4 ms·

>upgrades are nuts - it costs as much as an iPhone to get a storage upgrade that is like $100 with commodity SSD storage. I generally agree that Apple's SSD an

>upgrades are nuts - it costs as much as an iPhone to get a storage upgrade that is like $100 with commodity SSD storage. I generally agree that Apple's SSD and RAM upgrades are too expensive. I'd like them to be cheaper. However, I'd like to point out that Apple's SSDs have built-in protection against data-loss from power loss which is usually an enterprise SSD feature. Also, Apple uses LPDDR5 on their Macs which are quite a bit more expensive than DDR4/DDR5. In addition, there's some evidence that Apple's LPDDR5 is actually not off the shelf and is specialized specifically for Apple.[0] That said, yea I think Apple is a bit stingy with SSD and RAM upgrades. [0]https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/24gb-macbook-air-m2-ram-question.2355885/ https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/24gb-macbook-air-m2-ram...

labcomputer 4y ago
I know I would, and I dare say most people are the same, prefer to have the option for 3% lower memory bandwidth in exchange for 4x more memory. There’s no justification for Apple’s memory prices.
- tough 4y ago
  I see it like cars, mass produced standard models are way cheaper than the ones with all the extras and whistles and what not
- wtallis 4y ago
  Where do you get that "3% lower memory bandwidth" figure from? LPDDR5 is running at 6400 MT/s on at least Apple and Intel platforms, and the fastest DDR5 SODIMMs I've seen so far are 5600MT/s: 12.5% slower, assuming equal bus width (only true for the base M1/2 processors).
  - labcomputer 4y ago
    3%, 12% Potato, potato. It’s a small spec performance difference for a huge price difference. Meanwhile, for actual real-world workloads, not spilling to swap (because you have enough memory) will result in real-world performance that is many times (even an order of magnitude) better. Even with Apples blazing fast SSDs. Oh, and you can also spec a cheaper SSD because you don’t need one that can take a bajillion writes (because you aren’t treating your SSD as memory). AND the cheaper SSD will last longer too. In short, Apple could spec cheaper components AND get better real world performance by simply shipping computers that have enough memory. Edit: also 3% comes from shipping the absolute fasted DDR5 modules vs the second fasted DDR5.
    - sliken 4y ago
      Sure, that's 3%, but what about shipping 2x, 4x, and 8x as wide memory systems, largely enabled by not using industry standard dimms.
- sliken 4y ago
  3%? M2 = 100GB/sec M2 pro = 200GB/sec M2 max = 400GB/sec M1 Extreme = 800GB/sec. Most x86-64 laptops and desktops are in the 60-80GB/sec range. Some desktop or server only chip (threadripper, epyc, Xeons, a few intel workstation chips) have 150 or 300GB/sec. 400GB/sec vs 80GB/sec is quite a bit more than 3%, and is available in the mbp 14" or mbp 16".
  - labcomputer 4y ago
    That’s because Apple Silicon has a stupid-wide memory bus. It has little/nothing to do with the characteristics of the memory chips shipped in the box. They just put more modules in parallel than on x86. Apple could ship cheaper memory modules with the same stupid-wide bus and achieve nearly the same performance for a fraction of the cost. And that’s what I want. Give me 4x as much DDR4 on the same 1024 bit wide bus, and I’d be happy.
    - sliken 4y ago
      Stupid wide? Pins, memory controllers, and traces (and layers) on motherboards aren't cheap. Apple just decided that the paying memory bandwidth was worth it. Is there some reason why you think the extra memory bandwidth was stupid? Sure it's easy to ask for 1024 bit wide memory bus, but it's not cheap. Done with the traditional x86-64 method you'll need two 280 watt CPUs (a few $k each), on a $1k motherboard, with 24 dimms, a 1kw power supply, ear plugs, and at least $10k. The minimum physical size is going to be substantial since you need two large CPU sockets (6096 pins each), 24 dimm sockets, and of course a substantial number of fans, dimms, and power supply. Even managing airflow over 800 watts or so of chips isn't going to be easy, cheap, or quiet. Because of the above size, cost, noise, and heat it's targeted at enterprise and cloud folks with the related cost, service contract, and sales pipelines. Or you could buy an Apple studio and hide it somewhere, you'll likely not be able to find it by listening for it.
jlokier 4y ago
> Apple's SSDs have built-in protection against data-loss from power loss which is usually an enterprise SSD feature. It's a bit arguable. On Macos the well-known operation 'fsync' which exists for the sole purpose of committing files to durable storage doesn't protect files against data loss if there's power loss. You can ask for data to be committed more durably through a Macos-specific API, in which case those Apple SSDs are a lot slower than other good SSDs at doing this. As most software uses 'fsync' to durably commit files, that stored data is not protected against power loss for some time. VMs either use the equivalent operation to implement filesystem barriers, or the very slow but more durable Macos-specific operation. Either way, these are not great SSDs for protection against data loss on power failure. As measured by Asahi Linux folks: "Apple's custom NVMes are amazingly fast – if you don't care about data integrity" (https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1494213855387734019 https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1494213855387734019 / https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/ssd-flash-storage-in-macs-premium-prices-for-garbage.2335073/ https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/ssd-flash-storage-in-ma... / https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30370551 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30370551) "Well, this is unfortunate. It turns out Apple's custom NVMe drives are amazingly fast - if you don't care about data integrity. If you do, they drop down to HDD performance. Thread." "For a while, we've noticed that random write performance with fsync (data integrity) on Asahi Linux (and also on Linux on T2 Macs) was terrible. As in 46 IOPS terrible. That's slower than many modern HDDs. We thought we were missing something, since this didn't happen on macOS." [Except it does happen on Macos when the equivalant API is used.]

labcomputer 4y ago

I know I would, and I dare say most people are the same, prefer to have the option for 3% lower memory bandwidth in exchange for 4x more memory. There’s no justification for Apple’s memory prices.

tough 4y ago
I see it like cars, mass produced standard models are way cheaper than the ones with all the extras and whistles and what not
wtallis 4y ago
Where do you get that "3% lower memory bandwidth" figure from? LPDDR5 is running at 6400 MT/s on at least Apple and Intel platforms, and the fastest DDR5 SODIMMs I've seen so far are 5600MT/s: 12.5% slower, assuming equal bus width (only true for the base M1/2 processors).
- labcomputer 4y ago
  3%, 12% Potato, potato. It’s a small spec performance difference for a huge price difference. Meanwhile, for actual real-world workloads, not spilling to swap (because you have enough memory) will result in real-world performance that is many times (even an order of magnitude) better. Even with Apples blazing fast SSDs. Oh, and you can also spec a cheaper SSD because you don’t need one that can take a bajillion writes (because you aren’t treating your SSD as memory). AND the cheaper SSD will last longer too. In short, Apple could spec cheaper components AND get better real world performance by simply shipping computers that have enough memory. Edit: also 3% comes from shipping the absolute fasted DDR5 modules vs the second fasted DDR5.
  - sliken 4y ago
    Sure, that's 3%, but what about shipping 2x, 4x, and 8x as wide memory systems, largely enabled by not using industry standard dimms.
sliken 4y ago
3%? M2 = 100GB/sec M2 pro = 200GB/sec M2 max = 400GB/sec M1 Extreme = 800GB/sec. Most x86-64 laptops and desktops are in the 60-80GB/sec range. Some desktop or server only chip (threadripper, epyc, Xeons, a few intel workstation chips) have 150 or 300GB/sec. 400GB/sec vs 80GB/sec is quite a bit more than 3%, and is available in the mbp 14" or mbp 16".
- labcomputer 4y ago
  That’s because Apple Silicon has a stupid-wide memory bus. It has little/nothing to do with the characteristics of the memory chips shipped in the box. They just put more modules in parallel than on x86. Apple could ship cheaper memory modules with the same stupid-wide bus and achieve nearly the same performance for a fraction of the cost. And that’s what I want. Give me 4x as much DDR4 on the same 1024 bit wide bus, and I’d be happy.
  - sliken 4y ago
    Stupid wide? Pins, memory controllers, and traces (and layers) on motherboards aren't cheap. Apple just decided that the paying memory bandwidth was worth it. Is there some reason why you think the extra memory bandwidth was stupid? Sure it's easy to ask for 1024 bit wide memory bus, but it's not cheap. Done with the traditional x86-64 method you'll need two 280 watt CPUs (a few $k each), on a $1k motherboard, with 24 dimms, a 1kw power supply, ear plugs, and at least $10k. The minimum physical size is going to be substantial since you need two large CPU sockets (6096 pins each), 24 dimm sockets, and of course a substantial number of fans, dimms, and power supply. Even managing airflow over 800 watts or so of chips isn't going to be easy, cheap, or quiet. Because of the above size, cost, noise, and heat it's targeted at enterprise and cloud folks with the related cost, service contract, and sales pipelines. Or you could buy an Apple studio and hide it somewhere, you'll likely not be able to find it by listening for it.

jlokier 4y ago

> Apple's SSDs have built-in protection against data-loss from power loss which is usually an enterprise SSD feature. It's a bit arguable. On Macos the well-known operation 'fsync' which exists for the sole purpose of committing files to durable storage doesn't protect files against data loss if there's power loss. You can ask for data to be committed more durably through a Macos-specific API, in which case those Apple SSDs are a lot slower than other good SSDs at doing this. As most software uses 'fsync' to durably commit files, that stored data is not protected against power loss for some time. VMs either use the equivalent operation to implement filesystem barriers, or the very slow but more durable Macos-specific operation. Either way, these are not great SSDs for protection against data loss on power failure. As measured by Asahi Linux folks: "Apple's custom NVMes are amazingly fast – if you don't care about data integrity" (https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1494213855387734019 https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1494213855387734019 / https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/ssd-flash-storage-in-macs-premium-prices-for-garbage.2335073/ https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/ssd-flash-storage-in-ma... / https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30370551 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30370551) "Well, this is unfortunate. It turns out Apple's custom NVMe drives are amazingly fast - if you don't care about data integrity. If you do, they drop down to HDD performance. Thread." "For a while, we've noticed that random write performance with fsync (data integrity) on Asahi Linux (and also on Linux on T2 Macs) was terrible. As in 46 IOPS terrible. That's slower than many modern HDDs. We thought we were missing something, since this didn't happen on macOS." [Except it does happen on Macos when the equivalant API is used.]