MacBook Air 1.6Ghz HDD vs 1.8Ghz SSD Benchmarks

[ccantrell]

I just came back from the store and they had both the 1.6 hd and the 1.8 ssd models.

Interesting side by side comparisons

Booting - 25 secs faster on ssd
Shutdowns - 10x faster on hd model. Weird???
Application Loads - initial loads 2x faster

Here is what blew me away ... Load multiple apps, safari, iTunes iPhoto etc ... Close all apps ... Subsequent loads of any of the previous apps is SAME or even faster.

This was surpises to even the apple employees. Based on my first impressions, I'm opting for the 1.8 with a hd and save a few dollars 🙂

-chris

 

[Erix18]

I just came back from the store and they had both the 1.6 hd and the 1.8 ssd models.

Interesting side by side comparisons

Booting - 25 secs faster on ssd
Shutdowns - 10x faster on hd model. Weird???
Application Loads - initial loads 2x faster

Here is what blew me away ... Load multiple apps, safari, iTunes iPhoto etc ... Close all apps ... Subsequent loads of any of the previous apps is SAME or even faster.

This was surpises to even the apple employees. Based on my first impressions, I'm opting for the 1.8 with a hd and save a few dollars 🙂

-chris

I was playin with a MBA ssd at an apple store and times the startup twice (of the MBA) on my iPhone and it was 60sec....

 

[bluebomberman]

Application Loads - initial loads 2x faster

Here is what blew me away ... Load multiple apps, safari, iTunes iPhoto etc ... Close all apps ... Subsequent loads of any of the previous apps is SAME or even faster.

-chris

Um...wanna clarify which model applications load faster?

Second, keep in mind that doing the same action twice (reopening apps, or refreshing web pages, for instance) get a boost from data caching in RAM and elsewhere- MS-DOS had this way back when (Smartdrive?), so this isn't exactly surprising or groundbreaking tech.

 

[Doctor Q]

As expected, the SSD is slightly slower at sequential file writing

Please explain why this is expected.

 

[jonny]

I read somewhere that Macbook Airs were designed for the wives of rich men. Thought that was kind of funny. Nevertheless, I think it's a pretty cool product and given Apple's track record for having new models every year, it's a pretty exciting prospect that this is the first model. Imagine what they'll have next year. I mean. I wouldnt buy one of these models for my own use. But who know's what they'll be able to do next time.

 

[bxs]

I just came back from the store and they had both the 1.6 hd and the 1.8 ssd models.

Interesting side by side comparisons

Booting - 25 secs faster on ssd
Shutdowns - 10x faster on hd model. Weird???
Application Loads - initial loads 2x faster

Here is what blew me away ... Load multiple apps, safari, iTunes iPhoto etc ... Close all apps ... Subsequent loads of any of the previous apps is SAME or even faster.

This was surpises to even the apple employees. Based on my first impressions, I'm opting for the 1.8 with a hd and save a few dollars 🙂

-chris

The reason the App re-loads are SAME for the HDD and the SSD is that most of the Apps (if not all) are still in memory so there's no need to load from the HDD or SSD. The load times should be close to identical. This is an expected result and should not surprise anybody.

I just returned from Apple store where I was able to test/compare HDD vs. SSD stock models side by side for around 10 to 15 mins. I can tell you the SSD was much more responsive than the HDD model with just about anything I tried. The SSD model is much snappier and much more pleasing to operate with less wait times.

The MBA is incredibly light, has solid look/feel, torsionally stiff when held up at one corner, thin enough to slide into my folder sleeve in my brief case with ease, track pad enormous area, gestures work as advertised, keyboard feel was great, screen nice and bright, ambient light sensor and keyboard backlight worked well, looked far more professional than the MacBooks sitting along side them, wakeup speed of the SSD vs. HDD model was noticeably faster, easier to pickup as the front and side edges are raised up some from the underlying surface the MBA sits on allowing more of the fingers to reach under and grip, visually more exciting than MacBooks and the MacBook Pros - in fact the MacBooks and MacBook Pros look almost antique in comparison, screen has stops to avoid lid from straining the hinges (a good design as this is a constant issues with other laptops I've owned) and it was a joy to hold and carry about.

The MBA is simply an advance in workmanship, design, looks, ergonomics, energy saving, earth friendly and minimalist wrt needed ports. The USB, audio and Micro DVI along with bundled Micro DVI-to-DVI, Micro DVI-to-VGA and optional Micro DVI-to-Video should meet travelers needs well. I suspect the USB-to-ethernet will need to be purchased to cover non Hot Spot areas in hotels and the like.

If you're in the market for a laptop simply for travel or as a second Mac to add to the stable, and have a budget around what the top end MB with 2GB RAM would cost this MBA would be a sensible choice as a mobile and travelers delight.

 

[Deanster]

So, I tried a SSD MBA at the University Village Apple store today, and while it's the slowest Mac currently sold, for a wide variety of basic tasks - e-mail, Safari, iTunes, etc., it absolutely FELT like the fastest and most responsive Mac I've touched.

They didn't have an HD MBA to do side-by-side testing with, but the advantage in perceived responsiveness over my 2.4 Aluminum iMac was quite remarkable.

Now, I don't need my laptop to be the fastest machine I've ever touched, and I'm not going to drop $1000 on the upgrade, but I can totally understand how people might make that choice, which I didn't a couple hours ago.

Move me from the 'Expensive useless upgrade' camp to the 'Expensive very cool upgrade' camp.

And the MBA itself... feels like the laptop everyone wants. It may not be what you ACTUALLY want in the real world... giving up an optical drive, Firewire, and GigE is a BIG hit, but it's something approaching the absolute minimum form factor for a clamshell laptop with a 13" screen and full keyboard, and it's exactly the weight and size that's perfect for a mid-size laptop. It might not work for you, but it's hard not to want it too...

I'll be buying mine (base model, most likely) as soon as I can get my hands on it... it's pretty darn cool. I wish it had Firewire, though... Firewire disk mode is one of the best things Macs have that PC's don't, and giving it up is a bigger hit than optical or GigE...

 

[tinotopia]

The impression I was left with after about 15 minutes was that the SSD more than makes up for the relatively slow processor and small amount of RAM.

My regular computers are a 2x 3 GHz dual-core Mac Pro with 10 GB of RAM, and a week-one Core Duo 2.0 GHz MBP with 2 GB of RAM and a 5400 RPM 120 GB disk.

At the Apple Store, I launched all bunch of applications, rotated the Documents Folder PDF a few times (rotating that PDF is the killer demo of the MBAs at the store, as they were just taken out of the boxes and plugged in; the usual demo movies, pictures, etc. aren't there -- the store guys were rotating the hell out of that PDF), and dinked around with GarageBand a bit, as this was the biggest hog of the apps that were available to me.

The MBA with the iPod disk felt about as snappy as my old MBP (which is to say definitely usable, but not really snappy at all). The SSD model felt significantly faster than my Mac Pro.

I'm sure that this wouldn't be the case if I were editing video, or working on a large file in Photoshop. But the SSD speed difference is definitely and immediately noticeable. Having fast swap space available might go some way toward making up for having only 2GB of RAM.

 

[deathshrub]

Please explain why this is expected.

Because that's how flash memory works. Reading is faster than writing.

 

[scottamoulton]

SSD is based on NAND and you have to understand how it works

SSD has a controller for Bad Block Management and Wear Leveling Firmware, and those functions make it much different than a hard drive. The major issue is that any SSD drive larger than 256 Megs, the Sector Size it writes to the drive is much larger than it is on a hard drive. The Smallest Unit you can write on a real hard drive is 512bytes, but on a SSD the smallest Unit you can write is 2048 bytes. That makes a Sector 2k and is called a Page. However, you cannot erase a single sector when it is freed, it has to be erased in Blocks. A block is 64 x Sector. So when you move a file, change a file, etc you have to erase 128k and that is the smallest Erase Unit. On a hard drive the smallest erase unit is still 512bytes.

Once Data is written in the sector it cannot be changed AT ALL without an erase block occurring. So every single time you modify a file it is opened and written in to a new location. You cannot change a file in its own location like you can in a hard drive.

Once you start understanding 2+2 you can see why it is slow to write, fast to read. So when you shutdown if files have to be updated or you do a hibernation where it has to write out the whole 2 gigs of ram to the drive it will be very very slow.

Also since function on NAND are serial in control, you will see if you watch a movie, play a song, and copy new files to the same drive at the same time that you will start to see studdering (at least on all SSD's I have tried so far, but the MacAir has a new Samsung SSD), but I guess only time and testing will tell on this issue.

One other thing to take in to consideration is that wear leveling's purpose is to keep the erase cycles even across the entire drive, including the FAT tables. So the drive will move non-changing files around to more active locations. The drive then changes the the LBA pointer to the PBA location (meaning that you can not view the original sector because you have no idea where it is). This process is a slow process and can affect drive performance, but it has to move the fat table around even if it is a simple change like the access times on a file.

Well any ways, I hope that was informing and maybe would explain some of the numbers.

Scott Moulton

BTW: There is a speech at Shmoocon in DC on Feb 16th on this very topic and how SSD works.

 

[AidenShaw]

hey!

100 Mb/s would be quite pathetic. Fortunately, Ultra DMA mode 5 runs at 100 MB/s, that is eight times as fast as you say. (Mb = Megabit, MB = Megabyte).

That's my pedantic comment - knock it off! 🙂

And don't forget that "MiB = MebiByte".

 

[AidenShaw]

If you're in the market for a laptop simply for travel or as a second Mac to add to the stable, and have a budget around what the top end MB with 2GB RAM would cost this MBA would be a sensible choice as a mobile and travelers delight.

And you never are away from an electrical outlet for more than 3 hours (or you don't care if the battery goes dead on you until you can find an outlet)....

A real weak point, though, is the lack of a user-swappable battery so that one could carry a spare battery or two for the long flight or all-day meeting at a conference.

It's a shame when your laptop dies before lunch, and you can't simply swap a spare battery in and keep on going.

 

[bxs]

And you never are away from an electrical outlet for more than 3 hours (or you don't care if the battery goes dead on you until you can find an outlet)....

...but this is true for any laptop, and even if you had a spare battery then what do you do after 6 hrs prey tell me?

A real weak point, though, is the lack of a user-swappable battery so that one could carry a spare battery or two for the long flight or all-day meeting at a conference.

I would use my iPhone for movie watch on the long flight. 😀 ...and at conferences there's always a power strip so no worry there either. 😀

It's a shame when your laptop dies before lunch, and you can't simply swap a spare battery in and keep on going.

Not sure I follow you on this point. I'd rather eat my lunch. 😀

I've run about all day long with other laptops without having an extra battery and I get along just fine. I do not see any issue with the MBA having a battery that cannot be easily switched out for another. This is simply a non-issue for me.

 

[MacTheSpoon]

Don't you think 3d parties will make external batteries, for those who really need them?

 

[uNext]

I cant believe people are actually saying a 1.8 with ssd feels like a macpro lol
Jeez iwonder how my 2.6 mbp with dedicated memory and 4gb ram with 64 ssd (got cheap from dell) will feel. Well considering how some of you are saying the MBA feels like a pro then is safe to assume my computer is 2x the macpro.

 

[ViveLeLivre]

2.2ghz MacBook w/ Hitachi 200GB vs. 1.8ghz MacBook Air w/ 64GB SSD

I'll let the numbers speak for themselves. MBA figures in parentheses.

CPU Test 113.26 (99.61)
Thread Test 185.00 (134.99)
Memory Test 157.54 (148.00)
Quartz Graphics Test 171.20 (107.74)
User Interface Test 235.54 (113.53)
Disk Test 41.40 (47.26)

Sequential 71.63 (40.82)

Uncached Write 107.36 65.92 MB/sec [4K blocks] (20.83MB/s)
Uncached Write 105.57 59.73 MB/sec [256K blocks] (26.32MB/s)
Uncached Read 34.26 10.03 MB/sec [4K blocks] (7.97MB/s)
Uncached Read 127.12 63.89 MB/sec [256K blocks] (48.75MB/s)​

Random 29.11 (56.13)

Uncached Write 9.57 1.01 MB/sec [4K blocks] (2.23MB/s)
Uncached Write 90.98 29.13 MB/sec [256K blocks] (16.92MB/s)
Uncached Read 72.73 0.52 MB/sec [4K blocks] (7.02MB/s)
Uncached Read 123.05 22.83 MB/sec [256K blocks] (48.24MB/s) ​

Price as tested: $1446.00 ($2868.00) <-- Academic pricing, both systems. Did the Air a favor and didn't include tax.

Results	109.44	
	System Info		
		Xbench Version		1.3
		System Version		10.5.1 (9B18)
		Physical RAM		4096 MB
		Model		MacBook3,1
		Drive Type		Hitachi HTS722020K9SA00
	CPU Test	113.26	
		GCD Loop	259.62	13.69 Mops/sec
		Floating Point Basic	123.36	2.93 Gflop/sec
		vecLib FFT	73.91	2.44 Gflop/sec
		Floating Point Library	101.76	17.72 Mops/sec
	Thread Test	185.00	
		Computation	197.26	4.00 Mops/sec, 4 threads
		Lock Contention	174.18	7.49 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
	Memory Test	157.54	
		System	163.50	
			Allocate	249.85	917.55 Kalloc/sec
			Fill	134.78	6553.18 MB/sec
			Copy	144.36	2981.74 MB/sec
		Stream	152.00	
			Copy	142.54	2944.15 MB/sec
			Scale	142.73	2948.80 MB/sec
			Add	163.20	3476.48 MB/sec
			Triad	162.18	3469.47 MB/sec
	Quartz Graphics Test	171.20	
		Line	161.96	10.78 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
		Rectangle	210.23	62.76 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
		Circle	166.54	13.57 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
		Bezier	165.61	4.18 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
		Text	160.48	10.04 Kchars/sec
	User Interface Test	235.54	
		Elements	235.54	1.08 Krefresh/sec
	Disk Test	41.40	
		Sequential	71.63	
			Uncached Write	107.36	65.92 MB/sec [4K blocks]
			Uncached Write	105.57	59.73 MB/sec [256K blocks]
			Uncached Read	34.26	10.03 MB/sec [4K blocks]
			Uncached Read	127.12	63.89 MB/sec [256K blocks]
		Random	29.11	
			Uncached Write	9.57	1.01 MB/sec [4K blocks]
			Uncached Write	90.98	29.13 MB/sec [256K blocks]
			Uncached Read	72.73	0.52 MB/sec [4K blocks]
			Uncached Read	123.05	22.83 MB/sec [256K blocks]

 

[dual64bit]

Hahaha, that is interesting. It's certainly not being sold as the worlds fastest, thinest laptop. It's suppose to be thin, not fast. The ssd is saving some power, nothing more.

 

[Analog Kid]

Well any ways, I hope that was informing and maybe would explain some of the numbers.

Excellent summary, thank you for that.

---------------

This is pretty much what I would have expected. People have been way over hyped about Flash. Glad we're finally getting some numbers in to anchor the discussion. I would have liked independent tests across processors and then across drives, but I figure they'll come.

I think it's going to take a long time for the realities of SSDs to sink in. There are some applications where it will be absolutely invaluable, but for most people they're going to be expensive oddities for a while. You can't swing the results much more than testing against an iPod drive, and my reaction to the benchmarks is still pretty lukewarm. I can't help but think I'd get more of a benefit with $1000 of RAM and a big-ass disk buffer.

To those saying "you can't judge by benchmarks", let me just add that you can't tell by taking a brand new unit out of the box and opening every application on it twice either. To really get a sense of the difference, you need to have let the SSD get good and dirty from use and run some real world tests. And leave the caches on...

 

[Analog Kid]

I'll let the numbers speak for themselves. MBA figures in parentheses.

Do we have a numbers spokesperson out there? I'd like to know what the UI test is...

 

[ViveLeLivre]

Do we have a numbers spokesperson out there? I'd like to know what the UI test is...

When the test runs, it manipulates a small window w/ some various window elements (buttons, text boxes, etc), throws up some text in various font sizes and colors. It runs very quickly, less than 2 seconds tops, and I suspect performance in the test is a function of both processor and memory bus speed.

Score was a little higher this time: 266.72

 

[winterspan]

Macbook Airs SSD

Impressive although not quite the light years ahead of the hard drive that I was expecting it to be. I wonder if the SSD is limited by the ATA interface?

The Ultra ATA interface should easily be enough for the SSD. Although sequential writes on SSDs are usually slower than coresponding HDDs, it really depends on the exact model/manufacturer/SSD architecture.

Why does everyone think flash is so fast? It isn't. It's improving all the time, though.
Flash stands tall in the random read test because there is no "seeking" of a moving drive head.

For normal operations, the extremely quick seek speed of an SSD will definitely make it feel very fast. And it really seems that the read/write speed of
SSDs vary by a large margin depending on model and manufacturer,.

I just want to know when it will be commercially viable to buy 3.5 inch SSD drives for my Mac Pro - not only for the speed - but for the silence - it currently resonates with 4 drives spinning in sync.

And surely in 3.5" format we can expect massive speeds - I mean it is already rumoured a 3.5" 512GB drive can be 1000x faster than a 15000rpm SAS, so I'll take 4 and RAID 5 them please! They shouldn't cost too much, because if you compare laptop drives to desktop drives at the moment, you can get a 500GB for the price of a 160GB 2.5", so surely a 512GB 3.5" drive should work out just a tad more expensive than a 64GB 2.5"?

Hardrive pricing structure/dynamics does not translate into flash SSDs. With HDs, it's much easier and cheaper to scale capacity by using a 3.5" platter vs a 2.5" latter. With SSDs, they have to add more units of flash and other components causing the costs to scale faster than the capacity. There's no way in *** you'll see a 512GB 3.5" for relatively the same price as a 64GB 2.5". But eventually they'll be affordable. My guess would be $10/GB for large capacity SSDs in 3 years or so.

I don't know why anyone would py an extra thousand dollars for a small speed increase and 16Gb less space..

I don't know why anyone would make such a comment without having a good grasp on the issue. The "small speed increase" you refer to is actually LARGE when you take into consideration the normal disk activity of a person (lots of random reads and writes) and the strengths of SSDs (very fast seek speed for navigating between random data locations).

I'm not disappointed with the SSD that the Air uses. I understand that the costs involved can get pretty big, and I'm glad that Apple even decided to offer an SSD, and a 64GB one instead of a 32GB one. However, I think I've been spoiled by looking at all the announcments from the storage companies about their super fast SSDs.

I mean HOLY CRAP, Samsung announced their new SATA II 64GB SSDs that are BLAZING FAST:
SEQUENTIAL Write speed: 100MB/sec
SEQUENTIAL Read speed: 120MB/sec


You can get them in 1.8" and 2.5". I can't wait to throw one of these in a Macbook Air.

Here's some links:
http://www.dailytech.com/Samsung+Launches+Speedy+SATA+II+SSDs/article9537.htm
http://www.dailytech.com/BiTMICRO+Pumps+SSD+Capacities+to+832GB/article10232.htm
http://www.dailytech.com/Mtron+Rolls+Out+UltraFast+SSDs/article8713.htm
http://www.dailytech.com/SanDisk+Announces+64GB+SSDs/article7546.htm

 

[ccantrell]

The reason the App re-loads are SAME for the HDD and the SSD is that most of the Apps (if not all) are still in memory so there's no need to load from the HDD or SSD. The load times should be close to identical. This is an expected result and should not surprise anybody.

We killed the apps ... so no they were not running.

 

[bxs]

Excellent summary, thank you for that.

---------------

This is pretty much what I would have expected. People have been way over hyped about Flash. Glad we're finally getting some numbers in to anchor the discussion. I would have liked independent tests across processors and then across drives, but I figure they'll come.

I think it's going to take a long time for the realities of SSDs to sink in. There are some applications where it will be absolutely invaluable, but for most people they're going to be expensive oddities for a while. You can't swing the results much more than testing against an iPod drive, and my reaction to the benchmarks is still pretty lukewarm. I can't help but think I'd get more of a benefit with $1000 of RAM and a big-ass disk buffer.

To those saying "you can't judge by benchmarks", let me just add that you can't tell by taking a brand new unit out of the box and opening every application on it twice either. To really get a sense of the difference, you need to have let the SSD get good and dirty from use and run some real world tests. And leave the caches on...

The sensible comparison of HDD vs. SSD is to compare the MBA's HDD vs. SSD with no other computer in the mix. Comparing the MBA with any other non MB (and this includes the MBP) is really quite silly unless one simply wants to see what the difference is.

Putting cost aside as there's no way around this because 64GB SSD cost what it cost today.

The question for many is what benefits does the SSD have over the HDD in the MBA. Much of the benefits have already been posted here and I'm sure there will more to come both +ive and -ive ones at that. 😉

 

[dgdosen]

I'll agree...

Shutdowns - 10x faster on hd model. Weird???

I agree this is weird, but true. I was in the store, and we rebooted the MBA with SSD, and it too forever to shut down. What's up with that?

 

[bxs]

We killed the apps ... so no they were not running.

When you kill the Apps their memory images are still left in memory unless kernel requires their memory pages for other reasons. So your re-loads of same Apps will not require HDD/SSD accessing or if there is some it will be minimal.