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
Oversight? Are you suggesting a trillion dollar company didn’t think this through? It’s not like Apple is an amateur company making their first laptop.
Remember, Apple told us that they wouldn’t release something that didn’t meet their level of satisfaction (eg no stage manager on older iPads). So this is within their level of satisfaction, meaning they’re completely aware of it.
What we should demand from Apple is simply disclose the performance discrepancy between models, so consumers will know what they’re buying.
Failure? This is a success for Tim. He managed to not only cut the cost on consumers who wouldn’t know any better buying the base model, he just managed to upsell those who figured this out and ending up buying higher storage models. Higher ASP for Apple. Win win, and expect another record breaking quarterly report.
Not everyone just only surfs Facebook. There's no professional engineering productivity software on MacOS. You have to boot into Windows via boot camp on x64 but SOL on AS. You'll find several of these mentioned on Apple jobs listing page (eg. Mac Product Design CAD Engineer, Digital Layout Designer, etc.) that are used to design Apple products.
revit
alias
navisworks
ansys
abaqus
siemens nx
cadence orcad
altium
catia
solidworks
pro/engineer
pvsyst
hypermill
realitycapture
cst studio
pathwave ads
awr microwave office
ltspice
simetrix
spacerad
fastrad
delmia apriso
star-ccm+
Last edited:
Apple has stopped caring the experience of customers long time ago. Heck, they’re still selling Apple Watch S3, knowing that it won’t be updated ever again.
Apple doesn’t publish this stuff so you can make the right choice. That’s a big part of the disappointment.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.
Just because they are valued at trillions of dollars doesn't mean they can't make mistakes. Look at all the past -gate issues. Trillion dollars or not, it's run by ppl and it's far from perfect. Also how do we know this isn't related to some kind of manufacturing issues that public isn't privy to. There are things that Apple do that's obviously for upselling the consumers but I don't know about this one.
Exactly this.
Endless growth and more and more for shareholders, despite inflation, pandemics, chip shortage, wars, etc.
And who foots the bill? The average consumer who is, at large, unaware of these cost cutting measures for the entry-level model.
And those who are aware opt to for the $1499 model. Apple wins big in either scenario.
As if Apple products weren't expensive enough as is.
That's my main issue with this:
Sure, do your cost-cutting for whatever reason. Nobody is forcing us to buy any of your products, good or bad value.
But don't lie and sell a new computer as "1.4x" faster than the previous generation when the most popular configuration of said new computer cannot live up to this claim.
Even as little as a reference number with an explanation at the bottom 13" M2 Pro product page would have been better. Or maybe a little info box below each of the SSD configuration options that explains the performance differences.
The bottomline is that the 256GB M2 13" Pro cannot deliver the "1.4x" increase over the 256GB M1 13" Pro despite Apple's claims of the opposite. The increased performance of the M2 SoC is not enough to compensate for the newer, slower SSD in the 256GB configuration.
Not the first time the base model had something impacting performance. We fondly remember the difference with 2021 M1 8/7 24” iMac with one fan and only 2 ports, spend another $200, to get the M1 8/8 with 2 fans, and 2 more ports. Like before you wonder why does Apple impact performance just to provide $1299 price like this M2 13” MBP.
Not happy to see lower speeds compared to the previous generation. Have a fear that this is going to happen for 256GB M2 Air also.
Yeah. I also don't know why so many on here say stuff like "another Tim Cook fail" or "Apple under Tim Cook is going down fast".
There's no fail for any business if profits keep climbing.
Sure, the products might get worse and worse in terms of value, life-span and quality. But if consumers buy them blindly then there's no reason for the business to change anything, regardless of whether it's a small business or a huge tech giant, like Apple.
Pre-orders for the new MacBook Slow M2 Pro are already through the roof, and the same will be true for the M2 Air which probably comes with the same slower SSD for the $1199 configuration.
Getting us all to spend at least $1499 for a new, entry-level MacBook instead of "just" $1199 or $1299 is everything but a "fail" for Apple.
Yep, without Windows, BSD or Linux the Mac would not even exist, even the Milling Machines run Windows or Linux.
Gotta be as you say a cost saving reason. People wanting more performance would opt for at least 16 GB ram and 512 GB SSD anyway for $400 more.
Can we please stop this. This is completely exaggerated and blown out of proportion.
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
This is very bad, not excusing Apple here...
But I don't understand a person spending a fairly large sum for a macbook pro, only to cap it at 256GB of storage...
I know there are external solutions, but the ram swapping on the SSD is real and I'd really discourage owning a mac with only 256GB for anything that's just web browsing and very light productivity.
I bought a mac mini 16GB, 256GB in late 2020 while I was waiting for more powerful versions of the M1 Chip and even though I had a 1TB nvme connected via a thunderbolt 4 hub, it was a miserable experience.
Spent all my money on my current M1 Ultra at 1TB but the next mac I'll buy it'll be 2TB, outrageous upgrade price included.
But I don't understand a person spending a fairly large sum for a macbook pro, only to cap it at 256GB of storage...
I know there are external solutions, but the ram swapping on the SSD is real and I'd really discourage owning a mac with only 256GB for anything that's just web browsing and very light productivity.
I bought a mac mini 16GB, 256GB in late 2020 while I was waiting for more powerful versions of the M1 Chip and even though I had a 1TB nvme connected via a thunderbolt 4 hub, it was a miserable experience.
Spent all my money on my current M1 Ultra at 1TB but the next mac I'll buy it'll be 2TB, outrageous upgrade price included.
It’s not a great look but not the end of the world! You can’t really say apple took stuff away if you look at the system as a whole.
They increased the cpu performance and increased the battery life but lowered the disk performance. This is all at the same price as the previous product.
They likely couldn’t leave an m1 product sitting above an m2 product so that’s why it exists for now. But I don’t think this product will exist beyond the end of the year. It’s pretty much a stop gap thing it seems.
But I just don’t think that users who opt for this will notice the disk speed thing before they notice how good the battery life is.
Maybe using less ssd chips is the thing that is increasing the battery life. It will be interesting to see the battery life of the 512 model..
But ultimately, a lot of reviewers are telling people not to buy this machine anyway, regardless of disk speed as they hate the Touch Bar.
So it’s all a little bit meh really…
The users that buy this machine will not be comparing it to a model they never had before. They probably will be very happy with this machine.
They increased the cpu performance and increased the battery life but lowered the disk performance. This is all at the same price as the previous product.
They likely couldn’t leave an m1 product sitting above an m2 product so that’s why it exists for now. But I don’t think this product will exist beyond the end of the year. It’s pretty much a stop gap thing it seems.
But I just don’t think that users who opt for this will notice the disk speed thing before they notice how good the battery life is.
Maybe using less ssd chips is the thing that is increasing the battery life. It will be interesting to see the battery life of the 512 model..
But ultimately, a lot of reviewers are telling people not to buy this machine anyway, regardless of disk speed as they hate the Touch Bar.
So it’s all a little bit meh really…
The users that buy this machine will not be comparing it to a model they never had before. They probably will be very happy with this machine.
Yes. I am crying, because 24GB are too little for my needs (and I mean needs: I have another 15GB+ of swap in use on my 16GB M1 13" model in my normal work hours). So whoever is fine with 8GB RAM and 256GB of storage won't need the extra performance.
Or in other words: the person who has 50 images to export from Lightroom will have the 64GB 10-core M1 Pro/Max 14"/16"/studio with an external monitor for another 800+ bucks. Because waiting time is unpaid time.
Ah yes like:
The Apple Lisa
Macintosh TV
The Apple III
The Powermac g4 cube
Antenna gate
Not increasing the size of the iPhone’s 3.5 inch or iPad’s 9.7 inch
ITunes Ping
Was against the the App Store initially
Great examples of how there were never any mess ups or failures during Jobs reign.
You think this is going to be an issue on the new M2 MacBook Air?
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
Haven't read all the comments, not sure if anybody mentioned what's the biggest problem to me: longevity.
My prediction is that many of these will have SSD failing in 2/3 years.
I understand Apple, a single chip is cheaper. The solution was simple though, 512GB base model. It's a "Pro" model, for God's sake.
My prediction is that many of these will have SSD failing in 2/3 years.
I understand Apple, a single chip is cheaper. The solution was simple though, 512GB base model. It's a "Pro" model, for God's sake.
No it's entirely because the 256GB model uses one SSD chip while the M1 version used two 128GB SSDs, basically doubling the width of the freeway.
I can't see why Apple would choose to use two 128GB chips in the Air but one only 256GB chips in the Pro. So yes.