MacBook Air 1.6Ghz HDD vs 1.8Ghz SSD Benchmarks
Many readers are reporting shipments and delivery in our MacBook Air forum. First impressions and notes of the MacBook Air are being compiled in this thread.
Few head to head comparisons between the Solid State Drive (SSD) and Hard Disk Drive (HDD) versions of the MacBook Air have yet been posted, but one reader (Ben Drawbaugh) did run Xbench 1.3 on the Apple Store's demo 1.8GHz SSD model. We've compiled those results along with earlier 1.6GHz HDD benchmarks in the following table.
Overall, the results of the 1.8Ghz SSD are as expected. The 1.8GHz processor gives a small boost in CPU performance. The SSD option, however, gives the most dramatic speed increases in non-sequential file reading since there is no physical drive head to move. As expected, the SSD is slightly slower at sequential file writing, but the low seek time makes up for this when performing non-sequential writes.
Typical examples of "sequential" writes and reads are when you are loading a very large file into memory or saving it out to the drive. Non-sequential reads/writes are more common when accessing a number of different small files that may be scattered across the drive (such as booting).
A traditional hard drive has a spinning platter over which the "head" moves. In order to access different files, the head may have to physically move to reach the file. The time it takes to physical move the head contributes to the seek time. SSD drives are closer to RAM and have no physical parts to move when accessing.
(Larger numbers faster)
The SSD MacBook Air is also expected to offer a better battery life than the HDD version, though the magnitude of this effect is unknown. The SSD upgrade is a $999 option in the MacBook Air.
Few head to head comparisons between the Solid State Drive (SSD) and Hard Disk Drive (HDD) versions of the MacBook Air have yet been posted, but one reader (Ben Drawbaugh) did run Xbench 1.3 on the Apple Store's demo 1.8GHz SSD model. We've compiled those results along with earlier 1.6GHz HDD benchmarks in the following table.
Overall, the results of the 1.8Ghz SSD are as expected. The 1.8GHz processor gives a small boost in CPU performance. The SSD option, however, gives the most dramatic speed increases in non-sequential file reading since there is no physical drive head to move. As expected, the SSD is slightly slower at sequential file writing, but the low seek time makes up for this when performing non-sequential writes.
Typical examples of "sequential" writes and reads are when you are loading a very large file into memory or saving it out to the drive. Non-sequential reads/writes are more common when accessing a number of different small files that may be scattered across the drive (such as booting).
A traditional hard drive has a spinning platter over which the "head" moves. In order to access different files, the head may have to physically move to reach the file. The time it takes to physical move the head contributes to the seek time. SSD drives are closer to RAM and have no physical parts to move when accessing.
| MacBook Air | 1.6GHz HDD | 1.8GHz SSD | |
| CPU | 79.98 | 99.61 | |
| Thread Test | 148.81 | 134.99 | |
| Memory Test | 140.42 | 148.00 | |
| Quartz Graphics Test | 96.89 | 107.74 | |
| Open GL | 17.26 | 18.27 | |
| User Interface | 105.81 | 113.53 | |
| Disk Test | 24.05 | 47.26 | |
| Sequential | 42.21 | 40.82 | |
| Uncached Write | 30.96 MB/s | 20.83 MB/s | [4K blocks] |
| Uncached Write | 31.19 MB/s | 26.32 MB/s | [256K blocks] |
| Uncached Read | 7.27 MB/s | 7.97 MB/s | [4K blocks] |
| Uncached Read | 30.42 MB/s | 48.75 MB/s | [256K blocks] |
| Random | 16.81 | 56.13 | |
| Uncached Write | 0.57 MB/s | 2.23 MB/sec | [4K blocks] |
| Uncached Write | 18.35 MB/s | 16.92 MB/s | [256K blocks] |
| Uncached Read | 0.35 MB/s | 7.02 MB/s | [4K blocks] |
| Uncached Read | 13.28 MB/s | 48.24 MB/s | [256K blocks] |
(Larger numbers faster)
The SSD MacBook Air is also expected to offer a better battery life than the HDD version, though the magnitude of this effect is unknown. The SSD upgrade is a $999 option in the MacBook Air.
Top Rated Comments
(View all)52 months ago
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?
52 months ago
Be interesting to see the effect on battery life. I think overall that is going to be more important to mobile users. Someone who requires high disk performance is not going to be using an Air.
That said, even if it extended the battery life by an hour (which it wont) its a large price to pay. I dont expect them to sell many. The traditional disk is a much better option.
That said, even if it extended the battery life by an hour (which it wont) its a large price to pay. I dont expect them to sell many. The traditional disk is a much better option.
52 months ago
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.
Flash stands tall in the random read test because there is no "seeking" of a moving drive head.
52 months ago
Well that sells me. I'll be getting the hdd option and upgrading the drive later myself.
52 months ago
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.
And in real world use of a Dell, Sony, and today the MBA with SSD, I can tell you for normal use the difference is remarkable.
Benchmarks are interesting, but they don't really tell the whole story. Random small reads are something most users do a LOT of. Which is why the SSDs feel so fast in actual use.
52 months ago
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?
Well, I don't think the numbers really say it all. I mean, you have to weight it. What do you do most of the time? Sequential reading is a fairly rare occurrence. As is booting it up, I don't think I would care about that, because I do it only a few times a month, if even that. What happens a lot is accessing all kinds of random files all over your hard drive, like when you load an application. From what I have read, the start up time difference is dramatic.
It is too bad that the sequential write rate is so low, but everything else, to me, is gold, particularly the part where non-sequential reading is almost entirely as fast as sequential. That is amazing, and I would say that is light years ahead of a disk with a 7-12 ms seek time.
52 months ago
I am not an xbench expert but I am surprised by these low scores even for the SDD. I played with a SDD today at a mac store and applications were launching in one bounce, it subjectively felt very very fast. Faster on launch than my mac pro which scores a 60.1. What am I missing?
52 months ago
Question is... "Would you really like to pay $1,000 for it?" :D
I wonder how many would. :rolleyes:
Cheers! :apple:
I wonder how many would. :rolleyes:
Cheers! :apple:
[ Read All Comments ]

As the Mac becomes more popular, the arrival of A-List titles to the platform is beginning to become a more common occurrence. The latest top-shelf game to hit the Mac is Id Software's RAGE,...
One year ago today, News Corp. launched its iPad-only newspaper called The Daily. It was the first app to take advantage of the "In-App Subscription" feature that Apple launched the same...
As noted by 9to5Mac, Apple today began seeding Safari 5.1.4 to developers for testing, signaling the next round of improvements for Apple's browser software. Safari 5.1.4 is available in...
MCV reports (via The Next Web) that Apple has nabbed yet another gaming PR executive, this time hiring Microsoft's European chief of Xbox Live marketing Robin Burrowes to oversee App Store...