Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
15-Inch MacBook Air With 256GB Storage Has Slower SSD Speeds Than Higher-Capacity Models
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just curious — how are you comparing a 16" M1 Max to a 15" M2 MBA? They're pretty different use cases/target customers. Just wondering why you bought the former if it could potentially be replaced with the latter with increased storage? Is your M1 Max just overkill for your needs?
Back in 2021 when Apple released the updated 16" MacBook, the larger screen was offered only on the Pro models. If they offered the 15" Air, I'm sure a lot of people such as myself would've pulled the triggered on the Air.
Literally just wanted the MBP for the larger screen, and just wanted a lot of hard drive space.
So what you’re saying is M2 computers have always been like this…. that’s the point. We already knew the 256GB option would utilize a single NAND chip.It wasn't always the deal. The 256GB M1 MacBook Air used two 128GB NAND chips. Apple took a step back and switched to a single NAND chip with the 256GB M2 MacBook Air.
The same goes for the Mac mini and MacBook pro
New 256GB Mac Mini and 512GB MacBook Pro Have Slower SSD Speeds Than Previous Models
While the new Mac mini with the M2 chip has a lower $599 starting price, the base model with 256GB of storage has slower SSD read and write...www.macrumors.com
This is the reason I bought the 15 inch Air. It’s a supplement to my desktop so I can work from other rooms in the house. I think it’s going to be PERFECT for that.
The MBP (M2) entry models also suffer from this, as it has a single die too.Totally agree and we will both get plenty dislikes
And who really “needs the fastest SSD speeds” is most likely going to need a MBP
This is my annual post… ugh I can’t stand max tech. They’re such clickbait trolls. This whole slow ssd is a nonissue and doesn’t affect 99% of mba buyers. It’s much ado about nothing except they generate views.
As expected, the 15-inch MacBook Air with 256GB of storage is equipped with a single NAND chip, according to YouTube channel Max Tech. This will result in the 256GB model having slower SSD read and write speeds compared to 512GB, 1TB, and 2TB models that have multiple NAND chips for faster speeds, but real-world results will vary.
256GB models of the latest 13-inch MacBook Air, 13-inch MacBook Pro, and Mac mini also have a single NAND chip, with benchmark results showing a 30% to 50% reduction in SSD speeds compared to previous-generation models. Apple previously used two 128GB chips for 256GB Macs, but it switched to a single 256GB chip for newer models.
Slower SSD speeds can impact tasks such as transferring files to an external drive, and overall system performance can take a slight hit during heavy workloads, as Macs temporarily use SSD space as virtual memory when physical RAM is fully used. However, the average customer purchasing an entry-level 15-inch MacBook Air is unlikely to notice the slower speeds. Customers who need the fastest speeds should configure their 15-inch MacBook Air with at least 512GB of storage, which is a $200 upgrade over the 256GB model.
The 15-inch MacBook Air launched today after orders began last week. The laptop has the same M2 chip and overall design as the 13-inch model, with key new features including a larger display and two additional speakers. Pricing for the 15-inch model starts at $1,299, while the 13-inch model now starts at a lower $1,099.
Article Link: 15-Inch MacBook Air With 256GB Storage Has Slower SSD Speeds Than Higher-Capacity Models
Are these machines even comparable? An M1 Max MBP vs an M2 MBA?
Maybe the M2 beats the M1 Max in single core but could it anywhere else?
Current M1 products on the shelf still use 2 * 128GB. Legally, the press release about M1 Air having "up to 2x faster SSD performance" still stands. So it's not possible for Apple to downgrade the SSD.
All iPhone models with 128GB storage still use a single piece of 128GB.
I think this is a cost-reduction move, plain and simple.
well, I don't transfer 100 GB files all day, so I am not worried about that. I do, you know, actually work on the machine (M2 Air 13 inch).
My work is preparing presentations in Keynote, making calculations on Numbers and writing articles on Pages. None of them is affected by the slower SSD speed, in fact it is fast enough for any office work. For faster transfer I have prepared 1TB external m2 drive and even then internal SSD is fast enough for speedy file transfer.
My work is preparing presentations in Keynote, making calculations on Numbers and writing articles on Pages. None of them is affected by the slower SSD speed, in fact it is fast enough for any office work. For faster transfer I have prepared 1TB external m2 drive and even then internal SSD is fast enough for speedy file transfer.
To be fair, the 13" M2 Pro is a machine that shouldn't exist in the first place. Anyone who needs more power than the Air should be jumping up to the 14" Pro.
Considering most MB users don’t transfer a file from an external disk very often, let alone a 42,5 gb one, the speed difference is irrelevant.
Last edited:
Oh yea... Fusion Drive! That seemed a weird chapter...
lol, why is this being rehashed? We already know this from the other MacBook Air M2 13". And the Mac Mini M2. Why would that be any different on the 15" model?
Exactly.
I am in the restaurant business and I routinely downgrade the ingredients and use cheap substitutes even though I charge the customers for premium, fresh, and authentic ingredients.
Some might call me a scammer because I hide the fact that I am not giving the customers what they pay for and what they expect, but I have noticed that the typical customer cannot tell the difference and thus do not care.
Some have argued that "the customers cannot tell the difference" is the very ESSENCE of a scam, but I never claimed to be some role model. I am running a business.
In any case, this does marvels for my margins and I am getting away with it, so I will keep on doing it. I feel validated that a reputable company like Apple is running the same scheme.
Last edited:
Man, this sucks - smaller storage shouldn’t equate to smaller performance.
But Apple isn't doing that. Where in their marketing materials do you see them call out their Storage performance for the products with this configuration?
It's fine. The people buying the base-spec M2 Air are never going to notice the difference in performance.
I never advertised that I am using premium ingredients either. I just take great pictures of my food and charge the highest prices, and the customers are stupid enough to expect premium ingredients just because they are paying $35 for a burger.
Again, I agree with what Apple is doing. If you can get away with it, why not?
I'm not following the analogy. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Storage performance has never really been a metric Apple touts in their devices. At least not that I can remember. Food ingredients are not analogous to computer components. I mean if you're calling out every ingredient and how you sourced it from the finest whatever and took painstaking care in it's sourcing preparation. Sure. But Apple isn't doing that. This analogy makes no sense in relation to Apples actual marketing. lol.
It's not an analogy. It's just a business practice that I have learned from Apple that I find hugely profitable. I just wish I have the guts to go even further but I am afraid that the customers will notice.
