SSD Performance

Last year's MacBook Air was the first Mac to ship without a mechanical hard drive or an option to install one. Using a custom form factor, Apple partnered with Toshiba (and later Samsung) to build value SSDs for the MacBook Air line.

Although Apple has tested solutions from Intel, Marvell and SandForce, to date it hasn't opted to ship any of them to market. Toshiba and Samsung offer much better pricing and don't mind being silent members of the supply chain. There are also reliability benefits. While Toshiba and Samsung may not perform as well as the aforementioned controller makers, they've definitely had fewer issues.

My 13 had a Toshiba based drive while my 11 had a Samsung drive. You can tell what controller you have by looking at the model string in a System Report from your machine. The SM prefix indicates a Samsung drive while the TS indicates Toshiba:

Both controllers are limited to 3Gbps operation (neither company has released a 6Gbps controller) but performance does vary pretty significantly between the two:

2011 MacBook Air SSD Performance Comparison
  4KB Random Read (QD3) 4KB Write Read (8GB LBA Space QD3)  128KB Sequential Write 128KB Sequential Read
13-inch MacBook Air (Mid 2011) - Toshiba SSD 18 MB/s 1.65 MB/s 204.2 MB/s 189.5 MB/s
11-inch MacBook Air (Mid 2011) - Samsung SSD 44.6 MB/s 27.2 MB/s 258.0 MB/s 234.4 MB/s
11-inch MacBook Air (Late 2010) - Toshiba SSD 31.1 MB/s 2.49 MB/s 147.0 MB/s 113.0 MB/s

The Samsung drive has much better random and sequential performance, maxing out the 3Gbps interface when it comes to sequential reads.

In regular use I doubt you'd notice a huge performance difference between the two, but if you want the fastest drive you want the Samsung. Compared to last year's MacBook Air (Toshiba) you get a huge boost in sequential read/write performance.

Both drives support TRIM under OS X.

WiFi

Unlike other members of the 2011 Mac family, the MacBook Air retains a WLAN stack with 2 receive and 2 transmit antennas via the Broadcom BCM4322. The WLAN solution in the Air is capable of up to two simultaneous spatial streams, topping out at 270Mbps.

In practice this results in peak performance over 802.11n at around 128.8Mbps. Testing at the same distance I tested the MacBook Pro and iMac at, the results drop to 116.8Mbps.

802.11n Network Performance Comparison
  27-inch iMac (Mid 2011) 15-inch MacBook Pro (Early 2011) 13-inch MacBook Air (Mid 2011) 11-inch MacBook Air (Mid 2011)
Peak Network Transfer Speed 150Mbps 133Mbps 116.8Mbps 116.8Mbps

The new Air also supports Bluetooth Low Energy, although without any Bluetooth LE devices on hand I was unable to test the feature.

The Display: Better than Most, Not as Good as the Pro CPU Performance: A Huge Upgrade
POST A COMMENT

115 Comments

View All Comments

  • djpavcy - Thursday, July 28, 2011 - link

    In your "2011 MacBook Air Lineup" table the "Cores/Threads" and "Base Clock Speed" categories are messed up.

    Excellent review btw
    Reply
  • apinkel - Thursday, July 28, 2011 - link

    Thanks for the review. I am very interested in the 13" MBA as it's the only ultraportable I can find that has what I consider to be the ideal resolution for a laptop display with good performance and battery life (the thinkpad x301 is a close second but there's too much of a performance sacrifce there although I prefer the ports and features on the x301).

    I need a windows machine... I'm just trying to find out if the MBA is a good windows only machine. I hear conflicting reports on this... I'm sure you guys are busy but if you find the time I'd love to hear your thoughts on using a MBA as windows only.
    Reply
  • setzer - Thursday, July 28, 2011 - link

    Hi Anand, you have a small typo on the specifications table:

    Base Clock Speed Intel HD 3000
    Reply
  • check - Thursday, July 28, 2011 - link

    From Page 4:
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/4528/the-2011-macboo...
    "Apple has sold a USB 10/100 Ethernet dongle in the past for MacBook Air owners, but these days you can get better performance over good WiFi than you can from 100Mbps Ethernet"

    I would like to see some testing that substantiates this claim.

    In my experience traditional 802.11a/b/g/n can't sustain speeds anywhere near what a 100Mbit wired connection can do. Not to mention that if you are running WPA or any other encryption you take a substantial bandwidth hit.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, July 28, 2011 - link

    With a good router and WiFi card, and if you're in relatively close proximity to the router, 802.11n can definitely outperform 100Mbit Ethernet. If you're on the other side of the house, it will be slower, but then you'd have to run a 150 foot Ethernet cable. Now, Gigabit Ethernet is in a league of its own compared to WiFi, but we already knew that. Reply
  • Penti - Wednesday, August 10, 2011 - link

    Just attach a 10GbE adapter to it then :) Thunderbolt does suppport this kind of expansion. Reply
  • Uritziel - Thursday, July 28, 2011 - link

    It's not really necessary to substantiate a claim that an up-to-450Mbps standard "can get better performance" over a 100Mbps standard :\ Reply
  • Silenus - Thursday, July 28, 2011 - link

    Did you read the the rest of the review? This WAS tested. See the SSD and WiFi performance section:
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/4528/the-2011-macboo...

    Both the 11 and 13 topped 116Mb transfers. 15 Macbook Pro and recent iMac did even better.
    Reply
  • lyeoh - Thursday, July 28, 2011 - link

    1) That's peak speed.
    2) That's probably for only one WiFi user with a good zero interference connection to the AP. Add another WiFi user (or ten ;) ) and the speed will drop.

    Some (not all) APs also slow down everyone if a WiFi B/G user connects.
    Reply
  • A5 - Thursday, July 28, 2011 - link

    You're also not going to hit line speed on 100 Mbps networks without an optimal set of conditions. For everyday use (even with multiple users, etc), 802.11n is good enough and far easier to install a new network than 100 Mbps wired Ethernet.

    If you're doing a lot of the large file transfers or movie streaming, consider installing a Gigabit network though.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now