SSD Random Read/Write Speed Survey

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Thiol, May 12, 2009.

  1. Thiol macrumors 6502a

    Thiol

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    #1
    Hi all. There's been a large emphasis on the sequential read/write speeds of SSDs, but in many day-to-day usage patterns, the random read/write speeds are a better benchmark of performance. I'd like to make a chart summarizing all the different SSDs out there and available. But I need your help. Can those of you with SSDs run a benchmark and report the numbers here so that I can compile everything? Here are the steps:

    1. Download Xbench 1.3 at http://www.xbench.com/.
    2. Open the program and run the "Disk Test" for your SSD drive.
    3. Note the numbers under the Random test, for all four parameters of small and large writes and reads.
    4. Repeat the test a second time to make sure that the numbers do not change. Accept the second test if the values are <10% different from the first test.
    5. Screen capture the window by holding down command and shift and 4 and the spacebar. Click on the result window and that will save as a png file on the desktop; the default is Picture 1.png.
    6. Report the values here with by attaching the screenshot of the result window. This will give us other needed information like computer and SSD model.

    I realize that there are weaknesses to this survey. Xbench is only one benchmark. SSD speeds will vary based on usage. Etc. In the end, however, the variability should be sufficiently small that I think we'll be able to compare different SSDs well.

    I'm going to get us started by posting my results with an Intel X-25M on a previous generation MacBook Pro. Ironically, my result will probably get thrown out because the SATA 1.5 GB interface actually limits the SSD read speed...

    Thanks in advance!
     

    Attached Files:

  2. JtheLemur macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    #2
    MacBook Pro, 2.93GHz C2D, 4GB RAM, Apple-provided Toshiba 256GB SSD. Shoot me in the head, 54.11.

    For comparison, an older MacBook, 2GHz C2D, 2GB RAM, gets 35.83.

    While I didn't buy the SSD expecting it to be a speed demon…*the bigger, biggest problem is that this drive can't handle multiple operations. The drives sloooows to a crawl, bringing the system with it. To really appreciate how dreadful it is you'd need to see it in person, no words can describe the experience.

    Based on my experience with my old Air, which had the 64GB SSD, *this* drive is exponentially worse. Not necessarily on a raw performance basis, but the ability for the drive and/or the interface to handle the load. The Air would slow down uniformly but remain responsive - THIS machine takes a nose dive!

    I don't know what to do with it. May pick up a cheap 320GB HDD to use while I try to exchange the SSD for a new one. Figure maybe something wrong. If it's the same experience with a new one, I'll promptly flip the hell out at the *epic* waste of money this drive is.
     

    Attached Files:

  3. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
  4. bugout macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Location:
    is everything!
    #4
    have fun - new one first..

    [​IMG]

    and the older one..

    [​IMG]
     
  5. bcaslis macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    #5
    What's the difference between your older and newer one? Are they both the X25-M?
     
  6. bugout macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Location:
    is everything!
    #6
    I'd hate to sound like cap't obvious here, but did you look under the system info? :)

    The older one is an Early 08 MBP 2.5 with an OCZ Vertex.
     
  7. bcaslis macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    #7
    Doh! You're right, sorry temporary blindness. :eek:
     
  8. rbmclaughlin macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    #8
    I'm running a 15inch UMBP 2.66, with 8GB ram, and a corsair (rebadged samsung) 256gb ssd.
     

    Attached Files:

  9. samiznaetekto macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    #9
    300.40 - Crucial 128GB on MPB i7 17" 8GB
     

    Attached Files:

  10. MotherFinMike macrumors 6502

    MotherFinMike

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Location:
    San Diego California
  11. MBHockey macrumors 68040

    MBHockey

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #11
    :eek:

    wow, are your sure that's an SSD?
     
  12. bobm macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    #12
    2010 MBP 13 8G 512G ssd

    I get numbers that vary depending on the time of day (it seems).

    Here is just the disk test, I have firefox and parallels running but parallels is paused.

    Results 259.31
    System Info
    Xbench Version 1.3
    System Version 10.6.3 (10D2125)
    Physical RAM 8192 MB
    Model MacBookPro7,1
    Drive Type APPLE SSD TS512B
    Disk Test 259.31
    Sequential 177.74
    Uncached Write 267.63 164.32 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Write 297.02 168.05 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Uncached Read 79.21 23.18 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Read 360.10 180.98 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Random 479.28
    Uncached Write 273.70 28.97 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Write 400.99 128.37 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Uncached Read 1539.40 10.91 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Read 645.66 119.81 MB/sec [256K blocks]
     
  13. MacBird macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    #13
    I have the same SSD on a 2.53 uMBP with 4GB and Snow Leopard and get 205.
     

    Attached Files:

  14. JoshGlzBrk macrumors 6502a

    JoshGlzBrk

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2009
    #14
    This is with my new 15" i7, 256GB SSD (Apple's Toshiba)

    [​IMG]
     
  15. JoshGlzBrk macrumors 6502a

    JoshGlzBrk

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2009
    #15
    You didn't even run the disk test...
     
  16. MacBird macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    #16
    Actually, I did. ;) I'm wondering if the difference is due to SL.
     

    Attached Files:

  17. jhajduk macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
  18. PaulDCarlucci macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #18
    Folks who are putting up the numbers for the 2010 MBPs with Apple SSDs... try filling up your drive with crap and useless junk and then rerun. It looks like those things might be crawling after they've got a bit of grime under their nails.

    I'm 90% sure I'm going to just get a mechanical drive and then wait for the 3rd Gen Intels. Seeing that score at the top pretty much pushed me over the edge.
     
  19. expost macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #19
    Now we are talking, thanks to everybody for hard data (whatever hard is with benchmarks)!
    I'd like to second PaulDCarlucci, THIS is the most interesting figure everybody in the market for Apple SSDs should ask. Would be great!
     
  20. spooky69 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2010
    #20
    The performance degradation over time is what I am interested in. With Snow Leopard not having any TRIM it seems that all drives will degrade more than they should. It will be interesting to see which drives degrade slowest but surely OSX should have TRIM by now given that they are supplying SSDs and have been doing so for some time? I wonder if we are any closer to being able to get an SSD at a reasonable price that OSX can actually manage as it should?

    EDIT:
    I am also interested in whether or not the new MBP still has the 1.5Gb SATA interface limit, as this will surely mean that the performance of the drive is limited?
     
  21. MBHockey macrumors 68040

    MBHockey

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    New York
  22. spooky69 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2010
    #22
    So by 'also' you are saying that they are still limited to 1.5Gb? I thought they were a 3Gb interface but limited to 1.5Gb?
     
  23. c:v macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    #23
    Results 285.43
    System Info
    Xbench Version 1.3
    System Version 10.6.3 (10D578)
    Physical RAM 4096 MB
    Model MacBookPro5,5
    Drive Type OCZ-VERTEX
    Disk Test 285.43
    Sequential 240.81
    Uncached Write 252.75 155.19 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Write 298.42 168.85 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Uncached Read 142.47 41.69 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Read 437.84 220.05 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Random 350.33
    Uncached Write 123.48 13.07 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Write 550.99 176.39 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Uncached Read 2497.97 17.70 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Read 905.84 168.09 MB/sec [256K blocks]
     
  24. Mark Booth macrumors 65816

    Mark Booth

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #24
    FWIW, my friend Robert Morgan at barefeats.com suggests that XBench is a bit long in tooth and recommends using QuickBench 4 instead. He feels that QuickBench 4 is better suited for such comparison testing.

    Mark
     
  25. stjohnswell macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    #25
    Did you run the test?
     

Share This Page