Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

I haven't seen this posted, and I can't read almost 600 posts, so...

While I see a lot of posts recommending the 512GB storage option because of the two NAND chip configuration.
I'm wondering if Apple is using one NAND chip when ordering the 1TB option. Obviously this would negate the parallel read/write advantage of two NAND chips.

Have there been any storage benchmarks or teardowns of the 1TB storage option?
 
  • Like
Reactions: alexonline
DCIFRTHS said:
I haven't seen this posted, and I can't read almost 600 posts, so...

While I see a lot of posts recommending the 512GB storage option because of the two NAND chip configuration, I'm wondering if Apple is using one NAND chip when ordering the 1TB option. Obviously this would negate the parallel read/write advantage of two NAND chips.

Have there been any storage benchmarks or teardowns of the 1TB storage option?
Click to expand...
This is a very valid question. I think it's fairly safe to say that the 2tb option is 2 x 1tb but that leaves the 1tb option as either 1 x 1tb or 2 x 515gb.

I reckon the 1tb option will be 2 x 512gb and I suspect there will be a significant premium on the 1tb modules that make 2 x 512gb the cheaper option for Apple. Looking at the cost to upgrade from 512gb to 1tb and 512gb to 2tb the 2tb option has a significant premium over the equivalent 1tb option. That seems to suggest the 1tb will be using 2 x 512gb with a lower BOM.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: alexonline
boak said:
How are those not improvements you get for paying $200 more?
Click to expand...
They are improvements for sure. no doubt.

But Because responsiveness has the potential to suffer on the base m2 with the slower ssd, in my opinion, and this is just my opinion, the improvements are negated by the regression in responsiveness. I would never want to use a base model that slows down when it’s using swap memory. Especially when the base m2 ssd storage performance is slower than that of the base m1 model. Paying more to knowingly get a slower part (ssd) isn’t the best use of my money.

Now as I said, the sweetspot for m2 is 512 GB and 16 GB ram. That is what I would use. Responsiveness is extremely important to me. I’m very sensitive to it. Especially in a locked down machine that doesn’t have user-upgradable RAM and expandable storage options.

I have had MacBooks for years. My first MacBook had a spinning hard drive. But see back then when Steve Jobs was still around, macs had expandable storage and upgradable ram. And I remember when I first installed a ssd the machine. A Samsung 840 I believe to replace the 5400 sata hard disk. The difference in responsiveness going from the old hard drive to the new flash ssd was dramatic. Night and day. I never used a spinning hard drive again in a laptop after that ever again.

Responsiveness is important to me, so if I were to get an air it’d have to be 512 gb and 16 GB ram. But because that basically costs the same as a base m1 pro 14” on Amazon (Which comes with pro motion 120 Hz variable refresh), no m2 air for me. But my sister who’s in the market for a new laptop I recommended to her the air with 512 GB and 16 GB ram. So sometime later this summer she’ll pick it up and I know she’ll be very happy with it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: compwiz1202 and scottjl
ProfessionalFan said:
No well run company would do this.
Click to expand...
Most tech companies are, unfortunately, dishonest. Even the drive manufacturers are skimping on specs and parts like cache on their same lineup, resulting poorer performance on certain batches.

I can see in the end, legislation would unfortunately arrive, just like the FDA requiring proper labelling of ingredients on food and medicines. And it's a ripe opportunity as most governments are currently in need of more money in their coffers.
 
mrochester said:
I’m very certain Apple have this consideration absolutely nailed and you are unlikely to offer them any advice that allows them to make more money (because they’ll have already thought of it).
Click to expand...
For sure, they've very likely run the numbers at every upgrade price-point ($100 / $150 / $200) and determined that $200 is the price where they'll earn the most, all things considered.

I still think though that it should only be $100 each to upgrade the hard drive to 512gb and memory to 16gb, in effect that'd take the machine from "budget" to "base". Really, $200 upgrades should be to make the machine "loaded", I'd never tell someone that my 512gb / 16gb was "loaded". Never, ever, ever.

Personally, I'd upgrade the hard drive and memory in a heartbeat if they were both $100 each, but as it is I'd probably just get the base model, cause I'd feel that at least it'd be better value all things considered. So, as it is Apple would be getting $1,200 from me, instead of $1,400. I'm certain that I'm not the only one with that mindset.
 
leeuk321 said:
For sure, they've very likely run the numbers at every upgrade price-point ($100 / $150 / $200) and determined that $200 is the price where they'll earn the most, all things considered.

I still think though that it should only be $100 each to upgrade the hard drive to 512gb and memory to 16gb, in effect that'd take the machine from "budget" to "base". Really, $200 upgrades should be to make the machine "loaded", I'd never tell someone that my 512gb / 16gb was "loaded". Never, ever, ever.

Personally, I'd upgrade the hard drive and memory in a heartbeat if they were both $100 each, but as it is I'd probably just get the base model, cause I'd feel that at least it'd be better value all things considered. So, as it is Apple would be getting $1,200 from me, instead of $1,400. I'm certain that I'm not the only one with that mindset.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty certain you are not the only person with that mindset but you are probably in the minority as far as Apple customers are concerned.
 
ian87w said:
It's not unreasonable from Apple's point of view. They got to cut cost, and those who figured it out will end up spending more money by getting the higher tier models. Win win. It's a classic upselling strategy.

What's annoying is Apple's refusal to be upfront and honest about it on their marketing materials.
Click to expand...
There is not a publicly traded company on the planet that is going to tell a customer that their lowest cost tier product may not be as good as their higher cost tier product. Your refusal to understand and accept that is naive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigMcGuire and scottjl
Zdigital2015 said:
There is not a publicly traded company on the planet that is going to tell a customer that their lowest cost tier product may not be as good as their higher cost tier product. Your refusal to understand and accept that is naive.
Click to expand...
If you look at two bottles of shampoo, one smaller one larger, same brand and line, is it okay for the smaller bottle to have inferior ingredients than the larger bottle version?

If you like being fooled by Apple, suit yourself. ;)
 
leeuk321 said:
For sure, they've very likely run the numbers at every upgrade price-point ($100 / $150 / $200) and determined that $200 is the price where they'll earn the most, all things considered.

I still think though that it should only be $100 each to upgrade the hard drive to 512gb and memory to 16gb, in effect that'd take the machine from "budget" to "base". Really, $200 upgrades should be to make the machine "loaded", I'd never tell someone that my 512gb / 16gb was "loaded". Never, ever, ever.

Personally, I'd upgrade the hard drive and memory in a heartbeat if they were both $100 each, but as it is I'd probably just get the base model, cause I'd feel that at least it'd be better value all things considered. So, as it is Apple would be getting $1,200 from me, instead of $1,400. I'm certain that I'm not the only one with that mindset.
Click to expand...
In general, the base model usually has the least margin. That's why the goal is to upsell people into the higher tier model, or to cripple the base model so people buying it might upgrade sooner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 86Hawkeye
ian87w said:
If you look at two bottles of shampoo, one smaller one larger, same brand and line, is it okay for the smaller bottle to have inferior ingredients than the larger bottle version?

If you like being fooled by Apple, suit yourself. ;)
Click to expand...

wow you sure seem to have mastered false equivalence. congrats!

if you dislike apple this much, there's a simple solution. don't buy or use their products.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigMcGuire
scottjl said:
wow you sure seem to have mastered false equivalence. congrats!

if you dislike apple this much, there's a simple solution. don't buy or use their products.
Click to expand...
I cannot buy even if I wanted to. I require 16GB of RAM, and Apple doesn't sell BTO options for MacBook airs over here. Was waiting for the M2 models hoping Apple would have pre-configured model with 16GB of RAM, but no dice.

I did buy an HP Pavillion Aero 13, 16/512, less than $750, lighter than the MacBook Air. So yeah. 😆
 
  • Like
Reactions: compwiz1202
GalileoSeven said:
Glad I went for the 512GB SSD then......(question for me is can i live with the midnight finish being a fingerprint magnet?)
Click to expand...
Buy a thin transparent case. That’s what I’m doing. Fingerprints then won’t be an issue and neither will scratches etc
 
Woochoo said:
What about when you make a laptop more expensive than it’s previous version you just don’t cut corners giving people half the performance in some area? But hey, it has the gimmick midnight colour so it’s fine!

Btw if you just want something to browse with and don’t need to render Tot Story 10, why bother with an M2? Just get the cheaper M1 or an iPad Air. Your logic falla by it’s own weight
Click to expand...
So 7% inflation last time and 9.1% inflation a couple of days ago has no impact? Maybe people want the better built-in webcam or the MagSafe in a device smaller than the MBP 14?
 
Omakad said:
I love Apple but this is really unacceptable. I’m surprised that more people are not demanding recall. When I first heard about it I thought it was just overblown twitter news but if you look into it these new base M2 machines MBP AND AIR are basically slower than last years machines in real world scenarios due to lack of dual nand storage. And not by little. Twice as slow. There are videos online demonstrating this. As soon as your laptop starts using swap (which by the way is constant on M machines) your performance half’s. Yes we can spend more money and buy higher storage which is what I would do anyway but I feel bad for none techy people that don’t follow this news. Many will upgrade from M1 to M2 to get new look not even realizing they are getting much slower performance. Apple should fix this asap. It’s really shady.
Click to expand...
Few will upgrade from M1 to M2. They’ll be upgrading from dog slow Intel Macs. This will feel like a lightning speed upgrade in comparison. StorM2 in a teacup (or teachip).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 86Hawkeye and GalileoSeven
eqquito said:
Apple could have at least left the SSD speeds the same as the previous generation. Whoever made the decision to move forward with the new slower SSDs doesn't care about negative publicity.
Click to expand...
They probably care about inflation though and rising costs, and then need to reach a price point despite all that. Tough being the best tech company in the world.
 
telo123 said:
I'm still 100% happy with my 16 GB/256 M1 Air. Perhaps in the future, I'll upgrade to one that is 512 GB so as not to face this issue.

While I may not notice differences in the read/write speeds of the M2 Air vs M1 Air, just knowing that it is slower in the back of my head would make me crazy.
Click to expand...
You’ll likely be waiting until the MBA M3 then :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back