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

[jameslmoser]

Looks like something that will be fixed in an update. Bet on it.

the problem is hardware... instead of using two 128 GB modules in raid 0 they are using a single 256 GB module. They did the same thing with the base level Mac Pro originally before they stopped selling that specific build. They can't fix this with a software update.

 

[JPack]

We get it, Apple.

It's all about the $.

 

[Captain_Mac]

I’m gonna guess that Apple didn’t mess up, they got the SSD module that they could.

It's actually impossible to patch this in software. The M1 model used 2 128GB chips on the 256GB model. The M2 uses one 256GB chip. That's what's causing the SSD speed to be halved.

 

[Macative]

the problem is hardware... instead of using two 128 GB modules in raid 0 they are using a single 256 GB module. They did the same thing with the base level Mac Pro originally before they stopped selling that specific build. They can't fix this with a software update.

No, at the moment that's a theory on why it's performing worse, because that could be why, lacking any other information. It doesn't guarantee it. All you know is that currently performing real world tests on the machines using the latest OS gives these kinds of results.

I wish I had a couple bucks for each time I've heard someone say "Can't be fixed, has to be hardware" when a new Mac is released. And then it's fixed.

 

[paradox00]

Not really a big deal. Apple doesn’t advertise a specific speed and most users will never notice the difference outside of benchmarks. Those people who need the absolute best SSD performance were probably never considering a 13” MBP with 256 GB in the first place…

 

[snipr125]

I was actually interested in the base model M2 MBP, will probably give it a miss after this debacle.

 

[cale508]

Peak Performance remember?

 

[JPack]

Personally, I'm more interested in how Apple's marketing team will spin this into a positive statement. Today is the day they earn their pay. 😄

"Yeah, we put in only one chip for environmental and power saving reasons. Absolutely nothing to do with $ at all..."

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

$1499 for the 512GB model with decent SSD performance or wait until Amazon or BestBuy has a sale on the 14" M1 Pro ($1799) and get literally BETTER EVERYTHING for an extra $300? Hmmmm..???

 

[Juicy Box]

No, at the moment that's a theory on why it's performing worse, because that could be why, lacking any other information. It doesn't guarantee it. All you know is that currently performing real world tests on the machines using the latest OS gives these kinds of results.

I wish I had a couple bucks for each time I've heard someone say "Can't be fixed, has to be hardware" when a new Mac is released. And then it's fixed.

You might be right, but I would count on it.

People are posting the SSD module, showing that it is only one for the 256GB storage on the M2 MBP, versus two for the 256GB storage on the M1 MBP, reducing the speed for the M2 by half.

 

[Wildkraut]

Dang! Apple is good at selling old crap in a newer shell.
It’s like those food packages that adverts with “Now with a new improved receipt!”, which means ”Got worse to save costs, added more artificial junk“.

Apple should reuse the old Intel Inside slogan, but with…
Apple - Junk Inside!

 

[Scott Baret]

Worst product "upgrade" since they told us the Classic II replaced the SE/30.

 

[golu14]

if the same single nand crap is repeated for the m2 macbook air..i can bet apple will regret it and sales figures will fall. Anyone who finds all this bad press will definitely be influenced. In essence that would mean unless u spend 1800euros u cant buy any decent new apple laptop.

 

[golu14]

Could this just not be a bug in MacOS specific to the new hardware? Wouldn't the first time new Macs have come out with dodgy performance, which was later fixed in an OS patch.

I too hope ots just that. But a single nand chip is just plain bad, it’s probably a QLC too that means much shorter lifespan.

 

[Xano]

in the end, is all about the €.

 

[JPack]

No, at the moment that's a theory on why it's performing worse, because that could be why, lacking any other information. It doesn't guarantee it. All you know is that currently performing real world tests on the machines using the latest OS gives these kinds of results.

I wish I had a couple bucks for each time I've heard someone say "Can't be fixed, has to be hardware" when a new Mac is released. And then it's fixed.

Are you by any chance, a criminal defense attorney?

 

[Wildkraut]

Just another failure to Tim Cooks area.

 

[jezbd1997]

Looks like something that will be fixed in an update. Bet on it.

unlikely. you can’t add a 2nd ssd chip in an update.

 

[JPack]

unlikely. you can’t add a 2nd ssd chip in an update.

Sure, a hardware update. To 512GB. Within 14 days of purchase.

 

[jezbd1997]

Could this just not be a bug in MacOS specific to the new hardware? Wouldn't the first time new Macs have come out with dodgy performance, which was later fixed in an OS patch.

nope. normally the chips are in raid and these base models seemingly just have one chip. can’t add a 2nd chip via update

 

[jezbd1997]

Sure, a hardware update. To 512GB.

can’t do that past the factory..

 

[JosephAW]

Probably Apple slowed it down via software to prevent shutdowns to prevent batterygate.

 

[femike]

Don't makes excuses for Apple, saying supply constaints, because that's what it is, excuses. Apple is being cheap because they know they can get away with it while charging premium prices doing do so. What amazes me is that the blind sheep followers can actually say that's ok.

 

[Psychicbob]

For all those that think it can be fixed in a software update, this is NOT how it works: update motherboard.ssd addnandchip.2 where model=MBProM2 and SSDSize=256GB

 

[yyzguy]

I’d be returning it for a refund