Rene Ritchie.. the voice of reason

[Devyn89]

For god’s sake, it is a two to three pound computer, not a sports car that would require an evenly distributed weight for optimal performance.

I’m aware. It’s not about performance. It just feels better in the hand. If you don’t care about it that’s fine but I do. You’re not going to convince me to not care about it so I don’t know why you care what I care about when I buy a computer.

 

[Naraxus]

It's a whole new world for Rene!

Benchmarks = Bad
Google = Good

I was looking on AppleInsider the other day their take on benchmarks was rather amusing, making excuses & trying to justify the laughably slower ssd speeds. They've approached a new level of Rene-esque fanboyism over there

 

[Naraxus]

I’ll bet ya $10 that as soon as benchmarks are showing the blazing performance of a future Apple product….then …Rene will be all into talking about benchmarks all the sudden.

Of course he will. It's like all the other Apple Shills who claim "marketshare is irrelevant"........except when it shows Apple in a positive light.

 

[Zest28]

Again the minute you use swap to argue performance is proof alone you just need more than 8GB of RAM.

Not if you have a fast SSD.

What you guys fail to understand is that M1 MBA was great because it was only $999. 8GB RAM was all you needed.

And Apple just killed the base model which makes the MacBook Air pointless.

If you make the MacBook Air an expensive machine with upgrades, you get alot more value going with the 14” MBP instead.

Now you guys go ahead and spend $1500+ on a MacBook Air, I won’t do it. I will wait till Apple puts 2 NAND chips in the base model again.

 

[Ethosik]

Nor will launching Safari benefit from a processor that has cores that are 10% faster.

Yes it does. Clock speed matters more than this SSD difference.

I have tested this with M1, two M1 Max and M1 Ultra. They all open these base apps the same speed. M2 is slightly faster.

 

[m1maverick]

Yes it does. Clock speed matters more than this SSD difference.

I have tested this with M1, two M1 Max and M1 Ultra. They all open these base apps the same speed. M2 is slightly faster.

OK, let's see the data which supports these statements.

 

[dumastudetto]

He is the king of the shills for sure. Makes a living acting as if he himself worked for their marketing department. Come to think of this, I do see how you’d like him 😂

I love that people are still excited about Apple, the future, and share their critical thinking with the world. Rene is anything but a shill. He's often criticised the company for decisions and missteps.

 

[DavidChoux]

Again the minute you use swap to argue performance is proof alone you just need more than 8GB of RAM.

You're missing the point completely. The old 2021 M1 Air with 256/8GB would have been fine. The new one, not so much.

More expensive, newer model... 50% slower than last year's to do certain tasks. And then you get responses like yours that just say to spend more money on RAM. What a joke.

 

[Analog Kid]

Again the minute you use swap to argue performance is proof alone you just need more than 8GB of RAM.

Not if you have a fast SSD.

How do you defend that statement? I haven't seen specific numbers for the M2 yet, but bandwidth to RAM is likely somewhere just under 100,000MB/s. Bandwidth to the 512GB SSD for swap is 2,700MB/s.

That's a 40x difference in throughput. I also don't know the latency to the SSD in these systems, but I'll bet that difference is closer to 1000x (microseconds to SSD versus nanoseconds to RAM).

Why do you think that the first 40x loss of throughput is unimportant but that last factor of 2 is what dooms it? The latency, which is the important number for virtual memory access, is likely the same and may be better for the single chip (latencies to RAIDs is typically longer than single drive, but we don't know the details of the Apple SSD controller).

Thinking a fast SSD makes up for lack of RAM depth is yet another way these benchmarks have warped peoples minds. If you have a serious need for swap as actual virtual memory, you've lost the performance battle already. If you need to page in a rarely used browser tab rather than re-render it (and given how quickly I expect you're able to click, all tabs are rarely used in computer time) then any SSD will do.

 

[Zest28]

How do you defend that statement? I haven't seen specific numbers for the M2 yet, but bandwidth to RAM is likely somewhere just under 100,000MB/s. Bandwidth to the 512GB SSD for swap is 2,700MB/s.

That's a 40x difference in throughput. I also don't know the latency to the SSD in these systems, but I'll bet that difference is closer to 1000x (microseconds to SSD versus nanoseconds to RAM).

Why do you think that the first 40x loss of throughput is unimportant but that last factor of 2 is what dooms it? The latency, which is the important number for virtual memory access, is likely the same and may be better for the single chip (latencies to RAIDs is typically longer than single drive, but we don't know the details of the Apple SSD controller).

Thinking a fast SSD makes up for lack of RAM depth is yet another way these benchmarks have warped peoples minds. If you have a serious need for swap as actual virtual memory, you've lost the performance battle already. If you need to page in a rarely used browser tab rather than re-render it (and given how quickly I expect you're able to click, all tabs are rarely used in computer time) then any SSD will do.

Why don’t you search this forum? This topic has been discussed for more than 2 years on MacRumors how the SSD in the M1 MBA is fast enough for memory swapping on the base M1 MBA.

Funny how you think this comes from toxic benchmarks while this comes from Macrumors who have used the M1 MBA extensively.

Hello Rene!

 

[Menneisyys2]

Again again and again Apple never disclosed the SSD speeds. The same way I only get 5GB/ s on my Mac studio and not 7 since I don’t have the 8 TB model.

I really want to understand this massive outrage like your entire business will shut down due to this. Is the base model for Pete’s sake. You won’t be doing 8k video editing on it.

Again again and again: they should have at least added a warning / note on their product page: "the 512GB model delivers significantly better I/O speed" or something like that. Again again and again: people would NOT expect major(!!) performance decrease in a new and stated/expected-to-be-faster & more expensive(!) model.

 

[Menneisyys2]

Because the entire argument is now this SSD is “slow” yet it’s still three times faster than SATA SSDs.

Yes, and it's indeed faster than floppy drives / USB memory sticks etc. But significantly slower than the previous baseline model. And that's the major problem. And that is NOT revealed by Apple at all - on the contrary, they keep stating how fast the M2 CPU/GPU is compared to the M1.

 

[Analog Kid]

Why don’t you search this forum? This topic has been discussed for more than 2 years on MacRumors how the SSD in the M1 MBA is fast enough for memory swapping on the base M1 MBA.

Funny how you think this comes from toxic benchmarks while this comes from Macrumors who have used the M1 MBA extensively.

Hello Rene!

That wasn't an answer.

 

[Zest28]

That wasn't an answer.

Yes it is.

But why did you bring up toxic benchmark numbers btw to show why RAM is better?

Now all of sudden toxic benchmarks are better than real world experiences from MacRumors members over the past 2 years with the base M1 MBA?

 

[Analog Kid]

Yes it is.

But why did you bring up benchmark numbers btw to show why RAM is better?

Now all of sudden benchmarks are better than real world experiences from MacRumors members over the past 2 years with the base M1 MBA?

The comment you responded to was the very factual statement that if you're relying on swap, you'll benefit more from additional RAM. You argued that wasn't true if you had a fast SSD. I asked how you defend that statement.

"Search the forums" is not an answer. How do you defend that statement.

 

[Zest28]

The comment you responded to was the very factual statement that if you're relying on swap, you'll benefit more from additional RAM. You argued that wasn't true if you had a fast SSD. I asked how you defend that statement.

"Search the forums" is not an answer. How do you defend that statement.

I said you don’t need additional RAM if you have a fast SSD, which is the case with the base M1 MBA.

This is well discussed on MacRumors which you can search for it for the base M1 MBA.

Now go do some reading and you will have your answer.

 

[Analog Kid]

I said you don’t need additional RAM if you have a fast SSD, which is the case with the base M1 MBA.

This is well discussed on MacRumors which you can search for it for the base M1 MBA.

Now go do some reading and you will have your answer.

So you're able to get defensive, but unable to defend that statement.

Can you defend the statement that "Apple killed the base model" in the context of swap performance?

Are you able to address any of the technical questions I asked to help me understand why swap performance would be more heavily impacted with the single chip than one would expect?

 

[DavidChoux]

Honestly by this point the best way to solve this would just be a simple good old fashioned fight. Words can only go so far.

I have Friday off so I guess I could meet everyone some where fairly central US, that way it's fairer for everyone (I guess most people on here live in the US).

I'll be on the team opposing the Apple apologists. To be honest I'm quite scared as Rene has that kind of bovine lumbering Lennie Small energy going on.

 

[Zest28]

So you're able to get defensive, but unable to defend that statement.

Can you defend the statement that "Apple killed the base model" in the context of swap performance?

Are you able to address any of the technical questions I asked to help me understand why swap performance would be more heavily impacted with the single chip than one would expect?

I have defended my statement by pointing to 2 years worth of discussions on MacRumors about the base M1 MBA and memory swapping.

I suggest you go talk to your friend Rene as you are not interested in learning more about the base M1 MBA performance (which you can read on this forum as I have said many times), but just causing trouble like your good friend Rene. He is also into that stuff so you guys have alot in common.

 

[rkuo]

That wasn't an answer.

Doesn't have to be. The entire contention is ridiculous. Fast SSD's make a big difference in terms of swap, period. You're just theory crafting your numbers and your conclusion is wrong.

 

[camotwen]

M2 needs to exist to keep the architecture going. We don’t want 3 or 4 years between processors.

Why? What is wrong with not having a new processor every year but sustantial improvements every 3-4? In this case I may understand the better video decoding thing (ie M1.2), but otherwise, why do _we_ want a new processor every year or so just for the sake of it? I understand apple, as it is gonna sell the brand new fancy thing, but I am not sure about the usefulness of the general trend in computers of having a 2.5% increase in performance every year, taking into account also important environmental aspects of all this wasteful system. Though, to give credit where credit is due, apple computers seem to last quite long compared to others.

But in any case I do not understand the argument of "keeping the architecture going" from a customer's perspective. When the new version is not good enough for me to justify the price increase, I will just buy the older one anyway.

 

[ericwn]

I love that people are still excited about Apple, the future, and share their critical thinking with the world. Rene is anything but a shill. He's often criticised the company for decisions and missteps.

Thanks for the chuckle. Good to see you keep working on your comedy side business.

 

[aevan]

If anything I would call people like Rene "toxic". They create content for the sake of starting conflict to get eNgAgEmEnT in the comments. He has no interest in making the products or the users any better off. He just wants to fill his wallet, ego, and feed his self importance. People should be able to express frustration, even anger, at something and not be labeled as "toxic" just so their point in invalidated by someone that does not agree.

Why the hell should you feel anger over a product you haven’t decided to buy yet? Why would you enter a “conflict” over it?

I don’t see how Rene is doing anything but express his opinions on certain products. I actually think he tries hard to explain his views. No one has to agree, but none of this is reason to get angry. Or to call him a shill or apologist or start ranting about Tim Cook.

If you want to have a serious conversation about something, have a serious approach.

I think Tim Cook is a bean counting, uncultured, self-important ding dong. I think the same of most of their executives. I think the retail management is the worst group of people on the planet. I think Apple has fallen off the wagon since Cook took over. I think he is totally fake. But saying all that gets me labeled as toxic. So we can't talk about it and others can't question their beliefs.

You're not toxic for having this opinion. Toxicity depends on the context and how you express it. Are we talking about Apple the company? Are we talking about the reason why Apple is doing something? Or are we talking about a product review? When a reviewer tells you their opinion about a product, and you call them a shill without even having that product because you dislike Tim Cook - that is toxic.

As I said it's about context. No one is calling you toxic because you think Tim Cook is a bad CEO. But if I say "I have this new notebook and I really don't mind the notch on the screen, here's why" and you tell me I'm an apologist and throw in a rant about Tim Cook - that's toxic. Or trolling. Take your pick.

Attacking the integrity of reviewers just because their opinion differs from yours is toxic. Ranting about Tim Cook's personality while we're talking about SSD speeds is toxic. Having a discussion about why you think someone's opinion is wrong, or why you think a certain business strategy is not good - is perfectly fine. Talking about a product and why you dislike it is perfectly fine (Though, I'd wait to at least see the product in question before I have an opinion about it - but that's just me).

The whole point of dialog and its many colors is to make people think and at times question their own thoughts/beliefs. If we walk around calling every conflict or person with a chip on their shoulder "toxic", our culture breaks down. If we only surround ourselves with like minded people, conflicts go from simple disagreements to wars.

That's a false dilemma. No one wants having only like-minded people in a discussion. But even trolls can hide behind this idea of "dialogue".

You can look at it this way: you're not entitled to anything here. No one owes you anything and we're not talking about matters of public interest. We're talking about a product. You can dislike it as much as you want, you can dislike Apple or criticise their approach. By all means. But insult reviewers or customers because you disagree with them - and that behavior will be called toxic.

So don't BS me about echo chambers or the need for everyone to have the same opinion, no one is talking about not having or not expressing your opinion. But when we're talking about the importance of benchmarks - no one cares what you personally think of Tim Cook because that's not the topic of the discussion.

Thanks for the chuckle. Good to see you keep working on your comedy side business.

This is exactly a great example of toxic behavior, so thank you for illustrating that so well. @dumastudetto expressed their opinion. And the person I'm quoting did not debate that opinion by providing a counter argument, they went for dumastudetto instead.

This is not having a "dialogue with many colors" as @BellSystem so eloquently puts it. It's just toxic. And you can't blame people for being fed up with it. In 7 years I have been on this forum, I've been called a sheep, an apologist and even accused of being payed by Apple so many times that I lost count - just because I have my opinion of their products which some people disagree with. No one is asking you to share my opinion, but if you don't see how, for example, claiming that I "drink kool-aid" because I like something is toxic behavior, if you don't see the quoted post above as toxic behavior - I don't know what to tell you.

 

[DavidChoux]

Why the hell should you feel anger over a product you haven’t decided to buy yet? Why would you enter a “conflict” over it?

I don’t see how Rene is doing anything but express his opinions on certain products. I actually think he tries hard to explain his views. No one has to agree, but none of this is reason to get angry. Or to call him a shill or apologist or start ranting about Tim Cook.

If you want to have a serious conversation about something, have a serious approach.



You're not toxic for having this opinion. Toxicity depends on the context and how you express it. Are we talking about Apple the company? Are we talking about the reason why Apple is doing something? Or are we talking about a product review? When a reviewer tells you their opinion about a product, and you call them a shill without even having that product because you dislike Tim Cook - that is toxic.

As I said it's about context. No one is calling you toxic because you think Tim Cook is a bad CEO. But if I say "I have this new notebook and I really don't mind the notch on the screen, here's why" and you tell me I'm an apologist and throw in a rant about Tim Cook - that's toxic. Or trolling. Take your pick.

Attacking the integrity of reviewers just because their opinion differs from yours is toxic. Ranting about Tim Cook's personality while we're talking about SSD speeds is toxic. Having a discussion about why you think someone's opinion is wrong, or why you think a certain business strategy is not good - is perfectly fine. Talking about a product and why you dislike it is perfectly fine (Though, I'd wait to at least see the product in question before I have an opinion about it - but that's just me).




That's a false dilemma. No one wants having only like-minded people in a discussion. But even trolls can hide behind this idea of "dialogue".

You can look at it this way: you're not entitled to anything here. No one owes you anything and we're not talking about matters of public interest. We're talking about a product. You can dislike it as much as you want, you can dislike Apple or criticise their approach. By all means. But insult reviewers or customers because you disagree with them - and that behavior will be called toxic.

So don't BS me about echo chambers or the need for everyone to have the same opinion, no one is talking about not having or not expressing your opinion. But when we're talking about the importance of benchmarks - no one cares what you personally think of Tim Cook because that's not the topic of the discussion.



This is exactly a great example of toxic behavior, so thank you for illustrating that so well. @dumastudetto expressed their opinion. And the person I'm quoting did not debate that opinion by providing a counter argument, they went for dumastudetto instead.

This is not having a "dialogue with many colors" as @BellSystem so eloquently puts it. It's just toxic. And you can't blame people for being fed up with it. In 7 years I have been on this forum, I've been called a sheep, an apologist and even accused of being payed by Apple so many times that I lost count - just because I have my opinion of their products which some people disagree with. No one is asking you to share my opinion, but if you don't see how, for example, claiming that I "drink kool-aid" because I like something is toxic behavior, if you don't see the quoted post above as toxic behavior - I don't know what to tell you.

I think it's more that Rene is clearly targeting a few specific reviewers and deeming them to be, in his own words, "toxic". Arguably that act in and of itself is a bit toxic. Frankly those reviewers did quite a good job shedding light on some serious issues (namely the single SSD implementation). Don't want to get into the details of that again, but some people will be affected by those slower speeds.

And even if you don't buy it, you're allowed to have opinions. Even more so since all of us here clearly have an interest in Apple products. It's understandably atrocious that a newer more expensive model can be 50% slower. When things are improving 10-20% year on year, a 50% move the other way is not insignificant. You don't need to be a potential buyer be allowed to have an opinion about the ridiculousness of things.

 

[Ethosik]

I have defended my statement by pointing to 2 years worth of discussions on MacRumors about the base M1 MBA and memory swapping.

I suggest you go talk to your friend Rene as you are not interested in learning more about the base M1 MBA performance (which you can read on this forum as I have said many times), but just causing trouble like your good friend Rene. He is also into that stuff so you guys have alot in common.

Those two years worth of statements are false. Never EVER EVER rely on SSDs performance for swap as a replacement for RAM. It is a killer in productivity. No matter how fast an SSD is, it does NOT even get CLOSE to RAM performance.

8 GB of RAM has its uses - light web browsing and office work, or even dedicated scenarios like my video touchup and compressor rig that is a 2010 Mac Pro when I do not need HEVC output.