What?
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
You are not concerned that the upgrade to last year’s model actually has lower performance?
Everything Apple does is a s**t-storm for some segment of the population, so... And this is an intentional decision by Apple to only use one 256GB module in the base configuration rather than two 128GB modules.
Apple may very well have gone this route for cost-saving reasons considering the M2 MacBook Pro has the same $1299 launch price as the M1 version did some 18 months ago. The M2 SoC is more expensive than the M1 (both in terms of being a larger size and TSMC raising their fabrication prices) and likely most every other part in it is more expensive between inflation, higher global shipping rates and supply chain constraints driving up unit costs.
Last edited:
One thing I kept hearing about was less swap in the video. It was a huge complaint about the first wave of M1 Macs, is this an efficiency error on the part of macOS Monterey? I wonder if Ventura will bring any improvements to this base model?
Some users would definitely notice these small issues. For my case use, I wouldn't catch it, but I'm not going 256GB this time either if I get a MacBook Pro 13-inch.
Some users would definitely notice these small issues. For my case use, I wouldn't catch it, but I'm not going 256GB this time either if I get a MacBook Pro 13-inch.
What bugs me is that the article headline uses the term “real world” when clearly the example is not “real world”, show me how browser performance, opening an excel file or such is impacted - that would be “real world” for that config.
If I were in the market for this model, base config - I wouldn’t buy it, let my wallet speak.
Better get to throttling those M1's.
Shocked that people defend Apple on here? Have you ever been to these forums? XD
Exactly. Many still don't know about the global chipset crunch, and the MASSIVE cost increases on everything. Maybe, just maybe Apple is trying its best to delivery great value (maybe not the best), but still great value without dramatically increasing the selling price?
These types of headlines are nothing but clickbait, because nobody "messed up", except maybe the former US President.
It really matters having your SoC's package filled out with all the chips. I'm glad I went with a refurbished MacBook Air with 16 GB of RAM and the 512 GB drive. You don't want to deal with swap space and you want all channels used for your storage.
While not as impressive as what you can get with PCIe 4.0 drives, the storage on my Macbook Air is still holding its own.
While not as impressive as what you can get with PCIe 4.0 drives, the storage on my Macbook Air is still holding its own.
Attachments
Reminds me of the iPhone 7 "base model" speed findings a few years ago.
Candidly, if there's outrage to be had over this, I'm just not seeing it.
Candidly, if there's outrage to be had over this, I'm just not seeing it.
will be interesting to see what will happen with the uncommon 24GB RAM setup for the upcoming 2022 MBA.
i think i remember back in the dual channel days that each bar (or chip) needed to be the same size (among other things) in order to benefit from the speed boost, otherwise the remaining difference between the two will work in the slower single channel mode (ie 16GB+8GB=24GB, but since they are different sizes, 8GB of the 16GB module will work slower in single channel, or maybe the whole RAM would refuse to run in dual channel altogether?)
12GB modules would be quite uncommon methinks
i think i remember back in the dual channel days that each bar (or chip) needed to be the same size (among other things) in order to benefit from the speed boost, otherwise the remaining difference between the two will work in the slower single channel mode (ie 16GB+8GB=24GB, but since they are different sizes, 8GB of the 16GB module will work slower in single channel, or maybe the whole RAM would refuse to run in dual channel altogether?)
12GB modules would be quite uncommon methinks
Tja, as we say in German, you gain from the improved video engine and loose it all on the SSD … why would they improve on processor tech and regress on the SSD
Benchmark testing has indicated that the 256GB variant of the 13-inch MacBook Pro with M2 chip offers slower SSD performance than its M1 equivalent, and now real-world stress testing by YouTuber Max Yuryev of Max Tech suggests that the 256GB SSD in the 13-inch MacBook Pro is also underperforming in day-to day-usage.
The M2 MacBook Pro with 256GB SSD and 8GB RAM was slower than the M1 MacBook Pro with 256GB SSD and 8GB RAM across multiple usage tests involving Photoshop, Lightroom, Final Cut Pro, multitasking, and file transfers. In a multitasking RAM test, the M1 consistently loads content faster with multiple apps open, and in a 50 image export test in Lightroom with apps open, the M1 was again quicker. It was able to export 50 images in 3 minutes and 36 seconds, while the M2 took 4 minutes and 12 seconds.
In these tests, the built-in 8GB unified memory of the MacBook Pro is being used by various processes, with the machine using the SSD for virtual memory. The virtual memory swapping results in slower system performance overall.
These results were consistent across all of the performance stress tests done by Max Tech, and benchmark tests conducted by Max Tech on Saturday demonstrated the same discrepancy. The M2 MacBook Pro's read speeds appear to be around 50 percent slower, while the write speeds appear to be around 30 percent slower.
Max Tech attributes this performance difference to Apple's choice of NAND flash storage. In the M2 MacBook Pro, there is a single 256GB NAND flash storage chip, while the M1 MacBook Pro has two NAND chips that are likely 128GB each. Multiple NAND chips allow for faster speeds in parallel, which could account for the M2's seemingly disappointing performance.
- 13-inch MacBook Pro (M1/256GB) Read Speed: 2,900
- 13-inch MacBook Pro (M2/256GB) Read Speed: 1,446
- 13-inch MacBook Pro (M1/256GB) Write Speed: 2,215
- 13-inch MacBook Pro (M2/256GB) Write Speed: 1,463
Slower SSD performance appears to be limited to the 256GB version of the 13-inch MacBook Pro, as higher capacity machines have not demonstrated the same issue. Potential MacBook Pro buyers should be aware of this performance problem as it could impact purchase choice.
It is not clear why Apple opted for a different NAND chip setup in the M2 MacBook Pro, and further testing is required to determine just what is going on. Apple has not responded to our requests for comment as of yet, but we will update this article if we hear back.
Article Link: M2 13-Inch MacBook Pro With 256GB SSD Appears Slower Than Equivalent M1 in Real-World Speed Tests
So disappointing to see Apple's software & now hardware to be so undependable with reasonable expectations. When I bought my first device, the 5C, everything worked as announced & expected. Now updated software is a crap shoot & an investment in new hardware seems not to be silicon being built off of the technological successes of past generations.
They were thinking: "We looked at who actually bought the entry level first gen version of this product, and absolutely no one was doing a significant amount of exporting of Photoshop images."
I was actually interested in getting this but after buying an iPad Air 5 and seeing how terrible the build quality was (as one of Apple's post world disaster products!) I was already reconsidering. Now with a cheaped out SSD it's looking like a no from me.
Evidently they haven't increased their prices enough to maintain a standard during everything that's going on and every corner that can be cut is being, makes me wonder what else they have fiddled with. Don't hold much hope for the new M2 Air being much of a quality product either.
Evidently they haven't increased their prices enough to maintain a standard during everything that's going on and every corner that can be cut is being, makes me wonder what else they have fiddled with. Don't hold much hope for the new M2 Air being much of a quality product either.
My kid was a student in an arts college, and the college told them exactly what to get, minimum requirements. And it was far from the entry level.
indeed. i have no idea how some people can watch that crap for more than a couple of seconds without getting the urge to throw up
Waiting for a software fix..
Just remove the time countdown from the copy UI.
Like they did with the battery time.
Pathetic.
The air will be the same, I can’t see why it wouldn’t be.
Just remove the time countdown from the copy UI.
Like they did with the battery time.
Pathetic.
The air will be the same, I can’t see why it wouldn’t be.
What is so undependable about SSD R.W speeds, compared to only a few years back it only recently that we are seeing significant improvements. With any design that tends to allow a lot of latitude with how the laptop is configured its up to you to find out what best, not view the base model as all you need.
Well, yeah but wouldn’t it have been a better move to delay the release with an explanation of the value of waiting?
Obviously, Apple knew the performance before releasing it. Why they would put them in this position is mind-blowing.
It’s just not a good look when an almost two year old model beats yours latest.
It’s just not a good look when an almost two year old model beats yours latest.