Not always. Most SSDs are rated by TeraBytes Written (TBW). Generally larger SSDs have a larger maximum TBW value. But we are talking about a huge amount of data (potentially 1000s of TB) so it isn't likely to affect anyone buying a MacBook Air.
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.
In your opinion is the slower SSD controversy in the base M2 Air overblown?
- Thread starter Jacoblee23
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's not just 8k video though and the "tageted consumer" thing is also off point because, as far as I know, Apple is not "targeting" consumers in this way. Apple is marketing a general purpose computer that should be able to maximize the performance capabilities consistent with the devices' CPU/GPU and RAM configurations. One would expect it to perform less than a higher end model (e.g., MBP) but not the previous model's, the M1 Air, SSD speeds.
But you're not providing any real world analysis or evidence that the SSD speeds are going to negatively impact the targeted customer.
Don't know about those apps but Lightroom and Photoshop operations ran significantly slower on the M2 256GB than the M1 256GB, as tested and demonstrated by MaxTech.So, Microsoft Office, Pages/Keynote/Numbers, Safari, Mail and the many other consumer and productivity apps are all 50% slower now, huh?
Better watch out copying them Word files... 75 kb is a killer these days!
The video tells me two things; that the very real world task of exporting fifty 40 megapixel images (Ah yes, the ol’ export fifty 40 megapixel images) is slower on the new machine, and that merging some images in Photoshop was around 30% slower, but still incredibly fast.
He even says during the Photoshop test “If you don’t push your system hard, you might not even care about this.” Says it all really…
"It's hard for a near 50% reduction in SSD speed to be overblown."
EXCEPT...no one who would buy it cares.
And it isn't reflected in normal low-key use, which is almost all the use a base model MBA is going to get.
Listen, I know Apple sucks in its ways, and I'm happy for them to be called to account.
But if this was a serious issue, regular users would be able to see and feel it.
If you are a serious enough user to care? Don't buy a base-model MBA!
EXCEPT...no one who would buy it cares.
And it isn't reflected in normal low-key use, which is almost all the use a base model MBA is going to get.
Listen, I know Apple sucks in its ways, and I'm happy for them to be called to account.
But if this was a serious issue, regular users would be able to see and feel it.
If you are a serious enough user to care? Don't buy a base-model MBA!
Too funny.
Anyone buying that base machine aren’t doing the the types of activities that can produce enough write to approach the the point of SSD end of life.
You guys keep misunderstanding the audience for the machine.
It says the newer generation of a notebook and processor advertised for its performance runs noticeably slower on some tasks than the generation it replaces, while selling for $200 more.
This topic has been discussed ad nauseam by now. The thing I find the most comical are the majority of posters here who don't even own the laptop, yet seemingly have all the answers about real world performance & consumer usage. It also seems like a lot of folks are upset simply because they cannot afford the laptop & are now going scorched-earth as a result.
Not only is this entire topic overblown, it's simply a non-issue.
Not only is this entire topic overblown, it's simply a non-issue.
Exactly. Many techies simply can’t comprehend that the typical person buying that laptop is using it for academic or office type apps, or some non-professional uses that don’t need much RAM or disk speed. It is actually very much overpowered for the vast majority of its targeted audience.
The disservice is akin to mal practice.
Sure...except that a bunch of things like "advertised for its performance" and "noticably slower" are REALLY ASTRISKED bc they aren't really that true in the actual real world.
Lightroom exports of 50 photos and Photoshop merges aren't the actual real world?
As for being advertised for its performance:
MacBook Air is strikingly thin and brings exceptional speed and power efficiency within its durable all‑aluminum enclosure.
Yes, it is overblown, especially on YouTube and to a smaller extent, here as well.
"Lightroom exports of 50 photos and Photoshop merges aren't the actual real world?"
I'll let someone else answer you who already did:
"The video tells me two things; that the very real world task of exporting fifty 40 megapixel images (Ah yes, the ol’ export fifty 40 megapixel images) is slower on the new machine, and that merging some images in Photoshop was around 30% slower, but still incredibly fast"
"As for being advertised for its performance:
MacBook Air is strikingly thin and brings exceptional speed and power efficiency within its durable all‑aluminum enclosure."
To make this stick as a criticism, it would have to be SLOW. And it would have to be noticably SLOW all the time.
Be honest: do you think the base model is ACTUALLY SLOW? For the user?
I think you know the answer.
I'll let someone else answer you who already did:
"The video tells me two things; that the very real world task of exporting fifty 40 megapixel images (Ah yes, the ol’ export fifty 40 megapixel images) is slower on the new machine, and that merging some images in Photoshop was around 30% slower, but still incredibly fast"
"As for being advertised for its performance:
MacBook Air is strikingly thin and brings exceptional speed and power efficiency within its durable all‑aluminum enclosure."
To make this stick as a criticism, it would have to be SLOW. And it would have to be noticably SLOW all the time.
Be honest: do you think the base model is ACTUALLY SLOW? For the user?
I think you know the answer.
It doesn't have to be SLOW. It has to only be noticeably slower than the same product it replaces. You're telling me it's ok for a newer model to be 30% slower on some actual applications, performing, actual non-synthetic tasks?
30% slower isn't noticeable, especially for an export operation that itself is time-consuming and has to be waited on by the user?
No mid-tier or higher computer sold in the past five years is slow. I don't get your point.
Target audience aside, learning that an important component of a new product is slower than its predecessor does not sound good.
Apple is not afraid of putting slow parts in their computers. I'm sure many of you remember for how long they put 5400rpm HDDs in cheaper iMacs, which really slowed them down.
Apple is not afraid of putting slow parts in their computers. I'm sure many of you remember for how long they put 5400rpm HDDs in cheaper iMacs, which really slowed them down.
It is slower for people who like to video edit while keeping a lot of browser tabs open. I think Max Tech ran a test with 25 open tabs with Lightroom. This is not my use case, but it is undeniably slow for people who like to use their device that way -- especially for those Apple users into photo editing. So, it's slower. If you are okay with that fact ... good for you. It's not a good look for Apple given how it advertises and sells its products.
Snazzy did a good take on it in his M2 Air review
If you are an average user, that does not strain RAM or copies large files, you will not notice. But if you need RAM offloading and work with media you get to feel it. And feel it big time.
So my wife would be happy - my son and I would be frustrated. But we would not buy the base model. And Apple knows that.
So Apple does take a shortcut here but still asks for a premium, knowing that most users will not hit the bottleneck. Apple no-matter-what supporters will say that is clever product management. I feel it is a cheap move, as many cheap moves before.
In the end: if you need the power, love the design and have the money you buy the bigger configurations. But I agree with Snazzy on many points regarding higher tear pricing and while I wanted to go for the fanless Air I am more and more convinced it will be a Pro instead.
And those casual user will buy the base model in hordes and be happy and for them this discussion is vapour.
If you are an average user, that does not strain RAM or copies large files, you will not notice. But if you need RAM offloading and work with media you get to feel it. And feel it big time.
So my wife would be happy - my son and I would be frustrated. But we would not buy the base model. And Apple knows that.
So Apple does take a shortcut here but still asks for a premium, knowing that most users will not hit the bottleneck. Apple no-matter-what supporters will say that is clever product management. I feel it is a cheap move, as many cheap moves before.
In the end: if you need the power, love the design and have the money you buy the bigger configurations. But I agree with Snazzy on many points regarding higher tear pricing and while I wanted to go for the fanless Air I am more and more convinced it will be a Pro instead.
And those casual user will buy the base model in hordes and be happy and for them this discussion is vapour.
Even knowing that 1 chip is slower than more, it is still faster than a Dell
If coming from a base M1 MBA/MBP with a high workload yes, if coming from an Intel Mac no. It just sit's bad that that the base M1's can out perform the base M2 MBA.
As always Apple is one to tear off the band aid, it is what it is. The option is there for the faster drive if you care to pay up. I don't need 512, I do prefer speed, yet don't care to pay for storage I don't need...
So for now I'll stick with what I've got and see how it goes...
Q-6
As always Apple is one to tear off the band aid, it is what it is. The option is there for the faster drive if you care to pay up. I don't need 512, I do prefer speed, yet don't care to pay for storage I don't need...
So for now I'll stick with what I've got and see how it goes...
Q-6
Last edited: