Rendered at 00:42:45 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
bfrog 56 minutes ago [-]
The thing here is I doubt many people care that it’s a little slower. The price point makes it an excellent computer without a decent operating system.
The alternative is a crappy computer with a horrible operating system.
sibtain1997 13 hours ago [-]
Good read. I get the point about real world usage, but I still feel like Neo might fall short with how fast things are getting heavier, especially with Node and modern dev workflows.
Feels fine today, but not sure how well it holds up a couple years down the line.
raw_anon_1111 12 hours ago [-]
You know A) most people aren’t doing “dev workflows” and B) Apple sells other computers?
sibtain1997 6 hours ago [-]
Sure. Was talking about my use case. Probably should've been clearer.
ymolodtsov 14 hours ago [-]
Matt has some of the best content on MacBook Neo, enjoyed reading it.
chocochunks 13 hours ago [-]
> "What I will say is that in recent years, Apple has really accelerated the performance of their SSDs. And this has been a key part of the argument as to why PCs are absolute trash."
Umm, for the past 5+ years or so PC SSDs have have generally been as fast or faster than what Apple has been shipping. When Apple moved to NVMe they did so before the PC industry for the most part and had some advantage but they got eclipsed.
raw_anon_1111 10 hours ago [-]
In $600 PCs?
chocochunks 10 hours ago [-]
Yes, even in $600 PCs. The SSD in the Neo is not particularly good either. Here's an example, a 649€ laptop:
Not knowing these devices personally, I'll just say I find most of these sorts of SSD performance summaries completely useless.
Too often, specs or even shallow benchmarks report little more than some theoretical peak speed from system to SSD controller RAM buffers, without any real information about reads or writes that actually go all the way to the solid state storage cells. And even when they do go all the way, they fail to really highlight performance variance for different realistic workloads...
Melatonic 27 minutes ago [-]
Sustained write speed is usually important as these things heat up and often aren't cooled properly. Which is not hard to test.
wtallis 2 hours ago [-]
As a general rule: any SSD benchmark that gives you a result of over 1GB/s is not measuring what's actually most important for day to day interactive use. And anything that's within a factor of two of the SSD's marketing numbers is probably relevant only to copying a single file to or from another SSD.
The alternative is a crappy computer with a horrible operating system.
Feels fine today, but not sure how well it holds up a couple years down the line.
Umm, for the past 5+ years or so PC SSDs have have generally been as fast or faster than what Apple has been shipping. When Apple moved to NVMe they did so before the PC industry for the most part and had some advantage but they got eclipsed.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Lenovo-IdeaPad-Slim-5-15-lapto...
6200 MB/s Read, 4300 MB/s Write
vs the 699€ Macbook Neo:
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-MacBook-Neo-Review-Surpr...
1550 MB/s Read, 1500 MB/s Write
The Neo is well below the class average.
Too often, specs or even shallow benchmarks report little more than some theoretical peak speed from system to SSD controller RAM buffers, without any real information about reads or writes that actually go all the way to the solid state storage cells. And even when they do go all the way, they fail to really highlight performance variance for different realistic workloads...