M2 13-Inch MacBook Pro With 256GB SSD Appears Slower Than Equivalent M1 in Real-World Speed Tests

[cupcakes2000]

...and is that $1000 stand "nicer"? How does it compare with the $400 one for the Studio Display (which admittedly is holding a lighter weight, but still...). I don't have one - how about you?

As you say, the stand is off-topic in a thread about an actual, real issue that makes the M2 13" MBP "less nice".

Personally, I was never seriously in the market for a Pro XDR, nor do I know anybody who might ask me for advice on that... OTOH, I've definitely held off buying a Mini or Air to try out M1 partly because upgrading them to (for me) sensible minimum RAM and storage capacities would have added 40-60% to the price. If they'd tried the same ruse with the Mac Studio (remember, mere months ago they were selling $3k 10-core i9 iMacs with a ludicrous 8GB base RAM) I probably wouldn't have bought that, either. (even so, theres no clear info about SSD configurations vs. speed - but at least the first upgrade step is $200 for 1TB, not $200 for 512GB!)

I don’t have one - which I have mentioned several times.

I was merely pointing out, to the OP who randomly placed an off topic quote regarding the very done and dusted ‘they did a 999 monitor stand’, that value is in the eye of the person who is purchasing the item.

I used my suitcase analogy to show that I place value in that, but if I didn’t I can get a cheap one and bodge it. I place value because the gear it holds is 20k+ in value.

I also stated that other brands also premium price stuff, not just Apple. I also said that for my particular field of photography - kitting nice stuff out for my studio is ridiculously expensive, but one can offset the cost. And these products (such as this monitor stand and the monitor it goes with) are aimed at this type of buyer, not a regular person who would baulk at many costs that they clearly are not aware of. Spec’ing out a Mac Pro for example, you could spend 50k plus on maxing one and then stick it on a plywood plank with wheels if you want. Or just pay the comparatively rather paltry 400 extra for the wheels to ensure security and to improve an image if that’s what you want.

And yes, if I had an xdr display in my studio, I might well think the stand is ‘nicer’ than others. Appearances matter a great deal sometimes.

Anyway, the debate wasn’t what you’re making it so I’m out.

 

[everlast3434]

i cant believe u thinking only apple has supply chain issues. Literally almost every IT Company in the world suffers currently big shortage of chips

Uh. I didn't say they're the only ones. This is a mac forum, so I was talking about Apple. I cant believe you didn't realize that lol

 

[maratus]

Honestly, if you're buying a laptop with 256GB storage in 2022, then you definitely don't care and don't know the difference between the sustained SSD speeds. And, by the way, since when 1.5 GB / s sequential writes and reads are considered low, or, in any way, a bottleneck and an issue?

 

[Juicy Box]

I am genuinely surprised at the amount of comments that are along the line of:

"the people that would buy this model probably wouldn't notice the difference in SSD speeds"

Like that justifies this type of behavior from Apple or other companies that do similar things.

 

[mi7chy]

I am genuinely surprised at the amount of comments that are along the line of:

"the people that would buy this model probably wouldn't notice the difference in SSD speeds"

Like that justifies this type of behavior from Apple or other companies that do similar things.

There are a lot of Apple employees on this forum. I seriously doubt many normal customers would say that.

 

[vtuberalpha]

I am genuinely surprised at the amount of comments that are along the line of:

"the people that would buy this model probably wouldn't notice the difference in SSD speeds"

Like that justifies this type of behavior from Apple or other companies that do similar things.

That's because you simply won't notice the speed difference unless you do something that benefits from higher sequential speeds.

Sure, if you do benchmarks all day you will think that the M2 SSD is slower, but that's purely psychological.

This is all under the reasonable assumption that random 4K read/write stayed the same.

 

[Funny Apple Man]

There are a lot of Apple employees on this forum. I seriously doubt many normal customers would say that.

I agree with the latter and the former to some extent lol, I had those times where I feel like I'm talking like an Apple employee.

Normal customers don't even know the difference between an HDD and SSD (that's not an insult btw, I had to explain to several people of what those two are). They'll buy it because of the new screen and design and it seems fast enough for what they'll do on it.

 

[Juicy Box]

That's because you simply won't notice the speed difference unless you do something that benefits from higher sequential speeds.

Sure, if you do benchmarks all day you will think that the M2 SSD is slower, but that's purely psychological.

This is all under the reasonable assumption that random 4K read/write stayed the same.

It shouldn't matter if most people wouldn't notice the speed decrease.

 

[vtuberalpha]

That's because you simply won't notice the speed difference unless you do something that benefits from higher sequential speeds.

Sure, if you do benchmarks all day you will **think** that the M2 SSD is slower, but that's purely psychological.

This is all under the reasonable assumption that random 4K read/write stayed the same.

It shouldn't matter if most people wouldn't notice the speed decrease.

That's because it actually doesn't matter in real world scenarios, if only all the people making a huge buzz knew what they were actually talking about and how SSDs work.

I guarantee you if SSD benchmarks did not exist on macOS, nobody will say a single word.

 

[Juicy Box]

There are a lot of Apple employees on this forum.

I think there are people that are so blindly loyal to Apple that they will defend even the crappiest of decisions Apple makes.

 

[Juicy Box]

That's because it actually doesn't matter in real world scenarios,

Yes, it does.

I guarantee you if SSD benchmarks did not exist on macOS, nobody will say a single word.

Did you watch the video? Benchmarks were only a tiny portion of it.

if only all the people making a huge buzz knew what they were actually talking about and how SSDs work.

Maybe you should rewatch the video......

 

[vtuberalpha]

Yes, it does.

Did you watch the video? Benchmarks were only a tiny portion of it.


Maybe you should rewatch the video......

First of all, sequential speeds only matter when transferring/accessing huge files and writing gigabytes of swap every second.

That's not something that is done when browsing or opening apps and documents, here the SSD doesn't read huge chunks of data sequentially. It actually opens up lots of small files scattered throughout the NAND (hence random 4K), which slows speeds down by a lot as it has to seek them first.

Why else do you think the 2021 MacBook Pros and the M1 perform the same in everyday scenarios despite the MBP having PCIe Gen 4 speeds? Because random 4K I/O is nigh identical, where as sequential speeds are about double that of the M1.

If you don't believe me, the numbers speak for themselves.

 

[cupcakes2000]

…… And, by the way, since when 1.5 GB / s sequential writes and reads are considered low, or, in any way, a bottleneck and an issue?

This is macrumours don’t forget. Some of these people commenting here are the very same people complaining over at the iPad/stage manager thread that their non m1 iPad should be able to use it ‘because even 486’s had swap and that was plenty fast enough and they have spinning hard disks… blahhh’

 

[vtuberalpha]

This is macrumours don’t forget. Some of these people commenting here are the very same people complaining over at the iPad/stage manager thread that their non m1 iPad should be able to use it ‘because even 486’s had swap and that was plenty fast enough and they have spinning hard disks… blahhh’

Well technically 1.5GB/s sequential is slow by PCIe standards, since that's about the same as a good SATA SSD. But people have been tricked into thinking sequential speeds are the defining factor of how well the SSD performs in real world use over the years through marketing.

PCIe SSDs are faster and more responsive than SATA SSDs not because their sequential is higher, but because random speeds are much better.

 

[CWallace]

As I believe this decision was made to maintain the $1299 price for the entry level machine, I would not at all be surprised that if every buyer was surveyed, the majority would choose to keep the $1299 price and a single 256GB module versus a $1399 price and two 128GB modules even if they were shown the performance benchmarks.

 

[mi7chy]

Even M2 512GB is a downgrade over M1 512GB. Wonder if it improves if you upsell to M2 1TB or 2TB. Or, if the whole M2 series is slower.

 

[CWallace]

Considering how close the actual performance benchmarks are, this might be more just natural variation in benchmarking.

I also would not be surprised if Apple sources SSD storage modules from multiple suppliers and there will be a natural variation across - and even within - those suppliers in terms of performance of each module.

I imagine Apple has a "minimum acceptable level" of performance that the storage modules must achieve and the specific M1 and M2 laptops that Andrew Tsai tested seems to fall within this range.

 

[JPack]

96 hours and counting with no comment from Apple.

The silence confirms this is by design. If this were a supply chain issue, Apple would have prepared drawer statement a long time ago and issued it.

 

[Jack Neill]

I know it won't happen, but I wish that Apple would just adopt normal slots and sell a basic 256 and let people who need more upgrade themselves. I have a 2TB Rocket Q in my 2015 13" and its been a really solid upgrade for this aged machine. I really like having all my files on my laptop without carrying around a drive.

 

[Sinfonist]

Since it has been confirmed that the 512GB models have two 256GB SSD chips and are delivering the expected high performance, the two most-likely options are:

1. Apple cannot get 128GB SSDs in sufficient quantity so they are using one 256GB SSD because they can get supply of those (you can see the empty second SSD location on the systemboard pictures);
2. Apple can get 128GB SSDs, but their purchase volume on 256GB SSDs means they are similar in price or cheaper than 2x128GB so they are using a single 256GB SSD to save money.

it might also simplify the production line (solder one or two 256GB SSDs depending on the build option)?

 

[CWallace]

it might also simplify the production line (solder one or two 256GB SSDs depending on the build option)?

In theory, yes, but at this point I have come to the conclusion this was a decision made to reduce the production cost of the machine to maintain the $1299 price of the prior M1 model (taking into account most everything in it is more expensive now due to inflation and such).

 

[JPack]

it might also simplify the production line (solder one or two 256GB SSDs depending on the build option)?

There are a million other ways to reduce the production steps, without affecting performance, like using a green dye PCB instead of black, or using glue instead of threaded fasteners. Using a single NAND chip is not one of them. The soldering process occurs in an oven and it doesn’t take less any effort with one chip.