Base Model MacBook Air With M2 Chip Has Slower SSD Speeds in Benchmarks

[ApplesAreSweet&Sour]

No one ever said that. You're the one demanding for 256 GB benchmarks. The absence of it means Apple never claimed anything about its performance.

So you're saying that you're theoretically fine with Apple cutting corners on any spec of any Mac as long as the one presented in the footnote lives up to the benchmarks?

There's nothing implied in naming the machine "Air M2" when the previous iteration was named "Air M1"?

"Up to 1.4x faster" can mean "up to 1.4x faster but maybe significantly slower than the M1 equivalent. Though we won't point out which configurations that applies to. Go read some forum posts!"?

 

[ProfessionalFan]

10 + 1 = 11 < 7 + 2 = 9 because 1 < 2

Well damn now I am confused.

 

[boak]

"Up to 1.4x faster" can mean "up to 1.4x faster but maybe significantly slower than the M1 equivalent. Though we won't point out which configurations that applies to. Go read some forum posts!"?

Legally nothing wrong. Also, the 1.4x figure you keep quoting is for the overall performance, not the SSD speed.

 

[akbarali.ch]

"256GB SSD may show a difference compared to the previous generation" - Yes, there's difference, the new ones are slower.

"The performance of these M2 based systems for real world activities are even faster" - No, we are talking about the SSD not M2 Chip, dont change the topic.


Now, does this mean, that much higher capacity ones may have multiple, more than 2 NAND may perform even more faster? Someone should test getting a 2TB one.

 

[hans1972]

Still waiting for the day Apple makes 512GB/16GB standard.
256 8 has been the starting config for like a decade now.

And yet, Microsoft recently released a Surface model with 4Gb of RAM and 128Gb SSD over in the Windows world.

 

[ApplesAreSweet&Sour]

No one ever said that. You're the one demanding for 256 GB benchmarks. The absence of it means Apple never claimed anything about its performance.

So Apple never making any claims on the 256GB Air M2 means that anyone thinking it would be a combo of "up to 1.4x faster" and "1.0x as fast as" the 256GB M1 should know better? How?

Since when are we expecting performances decreases for new tech? Did I miss something? Is the recession hitting that hard already?

Oh, but the M2 isn't fully the successor to the M1.. only if you get a 512GB config or better. Anyone ordering it can easily figure that out. Got it. 🤣

 

[Quasi26]

So you're saying that you're theoretically fine with Apple cutting corners on any spec of any Mac as long as the one presented in the footnote lives up to the benchmarks?

There's nothing implied in naming the machine "Air M2" when the previous iteration was named "Air M1"?

"Up to 1.4x faster" can mean "up to 1.4x faster but maybe significantly slower than the M1 equivalent. Though we won't point out which configurations that applies to. Go read some forum posts!"?

The screen refresh is not 1.4x faster, why are you not screaming about screen refresh rate?

"THEY SAID 1.4X FASTER AND THE SCREEN IS NOT FASTER THEY ARE LYING TO US ALL!"

 

[compwiz1202]

So you're saying that you're theoretically fine with Apple cutting corners on any spec of any Mac as long as the one presented in the footnote lives up to the benchmarks?

There's nothing implied in naming the machine "Air M2" when the previous iteration was named "Air M1"?

"Up to 1.4x faster" can mean "up to 1.4x faster but maybe significantly slower than the M1 equivalent. Though we won't point out which configurations that applies to. Go read some forum posts!"?

I went and read the footnote, and it states they compared the top models with 2TB SSDs. I'd like to see the speed difference of the base models.

 

[boak]

So Apple never making any claims on the 256GB Air M2 means that anyone thinking it would be a combo of "up to 1.4x faster" and "1.0x as fast as" the 256GB M1 should know better? How?

Buy the device and use it. If it’s not performing well enough, return it.

 

[hans1972]

"The performance of these M2 based systems for real world activities are even faster" - No, we are talking about the SSD not M2 Chip, dont change the topic.

Apple are talking about the whole computer, not the M2 SoC.

Here is a real world activity:

• Double click on a simple Word document in Finder

Would this take longer time with the M2-based system?

Apple is saying that activities like this will be faster.

 

[akbarali.ch]

Legally nothing wrong. Also, the 1.4x figure you keep quoting is for the overall performance, not the SSD speed.

Nothing wrong, legally or otherwise, they are just victim of their own high standard and now they are rolling back some of it, slowly. Look at the re-labelled MacBook pro m2 boxes. But i must admit no harm in re-using instead throwing it away.

 

[compwiz1202]

And yet, Microsoft recently released a Surface model with 4Gb of RAM and 128Gb SSD over in the Windows world.

What would you even do with those specs? Even 8GB is low today. If I didn't have to take the whole bottom of my laptop off, I would upgrade. What ever happened to access panels??

 

[Quasi26]

I went and read the footnote, and it states they compared the top models with 2TB SSDs. I'd like to see the speed difference of the base models.

Perfectly reasonable request and they don't expose that, which stinks. But the 1.4x claim is specifically on the config they list. If they just compared each "level" of model side by side with the previous one that would solve the problem but they dont. They benchmark the highest end model and show that data.

 

[ProfessionalFan]

Still waiting for an explanation from people on who is forcing them to buy the laptop. Nobody should make you buy something you don't want.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

Exactly. I remember years ago when I was pondering a MacBook they were a little over $1k. Then boom the price flew up, and now a 16" is $2450 "on sale" Wish they would make 16" Airs for a lower price.

No, they weren’t.
The 16, or actually 15 inches at the time, MBP *started* at $1999 in 2010.
The Retina Version was introduced on top of the standard in 2012 at $2199 before being lowered back down to $1999 in 2013.
There has been absolutely no point in the past decade or two where you could get a 14+ MacBook brand new from Apple anywhere near $1000, so I have absolutely no idea what your post is referring to.
In fact a decade ago, the only Apple computers you could find for around $1000 were the 11.6 inch MacBook Air and the white plastic MacBook.
Yes, Mac prices have gone up and down over the years, but not that drastically.
They’re $1000 or so computers from a decade and a half ago are pretty much in the exact same place in the lineup as the current offerings that are around $1000 in the lineup.

 

[ProfessionalFan]

They benchmark the highest end model and show that data.

No, they say "UP to 1.4x" so it encompasses all the models. Same as any other company would do.

 

[hans1972]

How much is this likely to impact real-world usage for most people? (Genuinely asking here)

For those buying a low-end MacBook most of them will not notice it for most of their workflows.

Most simple tasks are more impacted by random read and writes and no one seems to have measured those numbers.
Also the most likely scenario where these users could notice it is swapping. But macOS aggressively swaps to disk before it's strictly needed so it's happening in the background while you're doing other stuff.

 

[hans1972]

so if they don't notice, it's OK?

Yes. It means they're not impacted and so it doesn't matter.

 

[Quasi26]

No, they say "UP to 1.4x" so it encompasses all the models. Same as any other company would do.

What you are saying doesn't contradict what I said. They DID benchmark the top models and did show the comparison between those. That doesn't mean the "Up to 1.4x" statement is wrong, it isnt. But what they do not do is benchmark each level of M1 against a comparable M2 and show the difference.

 

[CrysisDeu]

As for the actual specs, 8GB of RAM definitely runs a lot faster with the M-series architecture

Source?
Also with unified memory 8gb needs to be shared between cpu and gpu. I never understood the claim of unified memory requiring less space.
Even if it runs faster, on moderate workloads, it will run out of space. No matter how fast it is, the space required won’t change right? And when it runs out, we always needs the swap from ssd.

 

[hans1972]

Since it's called M2 vs M1, they'd expect the chip to be faster without having other components drag it back down.

Again a very uninformed assumptions to make. The storage of the SSD is completely separate from the M2 SoC and thus the performance of the chip is independent of the performance of the SSD storage.

 

[hans1972]

Depends how you define “real-world”.

Tests show significantly slower performance on the base model M2 Pro compared to the base model M1 Pro for tasks like exporting video while multitasking (web browsing, etc). Like up to 40% slower.

And where those tests using iMovie with short and small videos which is the most likely scenario for people buying low-end MacBooks?

 

[boak]

I don’t assume new generation running shoes are better than the predecessor for me. New tech may have made shoes lighter but the new generation may also have reduced cushioning. If I value cushioning more than the reduced weight, I will not get the new pair and stick to the previous generation, and wait for something else.

No different here. You buy an overall package that suits you better.

 

[rileyes]

Not how that works, they technically haven't done anything wrong.

I'm not sure you understand how it works.

I'm not advocating one way or the other, but if Apple has done any advertising where they say or imply that their M2 MacBook Air is their fastest, most powerful Air, yet they knew of the performance hit on the base model compared to the M1 version prior, then there is definitely a case to be made. It's all about what Apple has said and what they knew.

Of course, Apple is very careful, and you can see that when they do performance comparisons on their website, they add a little footnote that makes it clear the specs of the two versions they are comparing.

The question is, and the argument that would be made, does a consumer have a reasonable expectation that when apple promotes a new version of the same product line, and market it as "supercharged with M2" and that the new version "can really zip", that it means the new version should be faster than their previous version with all else being as close to equal as possible? And, did Apple actually know that this wasn't the case in all circumstances.

These sounds like legit arguments to me personally, but more evidence would be needed one way or the other.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

Would you be ok if the screen got worse?
Or if the newer machine was noticeably heavier?
What if it had half the battery life of the predecessor?

With respect, your line of thinking and argumentation here is non-sensical.

The $1299 MBP has a worse display and webcam than the $1199 MacBook Air.
The 2021 MacBook Pro was heavier than the previous generation MacBook Pro.
There have been several generations of iPhone that have had worst battery life than their predecessors, even marketed by Apple that way. The iPhone 4 had 300 hours of standby time while the 4S had 200 hours of standby time clearly stated in Apple‘s marketing. The 12 Series had smaller batteries than the 11 Series.
Apple has done all of these things that you’ve listed before on their products, even under Steve