They are not using a downgraded and/or slower SSD chip. The M1 256GB model used 2 128GB chips vs the M2 using a single 256GB chip. The single chip can't take advantage of parallelism so it will have less bandwidth.They should all be worried about Apple. Hopefully the MacBook Air with M2 chip will not have same SSD reduced speed "feature" which Max Tech discovered the base model MacBook M2 has. Apple needs good press for all M2 Mac models, and Apple should not provide a reason for the tech press to bad mouth them, by using a downgraded, slower SSD chip design in their base M2 models.
M2 is slower than an i7. What are you talking about?It's amazing that M2 beats the latest Intel chip. And if you do the tests unplugged for the laptops then the M2 leave them in the dust. Amazing how stagnated Intel got.
Indeed. It is almost 100% guaranteed that the Air will have the exact same arrangement. As will all the other M2 machines (whatever and whenever they may be) that start at 256 GB. It's a bummer, but even at 1/2 speed the SSDs are still very fast.They are not using a downgraded and/or slower SSD chip. The M1 256GB model used 2 128GB chips vs the M2 using a single 256GB chip. The single chip can't take advantage of parallelism so it will have less bandwidth.
Yep. I’m tech savvy and love the latest and greatest but I just have very little need for a powerhouse computer. Essentially none. Web browsing and streaming constitute 95% of my personal computer use. And 70% of my web browsing is done on my phone. 10 years ago I would have never thought I wouldn’t need a desktop or laptop and I have almost reached that point. However, it is nice to sit down at a bigger screen and look up from time to time. The only thing that might change what I need is if I really start diving into music production. And even then my 2017 MBP will still probably hold out for a bit.99% of people buying the air arn't going to care or notice.
You think you’re smarter than Tim Apple or something?I doubt this will happen.
I think the M2 MacBook Air will be a Lemon due to HEAT. and NO FAN.
Look at the M2 MacBook Pro. It has 1 fan and still overheats.
Much like Star Wars, PC manufacturers worrying about Mac sales is pure fantasy.I felt a great disturbance in the force, as if millions of consumers suddenly cried out in happiness, and then left Intel. I fear something amazing has happened.
The tech press will always bad mouth Apple, it gets clicks, eyes on ads, revenue.They should all be worried about Apple. Hopefully the MacBook Air with M2 chip will not have same SSD reduced speed "feature" which Max Tech discovered the base model 13" MacBook Pro M2 has. Apple needs good press for all M2 Mac models, and Apple should not provide a reason for the tech press to bad mouth them, by using a downgraded, slower SSD chip design in their base M2 models.
I never said said the SSD chips themselves were slower or downgraded, just the SSD chip design that Apple chose in the base model M2 MacBook Pro. When a M1 13" MacBookPro runs about 200% faster at SSD read and write speeds in the base model, and then Apple's upgraded and better M2 13" MacBook Pro machine runs at half the SSD speed on the base model, that affects the swap speed from memory to SSD speed, and causes reduced app performance for anything needing larger than 8GB RAM on the base model. I first saw Max Tech point this out, then influencers like Marques Brownlee, Linus Tech Tips, and others focused on that slower speed SSD in their reviews. A computer company should never go backward in their SSD speeds, even if adding larger SSD size removes the problem. The majority of people just buy the base model that they can find in stores and do not upgrade the SSD size. I just hate to see Apple get creamed by reviewers and influencers over this issue.They are not using a downgraded and/or slower SSD chip. The M1 256GB model used 2 128GB chips vs the M2 using a single 256GB chip. The single chip can't take advantage of parallelism so it will have less bandwidth.
I guess in the end the reason doesn't make a difference though. It will be slower at preforming certain tasks at certain times. You wont find this problem if you upgrade to more storage or more ram. I'd be suspect of anyone buying the base model and claiming to be a pro or power user.
The dent is caused by Apple's silicon which runs fast AND cool, unlike Windows competitors. I might be unusual here in actually liking and using Windows 11 on a homebuilt PC but I can't find a single Intel/AMD laptop that comes anywhere close to even a base model M1/M2 Mac. With Windows PCs you can't have fast AND quiet - those fans are going to run and run noisily.I don't get it. Apple's had laptops at this price point for more than a decade. This is nothing new. Where Apple could (but won't) make a dent in Wintel laptops is at the $500-$800 price point. I am guessing 80% of Windows laptops sell in this price range (at least at the consumer level). Also, I have to wonder how many tech industry laptop users are going to switching from Apple back to Wintel when they upgrade their current Apple/Intel laptops because they need the Intel processors to do some of their work.
Yes, but how many high end laptops are purchased, period? If there’s, say 500,000 sold in a year, then huge swaths of 500,000 is still less than 500,000. And 500,000 is not a significant part of the pc buying market.Huge swathes of high end laptops (>=£1500) are bought by gamers.
MacBook Air even being considered as a “workhorse” machine should raise eyebrows everywhere.Anyone spending over a thousand on a windows machine for household use is not the kind of customer who is going to be loyal to windows anyway. Anyone who buys a mac around that price without adding an extra $500 to upgrade it isn't going to get a great work computer either since the extra ram and space is almost required for a workhorse computer. They would get more for the money from a PC.
I think the problem these manufacturers are having is that they don't really offer much in terms of speed at that price point. If they could build in a video card that would allow you to play games you can't on the mac, that may be good, but then they charge much more for those. They should back down from that price point altogether and make people justify paying $300 or more for a Mac vs their offerings. They can't really go head to head to justify that price if the overall experience is inferior to begin with. They can still compete on price.