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

[falkon-engine]

Is it? In what regard? Do we have any videos of the thing actually being used for tasks or is it all isolated benchmarks?

To use an analogy, if the “engine” of this car is technically slower, but a new version of the transmission results in it still going 0-60 faster…is that a problem?

The base model m2 has a slower ssd than the m1. Multiple sources including the verge max tech and others have confirmed it. Apple is charging more for the base m2 air, yet they outfitted it with a slower ssd than its predecessor. So what are you getting by paying more for the base m2 model vs the base m1?

1400 MB/sec of the base model is a similar in speed to the 2018 intel MacBooks. (I note that you can get 1 TB pcie4.0 drives from western digital and Samsung and Kingston with 6000 MB/sec for approx $110.00. This is a far better value than the +$200 extra apple charges for only 256 GB of additional storage. Also, pcie5.0 nvme storage with 13,000MB/sec is coming later this year. Of course apple doesn’t let you add any internal nvme storage, even though macOS will boot just fine from fast pcie4.0 nvme storage).

With SSDs, you must consider another metric in addition to their sequential speed rating: which is their performance after they run out of cache. Some drives like the WD Black SN850 or Samsung 980 pro operate well and maintain great performance after cache runs down, but other drives, including the one in the base m2 air, slow down dramatically.

Given that the current versions of macOS require more memory than earlier versions like Sierra, 8 GB RAM on the base model is barely enough. The machine will need to use swap as you load up more programs.

So the speed of the disk storage becomes relevant as the OS needs swap memory. Therefore, if the ssd is slower than the predecessor, and it has slow performance once the SLC cache runs out, that could negatively affect the overall responsiveness of the system and possibly cause it to slow down as more programs that consume RAM are loaded up.

M2 in isolation might be great, but it’s the performance of the overall system is what’s important. Therefore, what’s paramount is how all the components work together. Balance is key. What good is a fast cpu if the slower ssd causes responsiveness to decrease? There needs to be balance between, M2, disk speed, the cooling system and so on. M2 may be great in isolation, but if overall system responsiveness (of the base m2 vs the base m1) diminishes as more swap is used, then there’s a problem. A design flaw in my opinion. Apple makes better machines. I have the 14” pro and I love it.

It seems as if for m2, 16 GB RAM and 512 GB storage is the SweetSpot. But that’s an extra $400 over the base model. So is it worth spending all that money on an air when there’s potentially better options in that price range?

Finally, the question purchasers should ask themselves is: is 8 GB ram going to be enough years from now? Because future versions of macOS may be even more RAM intensive than Monterey. Monterey is far more ram intensive than Sierra and el capitan. Thus, the speed of the disk (and swap memory) could become even more important in future iterations of macOS as compared to Monterey. Unfortunately, if you need more RAM in the future, you can’t add it… you have to replace the machine. So, no matter how you feel about m2, if you buy it my message is please be wise in your purchase decision and think about the amount of RAM and disk speed performance you’re going to need not only in 2022, but also for the years to come.

 

[darngooddesign]

Oh, I wasn’t aware that MacBook Air doesn’t have multitasking. Even iPadOS can do multitasking now, so that’s a pretty big downgrade!

It can multitask, what I meant is that if you are multitasking between very demanding apps which are all consuming a lot of Ram and swap memory.

 

[germinator]

So you get double-screwed by Apple hardware. First, you can't upgrade the storage yourself because....because....well, because Apple deliberately chose to have a proprietary SSD instead of a standard one. Second, they deliberately cut corners--while at the same time increasing the price by $200! That's why I am no longer buying Apple computers. I am not a fool.

 

[darngooddesign]

The base model m2 has a slower ssd than the m1. Multiple sources including the verge max tech and others have confirmed it. Apple is charging more for the base m2 air, yet they outfitted it with a slower ssd than its predecessor. So what are you getting by paying more for the base m2 model vs the base m1?

Faster processor, better screen, ability to have 24GB RAM, better speakers, better webcam, magsafe so both usb-c ports are free for data, and new design (subjective). Most of those sources agree that for light to moderate tasks you wont really notice the slower SSD.

 

[darngooddesign]

So you get double-screwed by Apple hardware. First, you can't upgrade the storage yourself because....because....well, because Apple deliberately chose to have a proprietary SSD instead of a standard one. Second, they deliberately cut corners--while at the same time increasing the price by $200! That's why I am no longer buying Apple computers. I am not a fool.

You can't upgrade the SSD because its physically part of the SoC, not because it's proprietary instead of standard.

 

[darngooddesign]

...

 

[coolfactor]

of course not.

the M1 air had faster speeds and this thing is from £1,249

this is a whole new level of being cheap and ripping off customers from Apple. it's disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself for defending them.

There's another perspective... if the base M1 did -not- have better SSD performance than the M2, would it still be a rip-off?

Is it possible that the M2 is a great value, whereas the M1 was amazing value?

Calling it a rip-off is purely based off a relative comparison, nothing else.

Hint: It's not a rip-off.

 

[AMagicianNamedJOBs]

I have a beefy NAS plus plenty of cloud storage so I don’t need much SSD space… or so I thought. I got a shipping notification for my 16/256 M2 today, after the embargo on this news was lifted. Thanks a lot Apple.

I’ve ordered a 16/512 and will be returning the first. So now Apple is eating the round trip shipping costs plus incidentals for their malfeasance. I’m debating ordering another, opening it and returning it just to stick it to them.

 

[ian87w]

I have a beefy NAS plus plenty of cloud storage so I don’t need much SSD space… or so I thought. I got a shipping notification for my 16/256 M2 today, after the embargo on this news was lifted. Thanks a lot Apple.

I’ve ordered a 16/512 and will be returning the first. So now Apple is eating the round trip shipping costs plus incidentals for their malfeasance. I’m debating ordering another, opening it and returning it just to stick it to them.

Nah, Apple already nailed you in the upgrade price for the 16/512 model. The shipping cost would already be part of Apple’s contracts with the shipping providers that was already negotiated in advance. In essence, your decision is perfectly what Apple wanted, upselling customers to more expensive models, thus more profits for Apple.

Besides your returned unit will simply end up in the refurbished section or recycled for replacement unit. No loss for Apple.

 

[smirking]

I’ve ordered a 16/512 and will be returning the first. So now Apple is eating the round trip shipping costs plus incidentals for their malfeasance. I’m debating ordering another, opening it and returning it just to stick it to them.

Actually, you'd be sticking it to us. Nothing that's free is actually free. We're all paying for it so please be an adult.

But go ahead and keep returning things just because it makes you feel powerful. They'll cut you off. There are people in these forums who've come complaining about being on some secret Apple blacklist.

 

[AMagicianNamedJOBs]

I’ll create two more 8/256 refurbs then, one for each of you since you have no problem giving Apple a pass on their duplicity.

 

[Admiralbison]

Too many Apple apologists and shareholders.

Hopefully more and more Apple reviewers start breaking the trend.

TRUE fans are critical and honest because they want the best of what they are fans of.

 

[boak]

The sense of entitlement for something you were never promised 🤣

 

[falkon-engine]

Faster processor, better screen, ability to have 24GB RAM, better speakers, better webcam, magsafe so both usb-c ports are free for data, and new design (subjective). Most of those sources agree that for light to moderate tasks you wont really notice the slower SSD.

We’re talking about the Base model m2 vs base model m1.

If system responsiveness suffers on the base m2 model (as the system consumes more ram and needs to switch to slower ssd swap memory vs m1) , to me, worse responsiveness negates everything else that’s new on the base m2 model.

Of course m2 has the ability to scale up to 24 GB ram and 1 or 2 TB storage options that are faster than the base model. But my point has been about base m2 vs base m1.

 

[theorist9]

For me the botton line is this: You can't make a big deal about the benefts of fast storage for consumer machines—as Apple does in the marketing material for the M2 Air and M2 13" MBP, as shown in the screenshot below—and then try to trivialize its importance when discussing the subset of those machines whose SSD's aren't as fast.

 

[mrochester]

And that's as designed, intended, by Apple. People who don't know any better would just get the base model. Then they will experience slowdowns and then they will be more likely to upgrade sooner to newer Macbooks. Faster upgrade turn-around, and Tim Cook is happy.

My point is, this is all as intended by Apple. It's their exact business strategy. It's triple combo of profit generation.
1. Regular consumers will get base model, and they might upgrade sooner since the machine performance is compromised once swapping occurs. Apple cut cost, and get faster new purchases.
2. People who knew thanks to the youtubers will try getting the 512GB models. Upselling, Apple gets more profit.
3. People who decided to BTO to 16/512 might see the price is not much more to just get the 14" Macbook Pro. Another upsell, more profit for Apple.

In the end, Apple wins, Tim Cook is happy, another record breaking revenue. Apple defenders should stop defending Apple with their excuses and simply face the facts, this is a business strategy. It's the most advance version of upsize your happy meal strategy.

This is called capitalism. What do you want, have regulators outlaw capitalism?

 

[ian87w]

This is called capitalism. What do you want, have regulators outlaw capitalism?

I'm not against Apple maximizing profit if you actually read my posts.
It's the Apple apologists who are in denial and trying to come up with excuses for Apple, not willing to admit that it's purely for profit strategy.

What I want is simply for Apple to be honest, and disclose the intentional bottleneck so consumers have educated decision when they buy the laptop. We are not talking about $600 commodity laptops here. These are premium $1200-$1500 laptops.

 

[boak]

We’re talking about the Base model m2 vs base model m1.

How are those not improvements you get for paying $200 more?

 

[mrochester]

I'm not against Apple maximizing profit if you actually read my posts.
It's the Apple apologists who are in denial and trying to come up with excuses for Apple, not willing to admit that it's purely for profit strategy.

What I want is simply for Apple to be honest, and disclose the intentional bottleneck so consumers have educated decision when they buy the laptop.

EVERYTHING Apple does is for profit. Just like every other for profit business in the world.

Apple doesn’t need to say anything, when it comes to purchasing a product the onus is on the buyer to determine if the product meets their needs. You examine the product, you try it in the store, you read other peoples reviews and experiences and then you decide what to buy. If a consumers chooses to waive due diligence and buy a product without ensuring it meets their needs then that is on them, not Apple. Apple just offers the product to purchase.

 

[ian87w]

EVERYTHING Apple does is for profit. Just like every other for profit business in the world.

Apple doesn’t need to say anything, when it comes to purchasing a product the onus is on the buyer to determine if the product meets their needs.

How can the buyer made that decision if he/she have incomplete knowledge and the manufacturer is not disclosing the information?
Take the M2 13" Macbook Pro. Go look at Apple's own marketing materials. One would think the Macbook Pro should have the same great performance across the lineup regardless of storage size.

 

[mrochester]

How can the buyer made that decision if he/she have incomplete knowledge and the manufacturer is not disclosing the information?
Take the M2 13" Macbook Pro. Go look at Apple's own marketing materials. One would think the Macbook Pro should have the same great performance across the lineup regardless of storage size.

Read my edited post. The buyer tries the product, reads reviews etc. Consumers should never rely on marketing material as that will always have a positive spin, and consumers should know that.

 

[ian87w]

Read my edited post. The buyer tries the product, reads reviews etc. Consumers should never rely on marketing material as that will always have a positive spin, and consumers should know that.

So deceptive marketing is a-okay in your book. Good to know. I'm sure you will be a perfect fit at Apple marketing.

 

[mrochester]

So deceptive marketing is a-okay in your book. Good to know. I'm sure you will be a perfect fir at Apple marketing.

Marketing within what is permitted by law is fine by me. If we want to change that we need to petition the advertising standards regulators to change the law.

 

[quarkysg]

Using only one chip not only hammers sequential read write, but random read write as well.

AFAIK RAID-0 technology improves thruput. Random read/write typically measure access times. Using 1 or more SSD IC does not improve access times. In fact I would argue (pedantically) that using more ICs actually slows down read/write access as the OS has the overhead of determining which IC to send the read/write commands to.

If the random reads/writes always ends up in the same IC chip, the end result will be the same.

Not to mention having two chips also help with wear leveling.

AFAIK flash chip wear leveling is a function of capacity, not number of IC chips. The more NAND cells you have the better you can spread the write wear to the cells, thereby extending the useful life of all NAND cells.

Keep in mind, as soon as internal drive dies, your Mac is an expensive piece of paperweight unless being serviced by Apple.

I think you can still boot Macs using external USB/TB drives.

 

[Tubamajuba]

I'm not against Apple maximizing profit if you actually read my posts.
It's the Apple apologists who are in denial and trying to come up with excuses for Apple, not willing to admit that it's purely for profit strategy.

What I want is simply for Apple to be honest, and disclose the intentional bottleneck so consumers have educated decision when they buy the laptop. We are not talking about $600 commodity laptops here. These are premium $1200-$1500 laptops.

Exactly. Any time someone uses the compare feature on Apple's website, it should show that the base model M2 Air and Pro have slower storage than models with a higher quantity of storage.