspect.

Why these comparisons pop-up, is simply because of the $ issue. Many folk are trying to find out if the $1000.00 is justified in general purpose use of the notebook.

In all actuality, at this price point SSD is just a novelty item and not really a luxury, as it isn't proven to be a serious performance contender.

When SSD capacities increase and cost reflects it appropriately, the benefits are then more obvious.

[bdkennedy1]

I'm about 80% done with hearing about the drive comparisons on Air Books. There's no major difference between the two drives except the price. Move on.

[kskill]

If people have to go to this much trouble to decide which drive is better, than obviously SSD is not worth it. Its gotta be clear cut or to me SSD is a scam at this point to get more money out of our pockets. Now don't get me wrong, one day i'm sure it will SSD FTW but not right now.

I mean, how can there be a debate about a $1000 f ing upgrade?

i feel like there's more hype about SSD than there is demand.

[Gunga Din]

Clear cut?

An SSD has no moving parts. That's VERY clear cut. Reliability is the biggest reason I would want SSD.

Speed and battery life have not YET been measured adequately, but that will come. Meanwhile I don't think "scam" is justified.

And yes it's expensive--it's new technology, worth it to only a few. As prices drop it will be worth it to more. Nothing unusual about that pattern.

Tech and business are a scam. Releasing things before they are ready for mainstream and charging outrageous prices. I agree with you, wait and it will be worth it. I've just never like this pattern. Same thing with HD tv's when they were going for 7k and had zero content for yrs. Just think about 1080P HD, to get that via cable , satellite or over the air , you will have to wait at least 3-4 yrs for them to change everything. The only way to get 1080P content is to purchase a HD player that can display at that format.

So, you would want to buy a 1080P set in 3-4 yrs not pay extra for tech you don't need. Samething with the SSD. Waiting a yr or 2 and boom, your gonna be set. Guess I just don't need the latest and greatest or don't have as much $$ as some. So, I have to target my purchases at the right time.

[asdavis10]

I understand that for people who can't afford the extra $999, the HDD option is the only choice. But if you can afford it, why would you want your data being stored on a 1.8" iPod drive. Those drives crash all the time. If you own an iPhone or iPod Touch you can understand the reliability you get with flash based storage. Battery life and benchmarks are irrelevant with the Air. The differences between HDD and SSD models is measured in seconds. The main difference is the reliability of your data. Bottom line.

[SheriffParker]

Well if it makes programs open even a few seconds faster, as some people have said, then the SSD would be well worth it. A snappy user experience is worth a lot.

[Gunga Din]

I understand that for people who can't afford the extra $999, the HDD option is the only choice. But if you can afford it, why would you want your data being stored on a 1.8" iPod drive. Those drives crash all the time. If you own an iPhone or iPod Touch you can understand the reliability you get with flash based storage. Battery life and benchmarks are irrelevant with the Air. The differences between HDD and SSD models is measured in seconds. The main difference is the reliability of your data. Bottom line.


As far as i'm concerned , for $1800 you should have the SSD. and say a 128 version for 3k. Something like that. That ipod drive is an insult to people paying $1800.

Dell has a nice 13" for comparison if anyone cares.

Tuxedo Black
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Processor T7500 (2.2GHz/800Mhz FSB, 4MB Cache)
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition
Standard Display with 2.0 Megapixel Webcam
2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz
High Reliability: 64GB Solid State Drive
CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW Drive)
128MB NVIDIA® GeForce™ 8400M GS
Intel Next-Gen Wireless-N Mini-card
Built-in Bluetooth capability (2.0 EDR)
Dell Bluetooth Travel mouse
56Whr Lithium Ion Battery (6 cell)
Integrated Sound Blaster Audigy HD Software Edition
Biometric Fingerprint Reader

$2500

[MarkMS]

I'm about 80% done with hearing about the drive comparisons on Air Books. There's no major difference between the two drives except the price. Move on.

Well, I'm 99% done with hearing about it. I'm a huge Apple fan, but the Air (to me) is a big disappointment with or without SSD. I was willing to purchase this sexy machine and accept all the "flaws", but the battery life was the last straw.

2.5-3.5 hours on a charge? C'mon, I get more out of my MBP with full brightness!

Anyway, in regards to SSD, I'll probably jump on the "hype" once I see 128GB disks for $400.

[motulist]

As a result of these discrepant findings, the SSD vs HDD debate will likely be reintroduced with every new laptop introduced.


Gee, that sounds like it will be fun.



I disagree with that conjecture. SSD is a very new technology that is all set to see advancements in leaps and bounds. There's new SSD tech that's about to hit the market that is super fast to read as well as write. SSD is about to start getting much cheaper as it hits economies of scale. And of course that's all on top of the already much faster read speeds and much greater durability over hard drives.

Almost certainly within 1 to 3 years there'll be little debate that SSD is much better tech, and within 5 to 8 years years there won't even be an economic advantage to disk over SSD.

[Analog Kid]

At this point, however, it seems the accepted advantages for the SSD drive in the MacBook Air is a more responsive user experience, and less vulnerability to data loss.
The most clear cut and succinct summary of the debate that I've seen. I'm growing increasingly convinced that it is more about user experience than it is about performance-- people don't like the little pause they get when opening an app, even if it only accounts for a tiny fraction of their usage.

I'm not as convinced on the reliability argument, at least not as it concerns the average user. This might be important in an industrial laptop, or where the value of the data being generated between backups is extremely high. For most of us, we're more worried about having to replace the laptop because the LCD cracked when it fell, and are able to back up hourly via TimeMachine. We've all heard of hard drive failures, but they still qualify as rare events-- and since these drives are smaller, many people will still risk losing data on external drives.
If people have to go to this much trouble to decide which drive is better, than obviously SSD is not worth it. Its gotta be clear cut or to me SSD is a scam at this point to get more money out of our pockets. Now don't get me wrong, one day i'm sure it will SSD FTW but not right now.

I mean, how can there be a debate about a $1000 f ing upgrade?
What I'm seeing isn't people trying to decide between infinitesimally different products, but rather trying to figure out how the heck to measure the difference reliably. I'm also seeing a lot of education going on as people start to understand the differences in the technologies.

[MacFly123]

If people have to go to this much trouble to decide which drive is better, than obviously SSD is not worth it. Its gotta be clear cut or to me SSD is a scam at this point to get more money out of our pockets. Now don't get me wrong, one day i'm sure it will SSD FTW but not right now.

I mean, how can there be a debate about a $1000 f ing upgrade?

Seriously, and less space lol. I think I'll hold out about 5-10 years or so ;)

[Gunga Din]

Look i'll be honest with you all. I'm trying to purchase my first Mac and was set on the MBP update. I'm just heated about the Mac Air and feel its pushed my purchase date back because its consumed Apples time and development for the MBP's .

I don't mean to sound like a hater, my apologies.

[Analog Kid]

I disagree with that conjecture. SSD is a very new technology that is all set to see advancements in leaps and bounds. There's new SSD tech that's about to hit the market that is super fast to read as well as write. SSD is about to start getting much cheaper as it hits economies of scale. And of course that's all on top of the already much faster read speeds and much greater durability over hard drives.

Almost certainly within 1 to 3 years there'll be little debate that SSD is much better tech, and within 5 to 8 years years there won't even be an economic advantage to disk over SSD.
Flash has already hit economies of scale-- there's not much left to be squeezed out. They are commodity parts-- have been for years. The achilles heel of SSD in 1 to 3 years will still be capacity. Spinning disks will still have a lock on price per GB.

What we might see is that spinning disks exceed the capacity people need-- just as we've seen with iPods. Flash is still much more expensive than magnetics, you can get 16GB of Flash for the same price as 160GB of disk in an iPod, for example, but if you don't need more than 16GB then the point is moot. Laptops may go the same way. My laptop drive can never be big enough, but for some people 64GB might be enough. When we reach the point where 64GB costs the same as the lowest sized disk (which will probably be 3 years or so), people may find the SSD to be the preferred option because they don't need a terabyte in their laptop.

If Flash can iron out the last lagging performance issues by the time this happens, I can see it taking over the mainstream.

[kuwisdelu]

Well, I'm 99% done with hearing about it. I'm a huge Apple fan, but the Air (to me) is a big disappointment with or without SSD. I was willing to purchase this sexy machine and accept all the "flaws", but the battery life was the last straw.

2.5-3.5 hours on a charge? C'mon, I get more out of my MBP with full brightness!

Anyway, in regards to SSD, I'll probably jump on the "hype" once I see 128GB disks for $400.

Go look at the battery threads over in the MacBook Air forum. Most people there are seeing 4-5+ hours battery life. Only one or two people there have claimed anything less than 3 hours, it seems, and usually the unsatisfied are the first to cry out. So if battery life were a real problem, you'd hear it from them. You'll get better battery on the MBA than your MBP. Don't worry.

[a456]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

it seems the accepted advantages for the SSD drive in the MacBook Air is a more responsive user experience, and less vulnerability to data loss.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/02/06/more-ssd-and-hdd-comparisons-and-testing-methodology/)

Ironically these are the two things that will be least important to MBA users. They are willing to compromise on speed for the sake of size/weight. They are also likely to have to back up their system to a desktop or hard-drive because of limited space.

[Macmel]

Ironically these are the two things that will be least important to MBA users. They are willing to compromise on speed for the sake of size/weight. They are also likely to have to back up their system to a desktop or hard-drive because of limited space.

I agree. So you MBA users are going to buy a crippled computer just because it is lighter and thinner and it's going to look good while sitting at Starbucks reading your e-mail (which is pretty much all you can do with it) and then you are worried about a delay of a fraction of a second in opening Safari. Worried to the point of paying $1000 more?. I don't get it.

[Jacquesass]

I think many of people's letdown regarding SSD in the MBA is related to the drive interface. Unlike the two laptops mentioned in the article, the MBA only uses PATA. I don't know if this would influence battery life (although SATA may be a more power-efficient protocol) - but it is not surprising to me that Apple used a relatively slow SSD, knowing that the drive performance was limited by PATA.

[milo]

Tech and business are a scam. Releasing things before they are ready for mainstream and charging outrageous prices.

It's not a scam, it's simply the fact that new technology costs more to manufacture, and that economies of scale mean that things get cheaper as quantities go up. While the prices seem outrageous, that's what they generally must be sold at initially to make a profit.

As far as i'm concerned , for $1800 you should have the SSD. and say a 128 version for 3k. Something like that. That ipod drive is an insult to people paying $1800.

Dell has a nice 13" for comparison if anyone cares.

Tuxedo Black
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Processor T7500 (2.2GHz/800Mhz FSB, 4MB Cache)
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition
Standard Display with 2.0 Megapixel Webcam
2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz
High Reliability: 64GB Solid State Drive
CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW Drive)
128MB NVIDIA® GeForce™ 8400M GS
Intel Next-Gen Wireless-N Mini-card
Built-in Bluetooth capability (2.0 EDR)
Dell Bluetooth Travel mouse
56Whr Lithium Ion Battery (6 cell)
Integrated Sound Blaster Audigy HD Software Edition
Biometric Fingerprint Reader

$2500

Doesn't the fact that Dell's SSD machine is $2500 contradict your claim that apple should have SSD for $1800? If you think it's possible to ship a machine with 64 gigs of SSD for $1800, show a machine for that price.

I agree. So you MBA users are going to buy a crippled computer just because it is lighter and thinner and it's going to look good while sitting at Starbucks reading your e-mail (which is pretty much all you can do with it) and then you are worried about a delay of a fraction of a second in opening Safari. Worried to the point of paying $1000 more?. I don't get it.

It's not "crippled", it's just designed with different goals. You might as well say all laptops are "crippled" because you can't put 3 hard drives in them. Or that towers are "crippled" because you can't use them on a plane.

And I think the main point of the SSD is reliability - a hard drive is much more likely to fail due to rough handling.

[twoodcc]

interesting. well i guess we'll be seeing/hearing lots more of SSD vs HDD in the future

[Macmel]

It's not "crippled", it's just designed with different goals. You might as well say all laptops are "crippled" because you can't put 3 hard drives in them. Or that towers are "crippled" because you can't use them on a plane.

And I think the main point of the SSD is reliability - a hard drive is much more likely to fail due to rough handling.[/QUOTE]

What I meant is people have been arguing for the last few weeks about how this computer is intended for users who don't need horsepower or multiple ports or ethernet connection or optical drive... All that because this a second computer for people who already have a primary computer with all that, including a big HD (or more than one) to back up all your files.
Ans now, all of a sudden, it turns out that the HD in the MBA is not anymore something to store a few files you need on the road (it's ultraportable, right?) and a few songs and movies for your amusement in the plane. Now it has to be the fastest most reliable HD ever and you would pay even $1000 more just for a small improvement.
BTW, I don't know what you do to your HDs, but none of my computers have evers suffered from a total crash of the HD. I have only seen something like that in very old computers that should've been replaced long ago.

[jragosta]

I'm about 80% done with hearing about the drive comparisons on Air Books. There's no major difference between the two drives except the price. Move on.

And reliability. And random access where SSD is 10 times faster, yielding a 'snappier' user experience.

[milo]

Ans now, all of a sudden, it turns out that the HD in the MBA is not anymore something to store a few files you need on the road (it's ultraportable, right?) and a few songs and movies for your amusement in the plane. Now it has to be the fastest most reliable HD ever and you would pay even $1000 more just for a small improvement.
BTW, I don't know what you do to your HDs, but none of my computers have evers suffered from a total crash of the HD. I have only seen something like that in very old computers that should've been replaced long ago.

If you're on the road and your HD crashes, your computer is completely unusable. With SSD, the chances of that happening are much lower. I don't think having a backup drive back home lessens the appeal of lowering the chance of your laptop drive dying. And in my post I said that I don't think speed is the primary advantage of this.

I don't know what your computer usage is like, particularly with portables, but hard drive failures do happen due to mechanical problems, and moving drives around puts them at higher risk than just sitting there on a desk.

[happydude]

I understand that for people who can't afford the extra $999, the HDD option is the only choice. But if you can afford it, why would you want your data being stored on a 1.8" iPod drive. Those drives crash all the time. If you own an iPhone or iPod Touch you can understand the reliability you get with flash based storage. Battery life and benchmarks are irrelevant with the Air. The differences between HDD and SSD models is measured in seconds. The main difference is the reliability of your data. Bottom line.

agreed. and with time the SSD price will come down and HDD will go the way of the floppy drive. for now,it's a stepping stone into the future, just like with the early adopters of iphones, someone's gotta start buying them at a higher price to push sales and innovation. eventually the only option will be SSD. for now, with the option, if one can afford the extra $999, by all means, go for it. if not, make sure you can back up your data!!

[Consultant]

SSD comes in different speeds. Some are as fast as desktop size RAPTORS. Some are camera memory card speed and fairly cheap in comparison to the fast SSD drives (but they are slower than laptop HD), and many in between.

Thus cannot compare 32GB DVNation SSD drive installed in MBP with the one in the MBA and expect the same performance.

[ccantrell]

Go look at the battery threads over in the MacBook Air forum. Most people there are seeing 4-5+ hours battery life. Only one or two people there have claimed anything less than 3 hours, it seems, and usually the unsatisfied are the first to cry out. So if battery life were a real problem, you'd hear it from them. You'll get better battery on the MBA than your MBP. Don't worry.
I now own a MBA 1.6 with the HDD and I LOVE IT!!!

I, like so many others agonized over the reviews, specs, etc and had a hard time deciding if I should change from a 2.33 MBP to a MBA. Having had it for a week now and after being on 1 business trip, I am "glad" I switched and very impressed with performance and the battery life. TBH, the battery life is much better than any MBP I have owned ... just don't trust or use the "time" gauge. It is all over the board, based on what your doing at that moment in time.

If you are on the fence .... I would say just buy one **if** the 2 main benefits, it size & weight, fit your needs. I have not be disappointed at all in the real world daily use ... which for me is Internet over a Sprint broadband card or wifi at airports and VMware for "LookOut" corporate email access.

-chris

[Gunga Din]

Doesn't the fact that Dell's SSD machine is $2500 contradict your claim that apple should have SSD for $1800? If you think it's possible to ship a machine with 64 gigs of SSD for $1800, show a machine for that price.



No. Just showed Dell's option. They should charge $1500 lol

[NYCMacFan]

Well if it makes programs open even a few seconds faster, as some people have said, then the SSD would be well worth it. A snappy user experience is worth a lot.

As is a 30second boot time, but you know I recall we have seen wild variances in listed boot times between SSD and HDD in reviews. Or just variances in boot times of any given machine period (surely review models should all have identical boot times as nothing has been installed yet).

[milo]

No. Just showed Dell's option. They should charge $1500 lol

Glad you cleared that up. The dell option definitely shows that apple's price isn't out of line with what others are charging for it.

The fact is, if everybody is charging in the ballpark of what apple is charging, that means that the price is high because THEIR price is high, not because they are putting an enormous markup on it. If it were possible for someone to sell 64G ssd for way cheaper, someone would be doing it.

[jragosta]

As is a 30second boot time, but you know I recall we have seen wild variances in listed boot times between SSD and HDD in reviews. Or just variances in boot times of any given machine period (surely review models should all have identical boot times as nothing has been installed yet).

Mossberg stated that SSD reduced the boot time by 40%. I think he stated that the HD boot time was 1 minute, so the SSD would be 36 seconds.

Of course, I hardly ever reboot my laptop, so that's not much of a selling point to me.

[Gunga Din]

Glad you cleared that up. The dell option definitely shows that apple's price isn't out of line with what others are charging for it.

The fact is, if everybody is charging in the ballpark of what apple is charging, that means that the price is high because THEIR price is high, not because they are putting an enormous markup on it. If it were possible for someone to sell 64G ssd for way cheaper, someone would be doing it.

Right , thats a good pt. I'm just saying the tech is not worth 1k to me. I know they wouldnt sell a SSD for the price of a regular HD but maybe if it was only $300-400 more it would be appealing to people. If the Mac Air with SSD was say $2100-$2200, think that would be a great price.

The boot time is a good pt as well. How often are we rebooting everyday? I didnt think about that.

[targat]

Speed and capacity bothers for me, but in a minor difference I don't think so. Who knows in the future.... Speed and capacity will be twice as doubled....hehe:confused:

[winterspan]

If people have to go to this much trouble to decide which drive is better, than obviously SSD is not worth it. Its gotta be clear cut or to me SSD is a scam at this point to get more money out of our pockets. Now don't get me wrong, one day i'm sure it will SSD FTW but not right now.

I mean, how can there be a debate about a $1000 f ing upgrade?

Wrong. You cannot make such sweeping statements about SSDs by just looking at the one in the Macbook Air. I'm glad that this article finally threw in some information about other SSDs and how fast they can be. It seems Apple just dropped the ball on the Air SSD or they had to really compromise on performance for cost, heat output, and power consumption. I would assume the latter.

So to negate the effects of the slow SSD in the Air, If I were to purchase one, I'd buy the HDD and replace it with a faster 1.8" SSD, maybe even a 64GB one. There are many 32GB SSD's on the market for about $500.. So seems like the Air SSD is sort of a rip-off.

There have been tons of announcements in the recent months about new SSDs with very fast speeds, and these are all before the new Intel/Micron announcement about new 5X faster flash technology was released. When looking at SSD speed figures, you obviously should look at legitimate benchmarks to confirm the manufacturers speed claims, but the few test's I have seen have indicated that manufacturers numbers are usually pretty close to tested speeds aka 5-10% error.

Here are some actual test results from tomshardware.com on some SSDs they have reviewed:
(http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/12/17/solid_state_drives/page7.html)

Actual Benchmark Figures:
MTron SSD 32GB
95 MB/s sequential read
75 MB/s sequential write

Sandisk SSD6000 32GB
68MB/s sequential read
47MB/s sequential write

... these drives really are very fast. Seemingly much faster than the drive put in the Macbook Air. So those of you out there discouraged by the Macbook Air results, I think the future shall be bright. :)
Below I put some of the recent press release numbers I gathered from tgdaily, wikipedia, etc

MTron 1.8"/2.5"
100MB/s sequential read
80MB/s sequential write

SuperTalent 1.8"/2.5"
60MB/s sequential read
45MB/s sequential write

Samsung 1.8"/2.5"
64MB/s sequential read
45MB/s sequential write

Samsung NEW SATAII 1.8"/2.5"
120MB/s sequential read
100MB/s sequential write

Toshiba 1.8"
100MB/s sequential read
40MB/s sequential write

PNY 1.8"/2.5"
66MB/s sequential read
50MB/s sequential write

BitMicro 2.5"
100MB/s
90MB/s

Pretec
68MB/s sequential read
40MB/s sequential write

Ridata
60 MB/s sequential read
48 MB/s sequential write

Adtron 2.5"
"70MB/s range"
"70MB/s range"

[Macmel]

Wrong. You cannot make such sweeping statements about SSDs by just looking at the one in the Macbook Air. I'm glad that this article finally threw in some information about other SSDs and how fast they can be. It seems Apple just dropped the ball on the Air SSD or they had to really compromise on performance for cost, heat output, and power consumption. I would assume the latter.

So to negate the effects of the slow SSD in the Air, If I were to purchase one, I'd buy the HDD and replace it with a faster 1.8" SSD, maybe even a 64GB one. There are many 32GB SSD's on the market for about $500.. So seems like the Air SSD is sort of a rip-off.


It's interesting to hear about the possibility of future use of faster/bigger/cheaper SSDs, but I don't know about this: if apple has used this specific drive in MBA really taking into account power consumption and heat output (specially this one), don't you think that replacing it could be risky, I mean, in terms of heat generation and battery life?. Don't you think that engineers at Apple already know about all this drives you mention, and they even knew before they were released because they're in the business?.

[Tosser]

The boot time is a good pt as well. How often are we rebooting everyday? I didnt think about that.

The last week or so: An awful lot, with all those updates from Apple :p

[kuwisdelu]

It's interesting to hear about the possibility of future use of faster/bigger/cheaper SSDs, but I don't know about this: if apple has used this specific drive in MBA really taking into account power consumption and heat output (specially this one), don't you think that replacing it could be risky, I mean, in terms of heat generation and battery life?. Don't you think that engineers at Apple already know about all this drives you mention, and they even knew before they were released because they're in the business?.

I think you're pretty right in wondering about this. I know the Air's SSD may not be the quickest one out there, but it still makes the machine feel quite snappy, so I think Apple went for a compromise of speed and power. Somewhere around here I saw the power consumption for the Air's SSD and another, faster SSD posted, and the Air's used quite a bit less power. Certainly that went into consideration.

[JeffDM]

i feel like there's more hype about SSD than there is demand.

It's definitely been overhyped. I can see SSD vs. 2.5" drive showing battery life improvements, but the spec sheets on the 1.8" hard drives show only a tiny increase in power use vs. an SSD in the same size chassis.

I understand that for people who can't afford the extra $999, the HDD option is the only choice. But if you can afford it, why would you want your data being stored on a 1.8" iPod drive. Those drives crash all the time.

I don't know if that's an apt comparison. But they're failing in iPods, which seem to be handled pretty roughly, a lot of tumbling, drops, jogging while it's on. Even if the drive is off for 95% of the time, that can take its toll if it has to fetch while it's in motion. I don't think the iPods have as much cushioning as the drive in the Air appears to have. I usually don't see notebook computers handled that roughly. It's probably not going to be in use when walking around or running. The Air probably has the sudden motion sensor to shut off the drive if it senses a fall, I haven't heard of the iPod having one. One is also less likely to try jogging while the Air is on and running.


So to negate the effects of the slow SSD in the Air, If I were to purchase one, I'd buy the HDD and replace it with a faster 1.8" SSD, maybe even a 64GB one. There are many 32GB SSD's on the market for about $500.. So seems like the Air SSD is sort of a rip-off.

The SSD offered for MB Air is 64GB, why are you mentioning the price of a drive with half its capacity?

[Cromulent]

Here are some actual test results from tomshardware.com on some SSDs they have reviewed:
(http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/12/17/solid_state_drives/page7.html)

Actual Benchmark Figures:
MTron SSD 32GB
95 MB/s sequential read
75 MB/s sequential write

Sandisk SSD6000 32GB
68MB/s sequential read
47MB/s sequential write

... these drives really are very fast. Seemingly much faster than the drive put in the Macbook Air. So those of you out there discouraged by the Macbook Air results, I think the future shall be bright. :)

The benchmarks you posted a link too are completely and utterly useless for the purposes of discussion relating to the MBA. For a start the figures on Toms Hardware are of drives in RAID 0 config which is obviously going to improve performance significantly. Secondly all the drives are SATA drives on Toms Hardware with the exception of one.

If you are going to post benchmarks at least make sure you are posting relevant benchmarks.

[winterspan]

It's interesting to hear about the possibility of future use of faster/bigger/cheaper SSDs, but I don't know about this: if apple has used this specific drive in MBA really taking into account power consumption and heat output (specially this one), don't you think that replacing it could be risky, I mean, in terms of heat generation and battery life?. Don't you think that engineers at Apple already know about all this drives you mention, and they even knew before they were released because they're in the business?.

I think you're pretty right in wondering about this. I know the Air's SSD may not be the quickest one out there, but it still makes the machine feel quite snappy, so I think Apple went for a compromise of speed and power. Somewhere around here I saw the power consumption for the Air's SSD and another, faster SSD posted, and the Air's used quite a bit less power. Certainly that went into consideration.

I did state that Apple engineers probably had to compromise for power and heat output. They are the experts. But does that mean I think they used the best and/or fastest part that they could have? absolutely not. Apple has a history of sometimes using average/mediocre components when necessary.
Of course I wouldn't suggest to laymen to go out and randomly buy a SSD and shove it in the Air. However, If you are able to properly compare power requirements and heat output, go ahead. I am sure that 3rd party Mac companies will offer replacement kits that have been looked over by engineers for compatibility.




The SSD offered for MB Air is 64GB, why are you mentioning the price of a drive with half its capacity?

Yes, I apologize. I though I had fixed this error. 64GB drives usually retail for $1000+.


The benchmarks you posted a link too are completely and utterly useless for the purposes of discussion relating to the MBA. For a start the figures on Toms Hardware are of drives in RAID 0 config which is obviously going to improve performance significantly. Secondly all the drives are SATA drives on Toms Hardware with the exception of one.

If you are going to post benchmarks at least make sure you are posting relevant benchmarks.

"Utterly useless"? WRONG. You should actually read the linked page for more than 3 seconds before you make a bunch of smart ass comments. The chart on the linked page has both standard 1 drive non-raid *AND* 2 drive RAID benchmark numbers.
The benchmarks I LISTED ARE NOT RAID CONFIGURATIONS. PLEASE READ THE CHART!

The PATA interface on the Macbook Air is NOT a bottleneck for these drives as it can do 133MB/s. Most of the drives I listed are available as SATA or PATA/IDE.

[Analog Kid]

I did state that Apple engineers probably had to compromise for power and heat output. They are the experts. But does that mean I think they used the best and/or fastest part that they could have? absolutely not. Apple has a history of sometimes using average/mediocre components when necessary.
Of course I wouldn't suggest to laymen to go out and randomly buy a SSD and shove it in the Air. However, If you are able to properly compare power requirements and heat output, go ahead. I am sure that 3rd party Mac companies will offer replacement kits that have been looked over by engineers for compatibility.
Beyond checking power requirements, you might also suggest that they check size and interface. Every spec you quote, over and over again, are for 2.5" SATA drives. While you might have the skills to wedge one of these things into an Air, most readers here do not.

While it's interesting that there are drives out there in different formats that have higher performance specs than the Air SSD, it's a bit misleading to keep talking about replacing the drive after market and then quoting a bunch of benchmarks on drives that can't be used. You might consider giving the size and interface when they don't match the drive that the thread is focused on.
The PATA interface on the Macbook Air is NOT a bottleneck for these drives as it can do 133MB/s. Most of the drives I listed are available as SATA or PATA/IDE.
Silly me, clicking on the underlined "are available" text thinking it would link me somewhere... Can you link to a product page showing one of these 1.8" PATA drives? I'm drawing blanks. I agree the interface isn't the bottleneck, but availability will be.

[esy034]

I got a 1.6 MBA with the SSD, and comparing it to my 2.4 MBP, it boots much faster, launches most programs with just one bounce, and the battery life is about 4:45 to 5 hours depending on usage. It is limiting to have 64GB with both OSX and XP, but its small size is great for work. I got it for my daughter for school, and am going to stick with my MBP, but it would be perfect for students, and will probably be a heavy seller at graduation time this year.

[phatcat]

The main advantage is reliability. If you travel with important sensitive information, then SSD is the way to go. With all the debating between performance differences, it just goes to show it's minimal.

If you're on the fence between SSD and HD, go with HD. You can always swap the HD with an SSD down the road, and it'll be cheaper.

Those $1000 SSD owners will be shocked in 6 mos, knowing their PC's HD have dropped 50%+ in value. Per a recent gizmodo article, SSD prices have dropped 75% in the past 5 mos.

http://gizmodo.com/351790/ssd-prices-dropping-32gb-iphone-not-too-far-off

Now with the Air out, SSD is gaining popularity. The new MBP may also feature SSD. It's growing in popularity and price drops will move faster. It wouldn't surpirse me if by the end of the year the 128GB SSD drive makes it's way as an option for the Air as a $1000 or less option.