Sidebar Sidebar
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

citysnaps said:
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.
Click to expand...
The issue isn't the fact that the lowest-end model is "Slower" it is the fact that it is slower than the lowest end model that it is replacing. Not really whining but yeah keep letting apple charge top dollar for their devices. They love customers like you who buy the device no matter what they do to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WiiDSmoker, Bodie CI5 and alezvic
Wasn’t one of their big excuses about why only the M1 iPads got the stage manager option was because it needed the significantly faster ssd speeds for memory swap? Now they cut it in half for the new m2 MacBooks but obviously still say it runs great. Interesting…
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: SupremeMayo, smythey, WiiDSmoker and 4 others
CalMin said:
This will most likely be an unpopular opinion, but if they are not running benchmarks this isn't going to be very noticeable to most folks who buy this machine. Sure, it may be slower in some tasks, but a few seconds here and there won't harm anybody at all.
Click to expand...

Ultimately this really depends on your particular definition of 'speed.' I've always been a 'responsiveness' guy - I vastly prefer things that respond as immediately as possible, over pure ultimate 'speed.' This holds true for me when it comes to cars, skis, operating systems, etc. For *me* a computer that launches apps slower, even if it's only a second or two, will always be noticeable and thus feel much 'slower' than a computer that launches those same apps faster, even if the one that launches them slower may ultimately be faster at, say, converting a movie using Handbrake. That responsiveness-to-user-inputs is extremely important to me when it comes to a satisfactory user experience. For example, my VR Rig is very, very fast. It's ultimate power vastly exceeds that of all AS-based machines to date. But the Windows OS and vagaries of a 'cobbled-together-OS-and-hardware' means that while it will absolutely destroy an AS machine in the intended purpose (rendering VR games at incredibly high resolutions and frame-rates); in every-day tasks it often feels slower than an even an original M1 MacBook Air. Which of these machines is therefore 'faster' depends on your usage-scenario and perception. I for one will *absolutely avoid* any M-based machine with retrograde SSD performance.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: vmistery and Bodie CI5
Premium1 said:
The issue isn't the fact that the lowest-end model is "Slower" it is the fact that it is slower than the lowest end model that it is replacing. Not really whining but yeah keep letting apple charge top dollar for their devices. They love customers like you who buy the device no matter what they do to them.
Click to expand...

Oh, stop it. Do you feel better now?

I've never purchased a computer with 256 gb of storage. Perhaps that's what you do - and that's ok. Time to stand up and vote with your wallet, sending Apple a strong message.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: M3gatron, Stromos, WiiDSmoker and 1 other person
falkon-engine said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, in all honesty, sequential speeds are 99% useless. What people need to care about is random 4k speeds. Those are the ones that actually matter. That said, given the new base M2 MBP is missing a NAND chip, it is likely even those speeds will be impacted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bodie CI5
AdamNC said:
It's supply not a deliberate act by Apple. I see a lot of SSD spaces empty at stores, online, ect. My BestBuy has not had a 256, 512, or a 1T for months. 2T or higher is sometimes in stock, Wally World, has only 1T's. A local computer store can not get anything without weeks of waiting below 1T.
Click to expand...
A while ago (~1 year ago) there was an article about contamination to a critical NAND chip manufacturing facility. I can't remember who the manufacturer was, but the article did state it would take a year for effects to be felt. Seems right on cue.

Edit - Correct article quoted in post #94
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Funny Apple Man
falkon-engine said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is somewhat tangential, but Mac SSDs aren’t connected through PCIe at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brucemr
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back