MacBook Air with SSD tested: performance boost nowhere to be found

We've definitely been curious about the difference sticking an SSD would make in the MacBook Air's otherwise average performance and battery life, and it looks like the answer is a resounding "meh." The crew at Ars Technica ran an SSD-equipped Air through a battery of tests, and found that while the increased random disk read / write speeds and slightly faster processor led to a minor overall speedup and less pinwheeling, the dramatically lower sequential read/ write speeds of the SSD made things essentially a wash. What's worse, battery life -- where the SSD should have shone -- was decidedly mediocre. Ars was able to coax the SSD model in to lasting 29 minutes longer than the HDD version they tested, but on average the SSD-equipped MBA didn't have the juice to last any longer than the HDD model, getting to about 2 hours and 31 minutes before petering out. All said, Ars says the extra $1300 for the SSD MacBook Air just isn't worth it -- but c'mon, you know that's not stopping the people who are buying Airs in the first place.

[Via Digg]

[Chris @ Feb 6th 2008 4:20PM]

Its cool and all but a macbook just fits my needs better. But hey the air does fit inside a manila envelope.(without an optical drive)

[ryan @ Feb 6th 2008 5:04PM]

So does the MacBook, actually.

[eliot1785 @ Feb 6th 2008 6:10PM]

FYI guys, speed isn't the only reason you'd want SSD. You might also want it because it reduces the risk of physical problems with your hard drive.

[Joey Geraci @ Feb 6th 2008 7:00PM]

Again, eliot, a wash. While the drive might be technically more resistant to physical damage, the user has to deal with corrupted sectors and wear on the flash cells isn't an issue with a normal flash drive.

[bobartig @ Feb 6th 2008 7:12PM]

@Joey: That was an issue with flash memory a long time ago, but modern flash memory has enough rewrite cycles to it that their MTBF is better than platter based media by a factor of years.

Of course, the $1000 difference in price buys you a lot of redundant platter-based storage, so by cost analysis, you still can't win with the SSD's yet.

[Shannin @ Feb 6th 2008 4:21PM]

$1300?
lets try $1000.
(you can "ugrade" to SSD without upgrading the processor.)

[LegendZ28 @ Feb 6th 2008 4:37PM]

OH, Well in THAT case...

[jamma @ Feb 6th 2008 5:12PM]

I think they also mean that even the low end 80GB HDD model is $1300 too expensive

Considering what you're getting (or more importantly, NOT getting), $500 is a much more reasonable price.

[Abuzar @ Feb 6th 2008 10:19PM]

Sorry, replied to the wrong comment.

[Markus @ Feb 6th 2008 10:31PM]

LegendZ28's reply is still killing me.

[DutchGuy @ Feb 6th 2008 4:21PM]

Meh. A glorified ipod with a keyboard. Meh.

[aguiluz @ Feb 6th 2008 4:24PM]

Personally...

I don't like Apple, but I love an Apple.

[Zak @ Feb 6th 2008 5:09PM]

So... you really don't know the difference between an iPod and a computer?

[Ty @ Feb 6th 2008 5:19PM]

Zak got you there! He's questioning your intelligence look out!

[jamma @ Feb 6th 2008 5:20PM]

Zak, the guy's got a point

iPod Touch: iPod + web browser + email, notes, maps, calender contacts,e.t.c +(soon) 3rd Party apps; using multi-touch Screen

MBA: iPod + web browser + email + notes, maps, calender contacts,e.t.c + 3rd party apps; using keyboard and multi touch trackpad

ipod: cannot replace battery
MBA : cannot replace battery

ipod: needs another computer to import CDs/DVDs
MBA : needs another computer to import CDs/DVDs

iPod: one USB port (obviously)
MBA : one USB port

[Derbeste @ Feb 6th 2008 5:21PM]

Zak

Yes we know the difference between an iPod and a computer.....

A computer is glorified. He didn't make that clear enough? O.o

[aguiluz @ Feb 6th 2008 5:43PM]

Okay, revelation.

I don't like Apple products, but I like eating apples, which explains my odd comment.

[bobartig @ Feb 6th 2008 7:41PM]

He don't have much of a point... point-less, one might even say.

iPod Touch: 4" 480x320 screen
MBA: 13.3" 1280x800 LED screen

iPod Touch: No physical keyboard
MBA: Full sized backlit keyboard

iPod Touch: No second display support
MBA: micro DVI, supporting second display at 1920x1200

iPod Touch: ~600 MHz ARM processor
MBA: 1.6-1.8 GHz Core2Duo

iPod Touch: NO USB port, you cannot connect a USB peripheral.
MBA: 1 USB port

iPod Touch: No possible optical media support
MBA: Optional Superdrive, or Remote Disc access.

iPod Touch: No filesystem access, or document handling.
MBA: Filesystem access, and document handling.

iPod Touch: Doesn't run Windows.
MBA: Runs Windows

iPod Touch: Needs a computer to sync content, CDs, DVDs.
MBA: Does not need a computer to sync content, CDs, DVDs

iPod Touch: Runs no Mac OS X applications, cannot use Rosetta.
MBA: Runs 10,000s of Mac OS X applications, many through Rosetta.

iPod Touch: No iSight.
MBA: Built in iSight.

iPod Touch: iPod dock connector.
MBA: No iPod dock connector.

[jakem @ Feb 6th 2008 4:21PM]

Way to spin a bad review Engadget. Also, why link to Digg rather than Ars Technica?

[JAmerican @ Feb 6th 2008 4:38PM]

Because they got the tip form Digg. So skipping your first source is just wrong. It's called giving credit.

JAmerican

[insertAlias @ Feb 6th 2008 5:03PM]

Also, if you click the read link or even the picture, it takes you straight to Ars. And that so-called "spin" is an editorial observation, and a good one at that. They aren't trying to convince you that it isn't bad news.

[Ireland @ Feb 6th 2008 5:33PM]

If you click the "image" it brings you to Ars

[Uchiha Sasuke @ Feb 6th 2008 4:22PM]

"medicore?" thank you come again!

[aguiluz @ Feb 6th 2008 4:23PM]

Weak performance. Expensive. Incompatible. (Refers to Superdrive)

*yawn* For the price I would get a big laptop instead. I don't like ultraportables and I can bear the weight of a big laptop everyday, anyway. Plus, the big 'tops don't carry the Apple sign.

I don't like Apple, but I love an Apple.

[Zak @ Feb 6th 2008 5:14PM]

So what you're saying is that you want a more fully featured laptop. So why do you even care how it performs? As has been pointed out thousands of times now, the Air is aimed at a pretty small niche, people who want a 13" ultraportable (which is basically what it is). That doesn't mean the Air sucks, it means that you'd rather get something else. See the difference?

[Derbeste @ Feb 6th 2008 5:24PM]

It's ALMOST like the word "sucks" is subjective.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm....................

[Zak @ Feb 6th 2008 5:37PM]

It's ALMOST like he said he doesn't want an ultraportable at all, and dislikes the Air because it doesn't have all the features of a big laptop, which is stupid and completely misses the point.

Oh wait no, it's EXACTLY like that.

[TheAngryPirate @ Feb 6th 2008 5:40PM]

'13" ultraportable'

Oxymoron?

[Zak @ Feb 6th 2008 5:52PM]

I don't know, has there ever been a 13" computer as light and thin as the Air? No, there hasn't been. So it embodies all the qualities of an ultraportable except the width. Right? So why wouldn't 13" Ultraportable be an accurate description?

[Skullfighter @ Feb 6th 2008 6:18PM]

@ Zak
It's called the Sony TZ. It's got these crazy things called "Features". Still trying to figure out what to do with them... :-)

[Zak @ Feb 6th 2008 6:37PM]

@ skullfighter - Good LORD you fanboys are bad at reading. Hey which model TZ has a 13" screen? Oh right - none of them. That was really my point in its entirety. Oh and they're also $400 more than an Air, so you pay more AND you get a smaller screen! Awesome! Oh but that's only if you get the absolute cheapest one you can buy. You can also pay upwards of $3500 for one. And did I mention that the TZs are much, MUCH slower? It's also thicker than the Air, despite the fact that Sony calls it an "ultraportable".

So the TZ is thicker than an Air, and yet it's an ultraportable and the Air isn't. Sure, that makes perfect sense. Really.

[Chris @ Feb 6th 2008 9:14PM]

its pretty funny seeing Zak calling someone a fanboy, he seems to be one of the bigger apple fanboys on here

[Skullfighter @ Feb 7th 2008 12:34AM]

@Zak

Lol. You're right. It's not as thin. It's .1 inches thicker. Oh god forgive the lies that comes from my mouth.

**Wicked Grin**

[Jon @ Feb 7th 2008 3:47AM]

@Zak, Sony X505 released four years ago, as thin as MBA with removable battery to boot.

[MrFuNKy76 @ Feb 6th 2008 4:23PM]

While Apple's stuff is on the expensive side, and I do love my MBP (refurb) and iPhone, that thing is absurdly expensive, especially with a SDD, unless you've got tons of money to burn. As of late the two biggest failures I see was Apple's Mighty Mouse, which I find to be a horrid input device and now this Macbook Air. I know Apple charges higher prices and many people like the "exclusivity" of owning a mac I suppose but anyone who buys this thing IMO need their head examined.

[Mr Lizard @ Feb 6th 2008 5:26PM]

'McFunky'

"anyone who buys this thing IMO need their head examined."

I guess you're not in the target market for this then. There are plenty of sub-notebooks out there without optical drives. The Air is just another one of them. What's more, price-wise, it's comparable. Why exactly would someone need their head examined?

[Ty @ Feb 6th 2008 6:19PM]

CLEARLY THE LAPTOP IS NOT FOR YOU. Somehow I doubt the people that purchased a MacBook Air on release are clinically insane. They probably:

1) Are fanboys or fangirls
2) Have other computers and feel the MBA fills some gap in their collection.
2) Have enough money to afford it. (I just ordered a $600 RAID card for my workstation at home rather than using on-board RAID. My mom would probably think I'm crazy if she knew. Am I actually crazy?)
3) Consider the style of the MBA to add value to the device
4) Consider the low weight of the MBA to add value to the device
5) Don't spend hours of days on the internets debating about Apple producs, or researching what competition is out there.
6) Watch commercials.

In summary: You != Everyone Else.

[Ty @ Feb 6th 2008 6:20PM]

Oops I used (2) twice!

[bill g @ Feb 6th 2008 10:29PM]

While Apple's stuff is on the expensive side, and I do love my MBP (refurb) and iPhone, that thing is absurdly expensive, especially with a SDD, unless you've got tons of money to burn. As of late the two biggest failures I see was Apple's Mighty Mouse, which I find to be a horrid input device and now this Macbook Air. I know Apple charges higher prices and many people like the "exclusivity" of owning a mac I suppose but anyone who buys this thing IMO need their head examined.



right on man.... right on

[Cahlito @ Feb 6th 2008 4:23PM]

well the read link takes you to Ars Technica.

[Michael @ Feb 6th 2008 4:26PM]

After first clicking on the Digg link, and then on their Ars Technica link, I saw the comparo chart between the two MB Airs.


On the hard drive version, 4200 rpm is to be expected..but PATA?

I figured everything in new computers nowadays would be SATA. Does this make a difference in the read/write speeds of such a slow-spinning hdd?

[Frangible @ Feb 6th 2008 4:29PM]

I did some research on this when SSDs became available (in Sony notebooks), to see if it'd be worth buying one for my Fujitsu which has a slow 4200rpm hard drive.

Basically, if you do the math on power consumption, the hard drive accounts for a minority of a notebook's power use, and thus no matter how efficient you make it, it wasn't using all that much to begin with.

The slight advantages of marginally better power consumption and faster random access speeds did not seem worth the cost and loss of storage capacity to me. But to each their own. For some people the random speeds may be important, and that extra battery life worth the difference. Or perhaps you could be using it in an adverse environment and need the shock resistance. But for most of us, I suspect we'll stick with the cheaper and higher capacity HDD option for a while longer.

[Superprime @ Feb 6th 2008 4:39PM]

There's also shock resistance to consider

[Mr. Picklesworth @ Feb 6th 2008 7:43PM]

Knowing Apple, and considering the compromises already taken to make this thing so thin, something tells me the MBA won't withstand much of a shock - solid state drive or not.

[JLTate @ Feb 6th 2008 10:39PM]

Amdahl's Law ftw!

[John Bailey @ Feb 7th 2008 1:39AM]

The air doesn't have to withstand impact. Apple have carefully designed the Air to be aerodynamically protected. When it falls off it's velvet cushion, it gently floats down to the carpet and comes to rest in a nonchalant position.

[Eric @ Feb 7th 2008 12:05PM]

The other thing to consider about battery life is that we're comparing a flash drive to a 1.8" 4200 rpm drive - the same kind of drive that's used in iPods. The 1.8" drives are already very energy efficient.

[JAmerican @ Feb 6th 2008 4:35PM]

For the price, I'd rather get a Panasonic Let's Note R6. Better Batt life, smaller size.

[surfwax95 @ Feb 6th 2008 4:40PM]

I'm a huge Apple fan (not quite a fanboy), but Apple *always* over-exaggerates, embellishes, and flat-out lies about their battery life.

I remember when I bought my 1.67 Powerbook. Claimed 5 hours battery life, but in actuality I've never had it live for more than 3.

Annoying.

[Anoldcarsnickname @ Feb 6th 2008 5:10PM]

I actually do get around 5 hours of batterylife on my Macbook Pro if I use it on the lowest brightness settings, with wifi off and reading pdf documents + typing in iWork.

So, it is possible, but I use my laptop to watch movies when I'm on battery power, which makes it around 3 hours tops.