That’s a bad look for a newer notebook to have worse disk speed than its immediate predecessor. Apple quotes all these charts about performance per watt vs intel… but what about a chart of ssd speed of the base m2 vs m1 13” MacBook Pro? That was conveniently left out of the keynote presentation.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Base 13-Inch MacBook Pro With M2 Chip Has Significantly Slower SSD Speeds
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I’m starting to think we should stop putting so much faith in benchmarks. The benchmarks in my mini i7 with two displays was misleading from YouTubers without using an eGPU when I was shopping a few years ago.
Also, MaxTech is such a clown after the whole Mac Studio, “upgradable SSD” nonsense him and Luke Miani were running with on YouTube. They have zero grasp on engineering and rarely rate things for real world users, the use cases are their own.
My recommendations, just wait for Rene Ritcher, LinusTech and Kevin Ross. Especially the last one, he’s incredibly honest in the tests he runs and tries to fit most use case scenarios for consumers. Could be a possibility they might be a bad patch of chips too.
Also, MaxTech is such a clown after the whole Mac Studio, “upgradable SSD” nonsense him and Luke Miani were running with on YouTube. They have zero grasp on engineering and rarely rate things for real world users, the use cases are their own.
My recommendations, just wait for Rene Ritcher, LinusTech and Kevin Ross. Especially the last one, he’s incredibly honest in the tests he runs and tries to fit most use case scenarios for consumers. Could be a possibility they might be a bad patch of chips too.
Please stop settling for Apples crap. It just makes things worse for those of us who expect excellence for the price tag.
What's wrong with Luke? All he did was try to see if the drives could be updated. I have watched a almost every video he's done and I don't think he's a clickbaiter. Or maybe I'm gullible.
What is going on with this forum in the past five years? lol My post had zero praise of Apple's choice. It's like a bunch of rabid attach dogs when anyone post anything not bashing apple. You know what? "Life is good" when base model machines can R/W at 1400MBs FOR ANY BRAND! Holy smokes... 🙄
I push my machine harder than most so I have something that is well above the base model,
so you can sleep a little better my friend.
Last edited:
There really isn’t anything else to grasp other than the simple truth that the ssd is slower than its predecessor. This isn’t rocket science, so there’s nothing that Ritchie or Linus or anyone else needs to tell us.
The only entity that has any explaining to do here is Apple. Especially in this day and age where pcie4.0 nvme storage is readily available in the market at affordable prices, and we’re on the cusp of pcie5.0 nvme storage, which will launch later in 2022. 12,000 MB/sec is coming soon. Alder Lake/Raptor Lake and Zen 4 systems will be able to take advantage.
I mean it is still much faster than sata storage, but at 1400 MB/sec, it’s not even utilizing 50% of the available bandwidth of last-gen pcie3.0 m.2 storage, and even less of the pcie4.0 bandwidth that’s available in current gen laptops and even MacBook Pros.
A Samsung 980 pro or Western Digital SN850 will net you close to 7000 MB/sec read and 5000+ MB/sec write. Apple really has no excuse to be offering slower SSD speeds than the predecessor, without offering a commensurate decrease in price. This is unacceptable.
I think the MBP M2 is like a filler episode of a bad tv series - pointless. I have the m1 mbp and so far its fine for my needs. I still rely on my mac pro 5.1 that i upgraded for some heavy lifting when i need it. Will wait for M3 days and maybe hoping that software will catch up too as it seems the theme is that developers are slow in matching hardware performance of the new m chips with their software.
- pointless. I have the m1 mbp and so far its fine for my needs. I still rely on my mac pro 5.1 that i upgraded for some heavy lifting when i need it. Will wait for M3 days and maybe hoping that software will catch up too as it seems the theme is that developers are slow in matching hardware performance of the new m chips with their software.
He ran around stating it was an NVME socket, then an engineer who’s building a Linux OS for M1 stated him and Max Tech were incorrect entirely. His videos are helpful, but I can’t stand someone who thinks an Intel-based Mac and M-powered one are same machine. The engineer on Twitter told people to stop comparing Arm and X86, they’re not the same and not built similarly either.
Not surprised there is an '*' in this new machine.
I have an iMac Pro, and it's throttled! I find it rather obnoxious, but...
It would be like buying a Lamborghini and finding out that its top speed was limited to 75mph. But Apple can do what they want, and so can consumers.
However, am I angry being an iMac Pro owner? Well, I *wish* it wasn't throttled, but to be honest there would be temperature issues, especially on a hot day, or as the system accumulates dust and other detritus. But I guess it could be worse. (Glad it's not. Everything is socketed)
I have an iMac Pro, and it's throttled! I find it rather obnoxious, but...
It would be like buying a Lamborghini and finding out that its top speed was limited to 75mph. But Apple can do what they want, and so can consumers.
However, am I angry being an iMac Pro owner? Well, I *wish* it wasn't throttled, but to be honest there would be temperature issues, especially on a hot day, or as the system accumulates dust and other detritus. But I guess it could be worse. (Glad it's not. Everything is socketed)
8GB/256GB as the starting configuration needs to die anyway. This is just insult to the injury. Speed should never progress backwards regardless of whether people would notice it.
Ride m1 until the wheels fall off. Even the mighty apple is starting to run in to a very unfortunate law. That is, the law of diminishing returns.I think the MBP M2 is like a filler episode of a bad tv series
I’m sending mine back
Oh wait, I never bought one
Oh wait, I never bought one
It's the Apple that we love: each time there is a product that feels weird in the lineup, there is something fishy like this.
They have to give people who bought the M2 a reason to upgrade to the M3.
Next year, Tim will say, the M3 will have 3 times faster SSD speeds than the previous M2. It’s magic.
Exactly. All this talk about advancement in m2 silicon and neural engines and gpu cores and pro res accelerators. Makes it seem like magic.
Until you see the ssd speeds and realize that the base model is barely better than 7 year old tech.
Indeed. Let’s face it though, Apple slaps ‘Pro’ on to many things now regardless of performance and capability. Nowdays, ’Pro’ often means squat.
This is for people doing MS Teams/Zoom, Word docs and spend most of their time in a web browser. They won’t notice much of a difference.
If you care about details like this, you likely should be looking at the 14 and 16 inch. It will be interesting to see if they do the same thing with new MacBook Air.
I bought the M1 MBP in 2020 and was pro active about choosing 512 GBs of RAM. I have to be honest, the storage doesn’t really seem fast. Launching apps or booting up seems just as fast as my Early 2015.
If you care about details like this, you likely should be looking at the 14 and 16 inch. It will be interesting to see if they do the same thing with new MacBook Air.
I bought the M1 MBP in 2020 and was pro active about choosing 512 GBs of RAM. I have to be honest, the storage doesn’t really seem fast. Launching apps or booting up seems just as fast as my Early 2015.
Not really news. The lowest end M-series Mac SSD (256 GB in this case) has always been considerably slower than SSD options with greater storage. It's how SSD in M chips is architected.
Sounds like all the people having a good whine here were about to pull the trigger on a 256 GB MacBook Pro. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Sounds like all the people having a good whine here were about to pull the trigger on a 256 GB MacBook Pro. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
The use of a single NAND chip is obvious (at least to me) - it is because these chips are in such high demand and there is such a low supply of them. I believe Apple just couldn't find the supply needed to fit 2 of these chips in each base config 13-inch MBP with M2....
The M2 256GB was compared against the M1 256 GB. And the M1 is alot faster.
Anyone in their right mind should stop at ”touch bar”. Imagine getting this all the way to your house in the first place. Who would buy a 6 year old design at this point?