Well, not long ago, few Apple users thought that an iOS update could make their old iPhone waterproof, and they dunked it. 🤣
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.
M2 13-Inch MacBook Pro With 256GB SSD Appears Slower Than Equivalent M1 in Real-World Speed Tests
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My guess is that it’s a bug and will be fixed in an update.
This stuff happens all the time, it’s so boring. “New Apple product has xx issues”, next update it’s fixed and everyone moves on.
Boring!
THE POINT is that an upgrade should be an upgrade. In what way is the Pro an upgrade year over year?
They didn't have to update the 13" Pro. They had other options. They put a faster chip in it while slowing it down overall and the only people who will buy it are suckers who don't know better.
They didn't have to update the 13" Pro. They had other options. They put a faster chip in it while slowing it down overall and the only people who will buy it are suckers who don't know better.
Considering both the 256GB and 512GB configurations use the same storage controller built into the M2 SoC and the same 256GB storage chip, that the 512GB configuration with two chips performs almost twice as fast as the 256GB configuration with a single chip pretty conclusively points to it being a hardware-related bottleneck and not lack of OS optimization.
We have plenty of direct evidence going back to the 2017 iMac Pro (which had two SSD storage chips) that the Apple storage controllers treat them as a RAID-0 stripped set and read and write to both chips concurrently which significantly improves write and read performance. The 2019 Mac Pro also has two SSD connectors and storage configurations above the base 256GB use two modules for much better read/write performance. And the Mac Studio also has two SSD interfaces, both of which are populated at the 8TB storage level. I would not be surprised if the disk performance is better at 8TB than 4TB or lower (beyond just the benefit larger SSD modules provide).
It doesn’t look like a bug, as it appears that Apple is using a single 256GB SSD Module on the M2 MBP instead of the double 128GB modules that they used for the 256GB storage on the M1 MBP.
No amount of SW or FW updates will fix that.
Lol that's funny. I also remember the time when a bunch of trolls tricked some users into heating their iPhone into the microwave to charge them.
Users of this forum are going to be so excited by this news, they're going to need fresh underwear.
smart people have already addressed this. 2 128 GB SSD have faster speeds than 1 256 GB. so chip shortage results in lower speeds. How come no one mentions that even with the 1 chip solution it is still way faster than the crap Dell uses?
But the M2 MBP is an upgrade over the M1 MBP. Why do you think most reviews didn’t catch this? Because it’s not a big deal for how most people are going to use their computers. In most cases, SSD speeds just have to be fast enough, not the fastest possible. The increased CPU and graphics performance will be more noticeable.
Also, if you’re upgrading from a 256 GB M1 MBP to a 256 GB M2 MBP, what are you even doing? The M1 still has plenty of runway. For people that haven’t bought an Apple silicon Mac yet the M2 will be the better option compared to the M1. There are scenarios where SSD speeds are important, but someone looking for that likely isn’t looking at this model. We need better faux controversies.
Sure. On Apple's own testing posted on the website, they only mentioned the 256GB storage model for battery life and the rest were tested were done with the 2TB storage models. Hope to see testing on 512GB and 1TB models soon.
I’m not blaming anyone, but the typical user of the base config is probably using browser and office type apps - what is the real world impact on those use cases?
Were they both set up as new? Sometimes devices are slower right after setup because things are still being configured in the background and indexing and stuff like that.
This has nothing to do with software and everything to do with hardware. When you have more chips, you can access more data in parallel. There are diminishing returns at a certain point, but the difference between just one chip and two chips is pretty drastic, as evidenced by these benchmarks.
You can look at the specs of almost any SSD and see that the lowest capacity model is going to have slower speeds than the higher capacity models.
Yea to 30,000% I can take pictures of Mars little moons.
Maybe a student?
They really need to be taken to task for this. Any excuse is unacceptable for a product with the word PRO in it.
