And this is the whole heart of the issue. Noone can deny a better specced model could be faster, but a previous generation shouldn't have a faster piece of hardware
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
Three kinds of users...you forgot the ones that run benchmarks to make sure the newest generation is actually faster than the old generation, then they go to work.
In principle, one should never pay more for same or less performance than previous gen. One should also not have to pay $200 extra (for less than $20 worth of product you can buy anywhere else) to get your new gen device up to the same performance as the last gen.
I doubt using 2 128GB vs 1 256GB modules would benefit the end user much. Yes, there would be a speed bump, but Apple would raise the price because the controller would a RAID 1 instead of standard single drive controller. The major benefit of a higher spec'ed machines is more storage (moar, MOAR, *MOAR*). With today's bloated software, I find 512GB of storage insultingly low.
It may be that the reason they spent so much for a 16” MBP is to get the larger screen. That was what people had to do to get a bigger screen size before the 15” MBA. Now, the 15” can address the market of someone who needs a bigger screen but doesn’t need (or want to pay for) the higher performance processors.
You mean RAID 0. RAID 1 is mirroring which 2 128GB modules would be net 128GB usable.
If true then why overpay for a Max processor instead of Pro? If the person is happy with M2 then they certainly don't need a Max CPU.
Maxtech gives good hype.
It’s not entirely their fault. I’ve heard an interview with one of the owners. He explained that the youtube algorithms reward post titles that contain lots of hype words. They can double the clicks by taking a plain statement title and pumping it up. That and YouTube viewers seem to be more attracted to videos that have extreme takes on issues instead of reasonable discussions of pros and cons.
Here is a photo of M1 with 1 flash chip.
It's not a conspiracy, it's just Apple cheaping out.
They are. Because:
1. Legally, Apple must due to their previous and current M1 press release which states "2x faster."
2. Anybody can run benchmarks to find out. Nobody needs to teardown.
Let's say I'm fine with the speed.
But a 1TB m.2 ssd is like $60 now. And Apple is putting 250GB on $1500 machines and charges big bucks for a 500GB one. It's like selling a Mercedes with cardboard seats and charging $10K for fabric ones. (EDIT: and the seats are welded to the car, so when they break, you just have to buy another car).
The fact that they have to use the absolutely smallest capacity NAND chip that's even worth producing is truly ridiculous.
Not to mention that SSDs don't last forever. And Apple basically uses them as RAM on Silicon Macs. Very cool but that system stresses the (obviously non-replaceable) chips and stressing a single chip like that is criminal.
Most users don't know this and will just enjoy their Macs but that's still a crappy behaviour from Apple and no one should defend them.
There was a simple solution to this, 500GB base SSDs, like way cheaper PCs have had for years. Anything over $1000 should have 1TB by now actually, anything less on machines with soldered drives is sad cash grab.
Last edited:
Back in my old stereo days we called that “measurbation…”
A real classic.
The right way to do that is to run real world benchmarks to see if the overall perfromance is better and not worry about any individual spec. What counts is how well the system performs in actual use.
As long as the system is fast enough for what you want to do, the specs don’t matter. If you need a faster machine than the one you have, you need to see if the overall performance is faster and worth the cost of getting a new machine. If it isn’t, determine the bottleneck, be it RAM, CPU, GPU, SSD and upgrade to get the performance you need.
Fixating on one performance measure does not provide a good indicator of overall system perfromance; it does however provide a means to argue incessantly in forums.
As for Apple’s pricing, the best way to change it is to vote with your wallet.
Uh... for anyone wanting a larger screen, the MBA didn't meet their needs at the time of the launch of the M1 MBP 16".
Just saying ....
You're right. I get those mixed up a lot.🥺 I should stick with mirroring or striping when talking RAID like I do with the Boss. She stares daggers when ever I (mis)use jargon.😓
More about pushing you to spend $$$ more to get the 512GB
so If buying a 16” MBP because wanted a larger screen then why upgrade the SoC from a Pro to the Max.
which is what was saying if bothered to read fully.
not sure if why the performance of a mba with m1 SoC meets performance (upgrading JUST for larger screen right!) then why need to upgrade from an M1 Pro SoC to the M1 Max SoC.
hence why massive overspecc’ing taking place.
if an m1 has enough performance why jumping through various m1 pro SoC to the M1 Max.
anyone buying M1 Max because they needed the performance not in the running to replace it with an m2 air (whatever screen size it has)
just saying…..
It’s not that they don’t care, typical users of these macs just don’t notice as the speeds are plenty fast enough. If you are a pro user who needs high disk performance then buying a fanless Mac is plain dumb.
Yes, it's education-only so not for sale in an Apple Store.
And the same users wouldn't notice if the M2 Air had a GPU core less, like the M1, or slower clock speeds, like the M1. Yet the newer models still get improvements, not downgrades. If we just go by what "most users will never notice or care" SSDs could still be at SATA speeds. That's not a benchmark anyone should design their devices around.
Probably a little of that, but I'd think if that was the main reason they would advertise the 512GB as being faster too. Something like "twice the storage and twice the speed" or list 256GB as SSD Storage and 512GB as Super Fast SSD Storage...
The design goal should be "better performance overall at a specific price point," not merely improving or maintaining current specs. If a spec adds no real value for most users of the device not meeting it and saving costs is a smart tradeoff. The only people who will care are those obsessed with specs; most users probably have no idea what the technical specs mean for them or how they impact performance. They will simply use the machine and be happy with how it performs; they don't notice or care it takes 1/2 a second longer to load a file.
Those that need better performance will buy upgraded versions or MBPs.
People using the standard configuration for the MacBook Airs aren't copying huge files from an external SSD.
A better test would have been to open a PowerPoint presentation of size 2Mb from the internal SSD.
Last edited:
Hmm pretty wild , do you still have the studios M1 max ? Would you mind rerunning a test, with all programs closed ?
Run an amorphous disk mark test too, please
My mbp M1 pro had 6600mbps
Exactly. Even these "slow" SSDs are still pretty fast.
You shouldn't having a problem editing 4K with any of these drives. Here's why:
Video bitrate is measured in megabits per second. But SSDs and memory cards are measured in megabytes per second.
So if you're shooting 4K at 100Mbps... that's only 13MB per second. Any drive can handle that.
Hell... the Canon R5 can shoot 8K at an incredibly high 1,300Mbps per second.
But that's still only 163MB per second. The SSD won't be a bottleneck if you're editing those files. The CPU/GPU has more impact on editing rather than the drives.
The only time you might notice any "slowness" is when you're copying files from drive to drive. But even these "slow" Mac SSDs can still copy at 1,500MB per second.
What camera do you shoot with? I'm a Sony guy... A7III
😎