Solid-State MacBook Air: Worth the Extra $1,300?

Wed Feb 6, 2008 3:33PM EST

See Comments (10)

The solid-state version of the svelte MacBook Air promises speedier performance and longer battery life than the hard drive-based model—or at least you'd hope so, given the $1,300 premium over the $1,800 base price. But the initial test results are in, and the benefits look marginal, at best.

The gearheads at Ars Technica put the screws to both versions of the MacBook Air: the 1.6GHz version with a 1.8-inch, 80GB hard drive ($1,800), and the 1.8GHz model with a 64GB solid-state drive (a whopping $3,098). With its speedier processor and flash-based drive—no moving parts, for potentially faster read/write times and greater power efficiency compared to standard hard drives—and a speedier processor, you'd naturally expect the solid-state Air to blow the socks off the HDD model. Right?

Well, not so fast, says Ars Technica. The reviewers took the pair of Airs—along with a MacBook and MacBook Pro—and ran them through a punishing battery of tests, including a pair of standard laptop benchmarks and run-throughs with Photoshop, QuickTime, and other applications. The results? While the Ars Technica team did notice some subtle (though often anecdotal) speed and battery-life improvements in the solid-state Air compared to the hard drive-based model, the reviewers concluded that the difference wasn't nearly substantial enough to justify the extra $1,300. (Make sure to check out Ars Technica for the full review and plenty of charts and graphs.)

A few other observations from Ars Technica:

  • If you thought the solid-state Air was an "instant-on" machine, think again: the testers found that the SSD Air took 28.5 seconds to boot up, a full 2.5 seconds slower than the latest MacBook Pros.
  • Write speeds on the solid-state Air were actually slower than on the hard drive model; for example, it took the SSD Air about 4.6 minutes to export a 60MB movie to QuickTime, compared to just 3.8 minutes for the hard drive-based Air.
  • Battery life on the solid-state Air averaged about two-and-a-half hours, a little less than on the HDD Air. Ouch.


So, anyone out with a solid-state Air still glad they spent the extra cash? Let us know.

Related:
No spin: Ars reviews the MacBook Air with solid state drive [Ars Technica]

Comments on Solid-State MacBook Air: Worth the Extra $1,300?

Post a Comment

Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.

  • 1 Posted by homebrewpc on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:20PM EDT Report Abuse

    Isn't the point of a solid state drive not extra speed, but more data security? So you have less of a chance of the hard drive dying and losing all of your data?

  • 2 Posted by xlt3zz on Wed Feb 6, 2008 4:35PM EST Report Abuse

    They forget to look at the many pros of having a solid state drive. The extra $1,300 is justified when you take into account of the extremely high cost of 64GB flash. This issue was poorly addressed and both sides of the issue were not equally examined. As flash gets cheaper, the age of HDD will be ending. The SSD option if availble for the view tech savvy that must have the newest technology advancements.

  • 3 Posted by magpagbst on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:03PM EDT Report Abuse

    didn't sandisk just come out with a 32g sd card?? . . . it's pretty pricey . . . but i think this advance will render the ssd vs hdd conversation moot in a year or two . . . bring on flash drive baby!!! until then . . . i wouldn't be all that interested in ssd unless it was much more cost effective . . . say . . . in the fifty-cents to a dollar per gig range . . .

  • 4 Posted by middlenamefrank on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:19PM EDT Report Abuse

    As an EE, those results don't surprise me much. Many people don't understand that flash RAM reads much faster than a HDD ever could, but it has a fairly long write time which means saving files happens fairly slowly (although Ben, you didn't mean to compare write times of minutes and seconds did you??). Regarding the battery life, I'd imagine the power savings of the SSD is about balanced out by the more powerful processor (which runs 100% of the time, unlike the drive). I'm a bit on the fence about SSD's right now, but I think it will be a couple of years before I switch over. However, Apple's $1300 premium is absurd...you can buy an SSD for much less than that on the retail market. They're clearly socking it to the early adopters on this one.

  • 5 Posted by agustin2489 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:47PM EDT Report Abuse

    I suppose I'll follow the trend that Apple takes: first gen models are terrible, second gen dramatically change things (when they do get around). No, I wasn't impressed by the Air and still am not impressed.

  • 6 Posted by ytech_patterson on Thu Sep 3, 2009 10:58PM EDT Report Abuse

    @middlenamefrank: My mistake -- "seconds" should have read "minutes." My mistake (although the HDD Air still clocks in markedly faster than does the solid-state version).

  • 8 Posted by magpagbst on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:03PM EDT Report Abuse

    curiously . . . the more i learn about the macbook air . . . the more i consider getting an asus eee . . . i could get six of those for the price of one macbook air . . . (no ben, you can't have one!!)

  • 9 Posted by orestes909 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:46PM EDT Report Abuse

    I seems to me that nobody really wants to admit that the SSDs are not ready yet. At least not for the price they want to sell them considering that the benefits are not that great. I am not impress with Apple lately and I hate to admit it...

  • 10 Posted by leahansel on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:58PM EDT Report Abuse

    I totally agree with what they're saying. It's not worth that much money to have an ultra-slim notebook. Your really don't need a notebook that light, especially with a 2 and a half hour battery life. I have a regular macbook, which is 5 lbs and is just fine.

More Posts: First Prev 1 2 Next Last

Post a Comment

Sign In to Post a Comment