So - not sure how many have seen the reports on the M2 mb pro but there are tests, reported here on MR, that the 256g ssd (and only the 256) version is slower than the M1/256 version. It’s attributed to the fact that Apple used 1-256g chip in the M2 vs 2-128g chips in the M1 version, and the 2 128 chips in the M1 allow parallel reads/writes. Possibly the change is from chip shortages or cost cutting by increasing volume purchases of the 256g chips.

It’s unknowable right now but plausible, even likely, that the M2 mba 256 ssd will have the same issue.

What does the hive mind here think? Worth cancelling a preorder for a m2 air 16/256 and moving to 16/516? Part of this is that the tests reporting the slowdown have all been 8g RAM machines so not sure this’ll be an issue w 16g

Nobody buying an Air should care about marginal differences in ssd speeds so unless you think it’s immoral or unethical then do whatever you want. Now if you think that then probably not best to give them more money by upgrading.

All this discussion over the "slow" SSD is kind of nuts to me. Even if it is "slower" it's still quite fast for the majority of us. Loading webpages, email and documents will "feel" just as fast. If you are moving very large, hundred-plus gig files around, yes it will be slower. But, I have to ask, what are you doing on an Air if you are messing with such giant files regularly? Seems like the 14 Pro would be a better choice for that workflow. I realize this is just my opinion, of course.

@S-L: as I read the reports, it’s not marginal ssd speeds they’re talking about - it’s that the whole system is notably slower, more like a bottleneck issue than the, as you correctly say, tiny differences between ssds.

@A-R: thanks, just wondering what people who know more than I do think about this.

happyslayer said:

All this discussion over the "slow" SSD is kind of nuts to me. Even if it is "slower" it's still quite fast for the majority of us. Loading webpages, email and documents will "feel" just as fast. If you are moving very large, hundred-plus gig files around, yes it will be slower. But, I have to ask, what are you doing on an Air if you are messing with such giant files regularly? Seems like the 14 Pro would be a better choice for that workflow. I realize this is just my opinion, of course.

The reality is, a "supercharged" new version should not be slower in any way. Apple is being greedy and we shouldn't give them excuses.

Performance is drastically reduced under heavy load according to Max Tech. Cancel your pre order and go for the 512 GB model.

v1ctorS said:

Performance is drastically reduced under heavy load according to Max Tech. Cancel your pre order and go for the 512 GB model.

for another $450AUD nah, better off with 14" same price with discount

what's your heavy loading lol

they are all preparing to ship now no cancelling for you

if it's slower than my 8/512 24" iMac it will be going back, I ain't going backwards, will Get a 14"

We won’t know until the first ones arrive. But, the M2 MBP let’s us know that there’s at least a 51+% that yes, it will only be 1 256GB module and not 2x128GB. Or, Apple saved supply of 128GB for the Air. We won’t know until they arrive in customers hands.

Squirreljam said:

So - not sure how many have seen the reports on the M2 mb pro but there are tests, reported here on MR, that the 256g ssd (and only the 256) version is slower than the M1/256 version. It’s attributed to the fact that Apple used 1-256g chip in the M2 vs 2-128g chips in the M1 version, and the 2 128 chips in the M1 allow parallel reads/writes. Possibly the change is from chip shortages or cost cutting by increasing volume purchases of the 256g chips.

It’s unknowable right now but plausible, even likely, that the M2 mba 256 ssd will have the same issue.

What does the hive mind here think? Worth cancelling a preorder for a m2 air 16/256 and moving to 16/516? Part of this is that the tests reporting the slowdown have all been 8g RAM machines so not sure this’ll be an issue w 16g

Click to expand...

8 GB vs. 16 GB comparison (EXSUM: significant differences):

As frustrating as the differences are, it's completely a moot point if you plan to get 512 storage or 16gb RAM. I totally get the frustration from base model buyers and am hoping that they stuck with the 2 chip design on the air, but I'm doubting it.

Kayakphotos said:

As frustrating as the differences are, it's completely a moot point if you plan to get 512 storage or 16gb RAM. I totally get the frustration from base model buyers and am hoping that they stuck with the 2 chip design on the air, but I'm doubting it.

To put things in perspective, in the US the 8 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD version goes for 1.400$, but in the EU the same laptop will set you back 1860$, so europeans are basically stuck with a "slow" MBA unless they're willing to pay an insane premium.

v1ctorS said:

To put things in perspective, in the US the 8 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD version goes for 1.400$, but in the EU the same laptop will set you back 1860$, so europeans are basically stuck with a "slow" MBA unless they're willing to pay an insane premium.

That's definitely inexcusable. I would go for the 14" MBP for sure, given the price differences in EU. We shouldn't have to do that though...

If I were buying one today, I'd most certainly go for the 512, but that goes for reasons beyond just the performance itself (256GB is just a bit tight these days, but that of course depends on the individual use case. I use XCode and Logic Pro X, so I might be a little biased here).

But as far as the performance differences, I question whether it's really that noticeable in real world use cases, and I think it's worth discussing in-depth to see. Benchmarking the SSD of course shows about a 2x speed increase on the 512GB configurations, but we know that this doesn't necessarily translate to a 2x real-world speed increase in all everyday applications. The CPU operates out of RAM and not directly off of the drive, so once the OS has loaded the data that is required into RAM, there shouldn't be a terribly big performance impact. The SSD speeds do, of course, benefit application startup and bootup times, but even here, much of this might not necessarily storage bound at the kinds of speeds we are used to seeing in SSDs today. If these tasks spend much of their time doing CPU-bound work, halving the SSD speed might not necessarily correspond to an equivalent drop in boot or app startup times. (Faster SSDs do have measurable benefits, but doubling the SSD speed doesn't nearly correspond to doubling launch times linearly).

In swap-heavy workloads, the performance impacts might be a little more pronounced. It is likely going to be noticeable, but even here, I expect that it isn't going to nearly correspond to a halving of swap performance here either, as the biggest limiting factor for swap is the latency of access and not necessarily the speed of the transfer itself. It can take 100,000 to 300,000 CPU cycles (on average) for a modern SSD to deliver the data for any given requested page to the OS, which is many, many times more than a RAM access (which is closer to 300-400 cycles on the M1). Decreasing the actual transfer rate and cutting it in half might add another 30K to 40K in CPU cycles required to deliver a 16KB page to the OS, but this won't be a severe as cutting the overall performance completely in half (as the latency of access still is a fixed cost that requires hundreds of thousands of cycles in many cases, regardless of transfer speed).

Overall (for most everyday users and use cases) I doubt it is really going to matter all that much whether the SSD is performing at 1300MB/sec in the 256GB models or at ~2600MB/sec in the 512GB models. It's definitely a no brainer to get the faster one if you're able (there are use cases that can take advantage of it, and any performance improvement is welcome for a machine that is expected to be in use for years). But until recently, much of the computer world was still stuck on 540MB/sec SATA SSDs, and those were still blazing fast in comparison to the HDDs that they replaced. Even today, SATA SSDs aren't exactly slow (and can still boot up computers and applications at very fast speeds). So even though it's a little disappointing that Apple cheaped out on the 256GB models, I don't see it necessarily having an earth-shattering impact on the everyday user either (1300MB/sec is still fairly fast in the grand scheme of things). I suppose we will have to wait for more real world benchmarks to see.

v1ctorS said:

To put things in perspective, in the US the 8 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD version goes for 1.400$, but in the EU the same laptop will set you back 1860$, so europeans are basically stuck with a "slow" MBA unless they're willing to pay an insane premium.

Did you subtract VAT from that price? US doesn't have taxes added to the listed price like in EU or UK. Then there is the issue that some countries mandate a 2 year standard warranty so that is going to raise the prices too.

jdb8167 said:

Did you subtract VAT from that price? US doesn't have taxes added to the listed price like in EU or UK. Then there is the issue that some countries mandate a 2 year standard warranty so that is going to raise the prices too.

It's 1850€ including VAT if you want the 512 GB SSD. And no, it only comes with 1 year warranty.

v1ctorS said:

It's 1850€ including VAT if you want the 512 GB SSD. And no, it only comes with 1 year warranty.

How much is the VAT? In the UK it is 20%. That brings the price more in line with the US prices (though still higher). If the VAT is 30% then they are almost identical in price.

Think I heard/read either the 512GB SSD or 16GB RAM upgrade will eliminate the issue on the M2 Pro, like Kayakphotos mentions above.

ArkSingularity said:

Logic Pro X

stopped reading there, no one use a air for that lol

Dealmans said:

stopped reading there, no one use a air for that lol

are you kidding? i know a few people running logic on M1 airs (and 1 person using it on a *gasp* intel air). you can even order the air with logic or final cut pre-installed. so, there are people out there... doing just that...

Squirreljam said:

So - not sure how many have seen the reports on the M2 mb pro but there are tests, reported here on MR, that the 256g ssd (and only the 256) version is slower than the M1/256 version. It’s attributed to the fact that Apple used 1-256g chip in the M2 vs 2-128g chips in the M1 version, and the 2 128 chips in the M1 allow parallel reads/writes. Possibly the change is from chip shortages or cost cutting by increasing volume purchases of the 256g chips.

It’s unknowable right now but plausible, even likely, that the M2 mba 256 ssd will have the same issue.

What does the hive mind here think? Worth cancelling a preorder for a m2 air 16/256 and moving to 16/516? Part of this is that the tests reporting the slowdown have all been 8g RAM machines so not sure this’ll be an issue w 16g

Click to expand...

Can't tell until people get one, but I'd say better to be safe than sorry. Going with at least 16GB of RAM and 512GB of SSD is a good idea even without the added speed hits that are associated with going with 8GB of RAM and/or 256GB of SSD.

Sheepish-Lord said:

Nobody buying an Air should care about marginal differences in ssd speeds so unless you think it’s immoral or unethical then do whatever you want. Now if you think that then probably not best to give them more money by upgrading.

I'm sorry, but do you actually own and/or have used an M2 Mac with 8GB of RAM and 256GB of SSD storage and can attest to how it is to use? Because unless you do, that's utter nonsense. Also, given that the M1 Air could do things that no Intel MacBook Air could ever dream to and that people are buying Apple Silicon MacBook Airs ON THIS PRETENSE, the "Nobody buying an Air should care about..." sentiment is nonsense.

happyslayer said:

All this discussion over the "slow" SSD is kind of nuts to me. Even if it is "slower" it's still quite fast for the majority of us. Loading webpages, email and documents will "feel" just as fast. If you are moving very large, hundred-plus gig files around, yes it will be slower. But, I have to ask, what are you doing on an Air if you are messing with such giant files regularly? Seems like the 14 Pro would be a better choice for that workflow. I realize this is just my opinion, of course.

Again, can you actually attest first hand to what it is like to use an 8GB of RAM/256GB SSD equipped Apple M2 Mac? Because until you have and can judge it firsthand, your opinion is not well enough informed.

People are buying Apple Silicon Macs in droves because they are promised to be really fast! When you buy an M2 Mac and it performs worse than an M1 Mac, THAT'S A PROBLEM.

v1ctorS said:

Performance is drastically reduced under heavy load according to Max Tech. Cancel your pre order and go for the 512 GB model.

The OP is specifically asking about the M2 Air which Max Tech, in theory, doesn't have yet. But, I agree that, based on the Max Tech video for the M2 13" MacBook Pro, I'd steer clear of that same configuration in the MacBook Air.

Dealmans said:

stopped reading there, no one use a air for that lol

That's an asinine statement. Especially considering that Apple Silicon MacBook Airs are not Intel MacBook Airs and are able to do things that Intel MacBook Airs could never dream of doing. Again, you have people buying Apple Silicon MacBook Airs in droves and largely because they don't suck anymore. A base model M1 Air can easily handle mid-range gaming and editing of 4K footage; you'd have never dreamt of those things on any Intel MacBook Air that ever existed.

Yebubbleman said:

I'm sorry, but do you actually own and/or have used an M2 Mac with 8GB of RAM and 256GB of SSD storage and can attest to how it is to use? Because unless you do, that's utter nonsense. Also, given that the M1 Air could do things that no Intel MacBook Air could ever dream to and that people are buying Apple Silicon MacBook Airs ON THIS PRETENSE, the "Nobody buying an Air should care about..." sentiment is nonsense.

I mean I’ve owned the recent Intel MBA/MBP, MBA M1, iMac M1, and now MBP 16” so I have some experience. Just because a device CAN do something doesn’t mean it was built for it. Same with these laptops and the folks that keep saying to buy the MBA because it can do everything is terrible advice. Can it do 8K…sure but should it? Probably not.

As I stated if someone is that concerned about SSD affecting performance then why are they looking at Apple’s cheapest laptop? If SSD or other specs are critical to you then be more critical about your hardware selection. Use the right tool for the job. You can use a butter knife to cut steak but it’s gonna take forever and you’ll look like an idiot.

Dealmans said:

stopped reading there, no one use a air for that lol

I used a 2012 Macbook Pro for Logic Pro X for years. If my 2012 could handle it (with fairly large projects too), the modern Macbook Airs definitely can.

Logic is better optimized than many people think. Trust me, it'll run on just about anything.