Will 16GB of Memory Finally Come Standard Alongside the M3 Chip?

[Danfango]

they are not cutting the speed of the SSDs, they are only putting one chip on the based model boards. they probably just stopped ordering 128gb chips. yes, likely has to do with profits.

I think it's more that the jumps in storage density means that there are no 128gb chips on the market now.

There is no excuse not to stick 2 chips in or have 512Gb as the base model with decent SSD performance. The bulk purchase price for quality 256Gb flash is around $22 a chip now.

 

[maflynn]

they are not cutting the speed of the SSDs, they are only putting one chip on the based model boards.

Question: Are the SSDs on the base M2 MBA and MBP faster or slower then the M1 versions?
Answer: Slower
Conclusion: Macs now have slower SSD storage, i,e, Apple reduced the speed.

It doesn't matter how they got there, the fact remains the M2 base models have a slower storage then the M1 version.

 

[boss.king]

Question: Are the SSDs on the base M2 MBA and MBP faster or slower then the M1 versions?
Answer: Slower
Conclusion: Macs now have slower SSD storage, i,e, Apple reduced the speed.

It doesn't matter how they got there, the fact remains the M2 base models have a slower storage then the M1 version.

Are the SSDs themselves slower or is the slowdown just a side effect of the 1 vs 2 chip configuration?

I know it doesn’t really matter since you change the config later, I’m just curious if the individual chips actually got slower.

 

[xraydoc]

Are the SSDs themselves slower or is the slowdown just a side effect of the 1 vs 2 chip configuration?

I know it doesn’t really matter since you change the config later, I’m just curious if the individual chips actually got slower.

Yes, due to the use of a single chip instead of two. This could become more commonplace as storage densities on single chips continue to go up. One chip is cheaper than two (usually), so I suspect this pattern will continue on the lower-sized options.

 

[boss.king]

Yes, due to the use of a single chip instead of two. This could become more commonplace as storage densities on single chips continue to go up. One chip is cheaper than two (usually), so I suspect this pattern will continue on the lower-sized options.

I'm not asking about the single vs dual chip thing, I'm asking if the chips themselves, regardless of their configuration, have slower read/write speeds than the ones in the M1 model. i.e. If you took the 256 gig chip from a base M2 model and a single 256 gig chip from one of the M1 models, would the M2 chip be slower?

 

[maflynn]

If you took the 256 gig chip from a base M2 model and a single 256 gig chip from one of the M1 models

AFAIK, Apple didn't put in a single NAND SSD in the M1 Macs.

 

[Digitalguy]

I'm not asking about the single vs dual chip thing, I'm asking if the chips themselves, regardless of their configuration, have slower read/write speeds than the ones in the M1 model. i.e. If you took the 256 gig chip from a base M2 model and a single 256 gig chip from one of the M1 models, would the M2 chip be slower?

For the end user it's pretty irrelevant if the chips are the same speed or not as the result of using 1 chip is identical to having a slower SSD anyway

 

[thingstoponder]

I can’t imagine an iPad Air coming with 16GB of RAM

 

[boss.king]

AFAIK, Apple didn't put in a single NAND SSD in the M1 Macs.

They didn't but that wasn't my question.

For the end user it's pretty irrelevant if the chips are the same speed or not as the result of using 1 chip is identical to having a slower SSD anyway

Yes, we're all aware of the performance difference of 1 chip vs 2, but that's still not what I was asking about.

 

[xraydoc]

I'm not asking about the single vs dual chip thing, I'm asking if the chips themselves, regardless of their configuration, have slower read/write speeds than the ones in the M1 model. i.e. If you took the 256 gig chip from a base M2 model and a single 256 gig chip from one of the M1 models, would the M2 chip be slower?

No, pretty sure it’s just the two vs one thing, since when there are two chips on board, speeds are equal to or faster than the M1 machines.

 

[maflynn]

They didn't but that wasn't my question.

How can we confirm the speed of a single nand SSD M1 Mac when apple did not use single nand SSDs in the Mac?

I can't answer your question simply because no one can, Apple did not create a M1 MBA that used a single nand

 

[Analog Kid]

AFAIK, Apple didn't put in a single NAND SSD in the M1 Macs.

Yes they did, and still do, for education:

https://www.apple.com/education/pricelists/pdfs/Apple_US_Education_Institution_Price_List-01-20-2023.pdf

There is no 128GB M2 Air.

 

[boss.king]

How can we confirm the speed of a single nand SSD M1 Mac when apple did not use single nand SSDs in the Mac?

I can't answer your question simply because no one can, Apple did not create a M1 MBA that used a single nand

I don't know, that's why I asked. I assumed there might be speeds listed for the individual components or something, or some way of benchmarking that would only read/write using one chip.

 

[xraydoc]

some way of benchmarking that would only read/write using one chip.

I don't think that can be done, since the read/write commands, even with benchmarking software, go through the SSD controller (part of the M-series SoC). I don't know if that can be bypassed on macOS.

 

[boss.king]

I don't think that can be done, since the read/write commands, even with benchmarking software, go through the SSD controller (part of the M-series SoC). I don't know if that can be bypassed on macOS.

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks.

 

[Analog Kid]

How can we confirm the speed of a single nand SSD M1 Mac when apple did not use single nand SSDs in the Mac?

I can't answer your question simply because no one can, Apple did not create a M1 MBA that used a single nand

I don't know, that's why I asked. I assumed there might be speeds listed for the individual components or something, or some way of benchmarking that would only read/write using one chip.

I don't think that can be done, since the read/write commands, even with benchmarking software, go through the SSD controller (part of the M-series SoC). I don't know if that can be bypassed on macOS.

There is a single chip, 128GB SSD M1 Air for education:

https://www.apple.com/education/pricelists/pdfs/Apple_US_Education_Institution_Price_List-01-20-2023.pdf

There is no 128GB M2 version.

 

[JoeDezibel]

Because of the efficiency of the M SoCs, 8 GB of RAM, is enough for daily tasks, Pro photo editing and basic video editing. And 1.8 GB/s write and 1.5 GB/s read is superfast enough. You should leave the decision to the customer. People know what they will need.

 

[maflynn]

Because of the efficiency of the M SoCs, 8 GB of RAM, is enough for daily tasks

I have 16GB and using chrome, office apps, and few other apps - things got a bit tight. So I think in this day and age, 16 is the lowest I'd recommend

 

[Digitalguy]

The base M1 iPad pro has 128, but benchmarking on iPadOS is a mess. Results vary wildly from one app to the other and from one day to the other...

 

[Digitalguy]

I have 16GB and using chrome, office apps, and few other apps - things got a bit tight. So I think in this day and age, 16 is the lowest I'd recommend

Same, I am swapping with 16GB by using chrome, office and a few cloud apps, especially if I don't turn off my device every night, which I often don't and sometime leave on for days, with RAM usage increasing without anything else being added. 16GB is no longer comfortable for my normal use, 32GB is.

 

[maflynn]

for my normal use, 32GB is.

Yep, my next Mac - 32GB

 

[Abazigal]

I can’t imagine an iPad Air coming with 16GB of RAM

Mainly because the storage configuration that would come with 16 gb ram (1 tb or more) doesn’t exist for the iPad Air.

 

[Piplodocus]

Maybe. Maybe not. Just buy the one that makes most sense for your own use.

I wouldn't buy an 8 GB one in a million years for what I want it for. But then some people buy expensive MacBooks to just do some basic email, docs, Facebook and Youtube, so kinda makes sense Apple can put a few bottom end specs in as a start point to make the start price look cheaper when clearly some people don't need the performance of a modern MacBook but still like the shiny nice bits, display and OS. They're clearly not going to make any cheap low-spec computers so may as well release their cheapest (pretty high spec) ones with some low spec bits.

As long as the range they sell covers the parameters of one I actually want to buy I don't care what they start at (or end at for that matter as I'm not gonna remortgage my house for the top end maxed out either)

 

[Analog Kid]

I have 16GB and using chrome, office apps, and few other apps - things got a bit tight. So I think in this day and age, 16 is the lowest I'd recommend

Same, I am swapping with 16GB by using chrome, office and a few cloud apps, especially if I don't turn off my device every night, which I often don't and sometime leave on for days, with RAM usage increasing without anything else being added. 16GB is no longer comfortable for my normal use, 32GB is.

Yep, my next Mac - 32GB

For Chrome and office apps?!

Can you quantify this a bit more? There is zero impact on performance if you're pushing data you haven't used for a few minutes (let alone days) out to disk and then reading it back in a few minutes later. The size of your swapfile doesn't matter-- it's the rate at which you're accessing it that matters.

I have a feeling people look at Activity Monitor, see "Swap Used" and feel like that's a failure of some sort. Nothing you're describing sounds like swap intensive activity, its sounds like page caching...

 

[Digitalguy]

For Chrome and office apps?!

Can you quantify this a bit more? There is zero impact on performance if you're pushing data you haven't used for a few minutes (let alone days) out to disk and then reading it back in a few minutes later. The size of your swapfile doesn't matter-- it's the rate at which you're accessing it that matters.

I have a feeling people look at Activity Monitor, see "Swap Used" and feel like that's a failure of some sort. Nothing you're describing sounds like swap intensive activity, its sounds like page caching...

I use Windows more than MacOS. Anyway my Surface Book 3 is only restarted once a month for the monthly security updates, otherwise it's on 24/7. It's constanly at 80% RAM and the commited memory (RAM + swap file) is 28GB. I can feel the slowdowns in opening stuff compared to devices like my desktop I turn off every night and has more RAM, but it doesn't bother me much. But my next device will have 32, just like my desktop