More SSD and HDD Comparisons and Testing Methodology

[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

 

[winterspan]

It Totally Depends on the SSD Model!

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

 

[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]

MacBook Air is much faster with SSD

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.