Apple, like ALL mega tech companies is also more interested in 'services'. So buy the hardware you need, use it, enjoy it --- better yet, buy it on sale or from the refurb store.
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.
Base Model M3 MacBook Air Has Faster SSD Speeds After Controversy With Previous Model
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple, like ALL mega tech companies is also more interested in 'services'. So buy the hardware you need, use it, enjoy it --- better yet, buy it on sale or from the refurb store.
What about compared to the M1 base Air?
M1 Air 256 speed:
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...y-is-twice-as-fast-as-previous-model.2268945/
Max Tech SSD test youtube.com/watch?v=j6F_4za7dJg&t=459s
Luke Miani SSD speed tests showed strange results for the M3:
youtube.com/watch?v=geqPPsGCAfU&t=112s
Luke Miani M1 vs M2 vs M3 50GB file transfer test:
youtube.com/watch?v=geqPPsGCAfU&t=167s
Luke Miani M1 vs M2 vs m3 Final Cut Pro export test:
youtube.com/watch?v=geqPPsGCAfU&t=284s
From Miani's test, we can clearly see the processor improvement but why is Apple gimping the SSD? Maybe because too many people are choosing the MBA over the new MBP since the MBA is now so much more capable, especially with 16GB of RAM?
Last edited:
That last graph shows that SSD speed is not a significant factor in real world app usage. It only shows up in benchmarks.M1 Air 256 speed:
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...y-is-twice-as-fast-as-previous-model.2268945/
Max Tech SSD test youtube.com/watch?v=j6F_4za7dJg&t=459s
View attachment 2357547
View attachment 2357548
Luke Miani SSD speed tests showed strange results for the M3:
youtube.com/watch?v=geqPPsGCAfU&t=112s
Luke Miani M1 vs M2 vs M3 50GB file transfer test:
youtube.com/watch?v=geqPPsGCAfU&t=167s
View attachment 2357549
Luke Miani M1 vs M2 vs m3 Final Cut Pro export test:
youtube.com/watch?v=geqPPsGCAfU&t=284s
View attachment 2357550
From Miani's test, we can clearly see the processor improvement but why is Apple gimping the SSD? Maybe because too many people are choosing the MBA over the new MBP since the MBA is now so much more capable, especially with 16GB of RAM?
Last edited:
I unsubscribed from Maxtech for that reason. His channel started off good then it became "This is Apples worst X!" followed by "I was wrong about Apples X it's great!" and it's just a constant back and forth. The straw that broke the camels back was how utterly wrong he was about the M2 MacBook Air.
But why is that important when you can get 16Gb of RAM? And you're not mentioning price, so I assume pricing has nothing to do with it.
Scenario 1
M3 MBA 8Gb RAM 256Gb SSD $1100
M3 MBA 16Gb RAM 256Gb SSD $1300
Scenario 2
M3 MBA 8Gb RAM 256Gb SSD Doesn't exist
M3 MBA 16Gb RAM 256Gb SSD $1500 (now the new base model)
Are you really saying scenario 2 is the best because the base model comes with 16Gb of RAM?
Those people buying the base model of an MBA has a usage pattern where the main concern is random reads and writes of small files.
What's the performance difference between random read and writes between a M2 MBA and M3 MBA?
MaxTech which measure sequential reads/writes for a 5Gb file doesn't know what they're doing.
You are totally wrong, all based Mac should start with 16GB RAM at $1100. Beside, $200 for adding 8GB of RAM is already overpriced since 8GB chip itself is nothing.
Why, you can always pay more money to Apple to get a bigger size.
Or is your problem you think the Mac you want is too expensive?
And what makes you think that starting from 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD are expensive? It's not an issue to start with those specs from $1100 and Apple is just overpricing upgrade fees. Dont be fooled by Apple.
Scenario 1
M3 MBA 8Gb RAM 256Gb SSD $1100
M3 MBA 16Gb RAM 256Gb SSD $1300
Scenario 2
M3 MBA 8Gb RAM 256Gb SSD Doesn't exist
M3 MBA 16Gb RAM 256Gb SSD $1500 (now the new base model)
Scenario 3
M3 MBA 16Gb RAM 256Gb SSD $1100
Scenario 4
M3 MBA 8Gb RAM 256Gb SSD $100
M3 MBA 16Gb RAM 256Gb SSD $200 (not the base model!)
So you would reject scenario 4 where you get a model with 16Gb of RAM for $200 because it's not the base model?
The problem you have, it's not the base model per se, but you think Apple's pricing is too expensive for getting the model with the memory and SSD size you want. So why don't you say so explicitly?
You are justifying overpriced upgrade fees for what? Do you have any idea how cheap they are? It has been almost 10 years since they keep using 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD and you are only defending their upgrade fees for nothing. A regular 16GB of RAM costs around $40 and yet, each RAM has multiple memory chips on it while Mac has only 2 chips.
The overpriced upgrade fee is the main issue for Mac for a long time and yet, you are not helping to solve the problem instead of justifying whatever they charge.
The difference between you and me is that I don't care what the base model is.
I only care about how much the model I want/need costs.
If that's the base model fine, if it's not that's also fine. The concept of a base model is completely irrelevant to me and how I buy Macs.
You even said it to yourself, you care about the price. How ironic.
The base model does not really mean it can keep using cheap parts. Beside Apple even advertised that 8GB MBA can play BD3 but in reality, it can not. What's up with the false advertisement?
Like I said, starting from 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD are overpriced. Good luck with selling more expensive Mac as Apple suffered heavily with Mac revenue for more than 1 year.
No, I don't care about what the upgrade fees are either. I only care about how much the Mac I want/need costs. I don't care about the components cost or how much profit Apple makes. I only care about how much value such a Mac provides me and if that's higher than the cost.
Let's say you have the following rule "The best world is a world where computer's base model has at least 16Gb of RAM".
World 1
M3 MBA 8Gb RAM 256Gb SSD $1100
M3 MBA 16Gb RAM 256Gb SSD $1300
World 2
M3 MBA 8Gb RAM 256Gb SSD Doesn't exist
M3 MBA 16Gb RAM 256Gb SSD $1500 (now the new base model)
World 3
M3 MBA 16Gb RAM 256Gb SSD $1100
World 4
M3 MBA 8Gb RAM 256Gb SSD $100
M3 MBA 16Gb RAM 256Gb SSD $200 (not the base model!)
Under such a rule, World 3 would be the best world even though the Mac was more expensive.
What you don't see is the following:
Rule 1: "The base model of the MBA should have 16Gb of RAM"
Rule 2: "The base model of the MBA should have 16Gb of RAM and it should cost the same as the base model with 8Gb of RAM does today"
You're stating rule 1 in your writing, but you're discussing as you have stated rule 2.
Please be honest and say it's not about the base model, but that the price is too expensive. The first rule doesn't mention anything about price, that's why it's leads to pretty bad results when you're going to choose scenarios/worlds.
Because parts are advancing and yet cheaper. You are clearly not caring about parts after all and your perspective is far from consumers which is pointless.
You made your own rule which does not apply to others. Why it's a problem to start with higher specs at a same price? Apple has been doing that for a long time by increasing the base specs which already contradict your theory.
Your scenarios are totally useless and doesn't explain anything but justifying high prices.
I care about price, but you didn't in your statement:
sunny5 said: "The base is not 16GB. It still starts from 8GB for almost 10 years."
There is no mention of price, only that the base model should be 16Gb.
Here are you're first statements:
Statement 1: Now, 16GB RAM please.
Statement 2: The base is not 16GB. It still starts from 8GB for almost 10 years.
Statement 3: Dont be fooled. M1 MBA is still the fastest.
Nowhere did you say anything about the price until now.
My argument is that you should say something about price, since you obviously want the MBA with 16Gb of RAM to be cheaper.
Just don't say the base model should have more RAM, say the price of the model with 16Gb of RAM should be $200 cheaper or whatever you think is a far price.
Talking only about the base model without mentioning the price, makes your argument weak.
My rule (as an example) is very similar to what you stated earlier in this thread:
Statement 1: Now, 16GB RAM please.
Statement 2: The base is not 16GB. It still starts from 8GB for almost 10 years.
Doesn't those statements translates into "The base model of the MBA should have 16gb of RAM"?
The rule is just an example to point out your weak argument. I don't follow any such rule at all.
When I say the base mode, the price is still $1100. How come you keep ignoring that?
Is it hard to understand to keep the price, increase the base specs?
LOL, you are clearly ignoring what I just said: keep the price, increase base the specs. I would probably ignore you then as you keep failing to understand the point while making hilarious statements after all.
It doesn't matter for almost all users of the base model of the MBA.
The reason is that most regular user's will be affected much more by random read/writes speed than sequential read/write speeds of a 5Gb file.
How often do regular users read or write files gigabytes in size in one go? Not very often.
So what you should be looking at, it's the difference between random reads and writes speeds.
But you're an outlier. Regular consumers have embraced the cloud and have no need for local storage besides enough to mirror a small part of their cloud data.
Young people today, can't even handle a file system. They're not into NAS or attaching external SSDs for backups and storage.
Apple disagrees. Lot's of it customer's disagree since they're buying more of the base model than higher configurations.
A lot of Mac-users will do fine with 8Gb of RAM because they're only using the built-in applications together with Microsoft Office + things like Teams/Zoom. THey're not using any Adobe software or things like FCP or Xcode.
A modern Mac doesn't need to hold all the applications in the memory at all time. It will aggressively put those into swap. It works extremely well as long as you have no applications (or single browser tabs) using gigabytes of RAM.