M3 iMac 256GB SSD speed

[picpicmac]

Apple put much slower, single NAND storage chips in the 256GB iMacs with M3 but the new MacBook Airs with M3 all have much quicker, dual-chip 256GB SSDs...

Doubt that the majority of users will notice the differences, or even care if they do happen to have both machines and do notice the difference.

 

[Nguyen Duc Hieu]

Doubt that the majority of users will notice the differences, or even care if they do happen to have both machines and do notice the difference.

I believe that I belong to the majority of users in your term. And I won't notice the difference or care.
Thus I buy and use iMac 11,1 with SATA SSD and be very happy with the snappy experience, while paying only a portion of even a second hand M1 mini base model.
If one emphasizes on the user experience, he/she doesn't have to pay top dollars for newest base model Macs. Upgraded old Macs will runs just fine and serves well basic needs of light usage.

 

[signuphere]

As someone who just bought an M3 iMac with 256 of storage, this is slightly disappointing. I guess I should have splurged on storage but I didn't as I have a difficult time filling a 256 GB as it is. No, I'm not going to exchange it.

This goes to show you, pay the "Apple tax" now or cry latter...which is why I spec'd mine with 24 GB RAM for example even though I really don't need it because I'm a non-productive recreational user but I thought that the extra RAM would be a nice cushion.

 

[ViVaLuv]

Is this too bad or expected based on lesser free space (M3 24GB - 256GB)

 

[throAU]

M1 256 read 2700 write 1500.

M3 256 read 1500 write 1500.

Not sure why. Slightly disappointing.

bigger NAND chips for capacity means fewer chips needed for baseline
fewer chips = less parallel thrughput

if you want fast storage, don't buy base model. pretty much has always been the case even going back to hard drives - if storing the same amount of data, larger hard drives are faster due to the storage density vs. rotation speed and track seek.

SSDs get faster with more NAND chips.

 

[throAU]

Doubt that the majority of users will notice the differences, or even care if they do happen to have both machines and do notice the difference.

Most users in day to day use can't tell the difference between SATA and m.2 SSDs. And SATA is like 30-50% the speed of the slowest Mac SSD you can currently buy. LTT even blind tested it to confirm.

 

[WC7]

Not too worried about this all, but am worried about on-board AI processing (memory + RAM speed (+ amount all may have implications) ... seems the on-board AI neural engine cores are more critical(?). I have no real understanding of the types of AI Apple is aiming for, but computers seem to be sliding that way.

 

[Terraaustralis]

Because most of the humans on this planet today are not power users.

Really, most people just do email, maybe check a few news sites on the web. The adventurous do video calls with their relatives or employer.

The people who post on MacRumors are abnormal.

Yes, abnormal in the best sense that MacRumors members put effort into understanding a complex technology in order exercise better self management and control over the tool and obtaining better cost-efficiency. This discussion has been most enlightening with the SSD comparisons offered.

I am a graphic designer who largely does publication work and occasionally uses audio recording and animation software. I chose the route of upgrading a 2019 Intel imac. The 2TB WD Black SN770 two years ago cost AUD$175 and offers similar disk speeds to Mackintosh1984 M3 iMac now offers.

I think Apple is mad or extraordinarily greedy to continue selling entry level M3 macs with a mere 256 GB SSD. The SSD will be swapping data back and forth wearing out fast and leaving the owner with another fee to replace the SSD after a few years.

Of course the M3 CPU and GPU capability far exceed my iMac. The 2019 imac with Intel i5, 3.7Ghz six core CPU with 24 GB of DDR4 is however, enough to meet my needs.

An iMac lasts a long time. I still have a fully working 2007 iMac which runs old software on OSX Lion which I could still be happlily using to my deadlines.

I will not buy an inflexible overpriced M series iMac as they now stand. Which is a pity as the integrated design has always been cost effective, very neat and attractive.

I feel Apple is unreasonably forcing me into spending excessive charges.

Perhaps there is a better future using a Mac Mini with a monitor and powered TB4 externals.

Thank you all for your contributions.