Sounds to me like you should have bought a $250 Chromebook.
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 MacBook Air With M2 Chip Has Slower SSD Speeds in Benchmarks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sounds to me like you should have bought a $250 Chromebook.
People making those moronic arguments are the same who blindly buy anything they put out day 1, this is exactly for them.
Yeah most docs are pretty small and mine are at least mirrored in the cloud. I have OneDrive with O365 and a big iCloud drive and (I think!) a google drive, but it's crap for music production when I want sample libraries with low latency or I'm just out and about wanting to play tunes or DJ or the rare cases I want to work with video. My iPad Pro I got 1 TB which was a total waste (I originally intended to do a lot more with it til I realised it wasn't doable) and that must have nearly 256 GB used and it's not really "got anything on" - although to be fair I could probably offload quite a bit of that. I guess this is just pointing out I'm not a regular user.
Maybe I'm just old fashioned too. I like all my important files on my computer and backed up locally by me. I don't trust the internet to always work. It does the vast majority of the time, but the few times it doesn't I'm screwed, and if I'm out and about with my laptop I can never depend on fast internet everywhere. I'm definitely not gonna get 7.4GB/s read speeds from the cloud via my phone in the middle of the countryside or in a basement with crap cellular signal! 🤣
Who installs software on iCloud?
If you only check email and Facebook on your laptop, my question is why not buy a $250 Chromebook instead?
I love how this story keeps getting headlines and how we are all falling for the clickbait.
No-one should be upgrading from M1 to M2 for more performance. If your M1 is too slow, an M2 won’t help - you will need an M1 Pro/Max/Ultra not an M2.
Anyone upgrading from an Intel machine will be delighted with the performance.
Sure it’s slower in some circumstances, but people don’t buy MacBook Airs for heavy workloads. They buy it for everyday general computing needs and it M2 8/256 will serve them well.
No-one should be upgrading from M1 to M2 for more performance. If your M1 is too slow, an M2 won’t help - you will need an M1 Pro/Max/Ultra not an M2.
Anyone upgrading from an Intel machine will be delighted with the performance.
Sure it’s slower in some circumstances, but people don’t buy MacBook Airs for heavy workloads. They buy it for everyday general computing needs and it M2 8/256 will serve them well.
So this is an awesome topic. My wife and I started out in 2015 buying the base Airs and using them for a few years then upgrading. 2017 we bought a midline MBP and noticed the enjoyment factor was a lot more. In 2022 I finally went loaded M1 max and ... yeah... I can say that the enjoyment factor is 6x a base MBA for me. Of course price difference is crazy and I can use it for work if I want.
We got a base MBA from Best Buy for like $700 in 2015.
Midline MBP in 2017 was $2800.
And of course the loaded M1 is more than double the 2017.
So let's say $950 every 2 years vs $2800 every 3-5 years (my wife is still using her 2017 MBP today).
The price difference isn't all that much once you start going out that far, especially if you trade in.
We traded in our 2015 MBAs for almost 50% of what we paid for them. About 40% for my 2017 MBP.
I noticed the resale on the M1 Max is bad... lol. So if you're looking to save $, near base models and trying to keep them for 3 years is probably best. All depends on what you do I guess.
I'm planning on keeping the M1 Max for 5+ years if I can. It'll be the first laptop that I even want to attempt that in.
All the screaming in defence of the poor 256 GB MBA customers that would not even notice a performance difference. 🤣
I have a 1TB machine because I want to have a complete local copy of all my data. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
That was my guess because "upgrades" typically lose a lot of resale value.So this is an awesome topic. My wife and I started out in 2015 buying the base Airs and using them for a few years then upgrading. 2017 we bought a midline MBP and noticed the enjoyment factor was a lot more. In 2022 I finally went loaded M1 max and ... yeah... I can say that the enjoyment factor is 6x a base MBA for me. Of course price difference is crazy and I can use it for work if I want.
We got a base MBA from Best Buy for like $700 in 2015.
Midline MBP in 2017 was $2800.
And of course the loaded M1 is more than double the 2017.
So let's say $950 every 2 years vs $2800 every 3-5 years (my wife is still using her 2017 MBP today).
The price difference isn't all that much once you start going out that far, especially if you trade in.
We traded in our 2015 MBAs for almost 50% of what we paid for them. About 40% for my 2017 MBP.
I noticed the resale on the M1 Max is bad... lol. So if you're looking to save $, near base models and trying to keep them for 3 years is probably best. All depends on what you do I guess.
I'm planning on keeping the M1 Max for 5+ years if I can. It'll be the first laptop that I even want to attempt that in.
Thanks for the real-life example.
This will affect only those who are obsessive-compulsive with specs who are mentally placated by numbers, not that they need said numbers for any serious performance-driven work.
Completely agree. Yeah, up till this year I always got base to 256GB storage cuz that's all I could afford. 2022- my M1 Max now has 4TB and it has been amazing not having to hook up NVME drives up for running virtual machines, lol. I too am finding less and less trust in the cloud. I could never rely on the cloud 100%. I do like iCloud for a backup checkbox and I have FIOS but nothing beats the speed of local storage when working with massive datasets - it's a must.
Yep - here in CA especially we're dealing with a lot more power outages than I ever remember (I'm 36). I got a 4TB spinner for the big stuff, a 1TB SSD for quick time machine backups (only backing up about 300GB), and sold my NVME when I got my M1 Max. lol.
Good idea.
I’ve heard those surface books are getting real good, I think I’ll try one of those out.
It’ll be a nice change from Apple and their evil slow SSD ways…
Slow SSD in Surface Book: Here's how to fix this issue
One of the old problems affecting Surface Book owners is the slow SSD performance. Here's why this issue occurs and how to fix it.
windowsreport.com
I don't understand all the fuss here. Aren't the lower storage iPhones impacted with the slower speeds as well? I believe Apple mentioned this a while back in an effort to be transparent.
The SpecWarriors on this forum are hilarious.
16/512GB is standard in the $1700 base model.
Not half the speed. And so why doesn't Apple be transparent here? Why leave it up to reviewers and benchmarks to expose them? Very sus. The more defenders make us think about this, the worse and worse this seems.
Last edited:
Yup, just because apple wants to save 2 dollars on a NAND chip
1) I was joking but apparently it was a bad joke
2) I said nothing about price or poor people, only comparing people who do their research vs. those who don’t
Let me add a little bit more information about using one chip for RAM and SSD.
Using only one chip not only hammers sequential read write, but random read write as well. During day to day use, programs and system read write small files all the time. Having r/w distributed to two chips double random read write speed, which also helps the performance and overall experience of daily use. Not to mention having two chips also help with wear leveling. Keep in mind, as soon as internal drive dies, your Mac is an expensive piece of paperweight unless being serviced by Apple.
Anyone who claims this issue being blown out of proportion either don’t notice this aspect or don’t care, which then allows Apple to get away with lower cost component while charging more for less. Apple has controlled the high end market mainly because customers collectively let them, not just for their “high quality” products.
Using only one chip not only hammers sequential read write, but random read write as well. During day to day use, programs and system read write small files all the time. Having r/w distributed to two chips double random read write speed, which also helps the performance and overall experience of daily use. Not to mention having two chips also help with wear leveling. Keep in mind, as soon as internal drive dies, your Mac is an expensive piece of paperweight unless being serviced by Apple.
Anyone who claims this issue being blown out of proportion either don’t notice this aspect or don’t care, which then allows Apple to get away with lower cost component while charging more for less. Apple has controlled the high end market mainly because customers collectively let them, not just for their “high quality” products.
Not exactly "real-world". Most people who would be running such a task won't be using 256 GB models in the first place.
