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

Macbook Air faster than my Macbook Pro...

F

fps

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 9, 2004
74
4
London
Hi

I've got a Macbook Pro (mid-2009) 17", 2.93 Ghz, 4Gb Ram with Crucial SSD C300 256GB as my main HD and a 500GB 7200rpm HD in the optical drive bay.
Recently I bought a maxed out Macbook Air 13" (2.13Ghz, 4GB, 256GB SSD).

Since I wanted to run pretty much the same stuff on the Macbook Air I created a SuperDuper backup of my Macbook Pro SSD, booted up the Macbook Air off this backup and copied over to the Macbook Air SSD.
Everything went well and after some tweakings for networking, hostname and the likes I had everything setup and working well.

Yesterday I noticed that whilst installing the same software on both machine (from a fresh boot) the Macbook Air was quicker!
So I ran the AJA System Test on both machines and found out that the Macbook Air SSD was reporting quite even read/write speeds (~ 180-190MB/s) and the Macbook Pro SSD was reporting uneven speeds (~ 150 MB/s write and 210 MB/s read).
So the write speed made a difference (makes sense when installing software) and obviously in this particular situation the CPU speed was irrelevant.

Still I'm peeved that the Crucial C300 SSD shows that kind of behaviour. Note that this is using the 006 firmware I installed yesterday and I don't have measurements for the previous 002 firmware.

I wonder if I should refresh the C300 SSD from a SuperDuper backup...

Any thoughts about this?
 
There are differences in the read/write speeds between different model SSDs, it just sounds like the one in your Macbook Pro isnt as fast.

Can't see doing a superduper refresh making much difference! Look at it this way, your SSD in your Macbook Pro is still light years ahead of a conventional drive :)
 
Paulywauly said:
There are differences in the read/write speeds between different model SSDs, it just sounds like the one in your Macbook Pro isnt as fast.
Click to expand...

I understand that but I think the Crucial C300 SSD is quoted for better performances than that.
Just been to the Crucial forums and users are reporting performance issues when moving from firmware 002 to 006... Damn.
 
Crucial RealSSD C300 Firmware 006 Bug?

If you are on firmware 002, then you should stay on this version.

Do not upgrade to version 006 as this has introduced several problems. I just checked the Crucial user forum and there are tons of feedback from upset users who upgraded to the 006 firmware.

http://forum.crucial.com/t5/Solid-State-Drives-SSD/RealSSD-C300-Series-Firmware-Version-006-Release/td-p/24093/page/29

This again proves that one should never upgrade firmware or software to a new version when it comes out. Always wait for several weeks and learn from early adopters. Especially if you are happy with the performance of your current version.
 
Admittedly off topic, but based on what I've read, I can't believe anyone would willingly purchase a non-Sandforce SSD drive to use with Mac. Ever.
 
jamesryanbell said:
Admittedly off topic, but based on what I've read, I can't believe anyone would willingly purchase a non-Sandforce SSD drive to use with Mac. Ever.
Click to expand...

SF isn't the only one who can make a controller.

the C300 had some issues when it first came out, which was eventually fixed. obviously they messed up again with the newest firmware.
 
The Crucial has a lower write speed and your tests are about right and firmware update is not going to make it faster as you are at it's limits already. The C300 has a sequential read speed of up to 355mb/s in SATA3, but only around 250mb/s in SATA2, which is what the MBP has. Its write speed is markedly faster at around 140mb/s. This is markedly lower than most SandForce 1200 models, which are both reading and writing towards 250-300mb/s sustained, which is the max that SATA2 can handle. The Crucial is Micron driven IIRC and Micron is about to come out with a newer SSD controller with Intel, which is more than likely going to be at least slightly faster. Although it isn't as fast as the SandForce models, it is an excellent design and it supports SATA3, which most hard drives do not, and so it can be used for quite some time.

The MBA also does not use a solid state drive in the sense that your MBP is; the MBA is permanent flash memory, and so it will perform slightly different than your SSD.

Now, if you changed your SSD out, you will not notice a real difference as few programs are going to have a continuous write of 150mb/s, let alone 300, so the speed of one SSD compared to another at the current time isn't that important (although when SATA3 becomes standard, specific SSD speed probably will become important again).







jamesryanbell said:
Admittedly off topic, but based on what I've read, I can't believe anyone would willingly purchase a non-Sandforce SSD drive to use with Mac. Ever.
Click to expand...

The SF1200 is amazing, but people have used the Intel X-25 in Macs for years without issue and the Intel is not SandForce driven.
 
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