Sidebar Sidebar
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

Looks like it is very bad for apple! But can anyone tell me some concrete consequences? Thanks a lot! I know it is bad, but i don't know what that means. I'm very confused here.

I want to buy the base model of the macbook air m2, because i quite like the new design. I only use it to write my papers, web browsing and watching youtube videos, and sometimes playing Euro Truck Simulator 2 in Stream (like one or two hours per weekend), will the SSD issue affect this?
I don't want to buy the 512GB version because I don't really need that, furthermore I live in Madrid and here it costs 230 euros for that upgrade. Actually I just checked the usage on my current computer (i'm using a windows laptop from 2020), and all my files (mostly PDFs and Docs, and some pictures for wallpaper, plus ETS2) uses up 40GB (not including a lot of files that i don't know what they are neither where they come from), and i've uploaded all to my Onedrive. But will the SSD issue make it a "have to" for me to buy the 512GB version?

Can anyone give me some advice? Thank you so much! (Forgive me for my poor English.)
 
Apple giveth and taketh away, again.

Introduce butterfly keyboard only to go back to scissor switch keyboards.
Remove the ports only to bring them back.
Remove magsafe only to bring it back.

Upgrade some parts, downgrade some parts.
And when you upgraded the previously downgraded parts, it looks like there's an actual upgrade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkitect and F27
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.
Click to expand...

So this isn't great, but I still wonder if people buying this MacBook will ever notice? Nobody whose workflow involves lots of Photoshop, Lightroom, Final Cut Pro - i.e. as their daily job - is going to buy one of these. Especially not the base model.

I know a few people who buy the newest Air, base spec to do a bit of everything. If they were exporting 50 images in Lightroom and their new machine took 36 seconds longer, I can bet they would never even notice. And from what I can see on MR since this laptop was announced, nobody on here is buying one either.

Its really interesting for me to see these videos, but this one does make me think of the "man shouting at the clouds" meme.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ijbond
jnngr said:
Can we please stop this. This is completely exaggerated and blown out of proportion.
Click to expand...
Apple blatantly promotes this new M2 13" Pro as "1.4x" faster than the M1 version of the same product but doesn't disclose that the base configuration does not deliver "1.4x" more and is in fact markedly slower than the base configuration of the 256GB M1 13" Pro on many metrics.

In other words, Apple is straight up lying on the M2 13" Pro product page.

And no, it's not just a matter of them omitting a tiny footnote about a spec that doesn't impact performance significantly -The 256GB M2 13" Pro does not come close to delivering "1.4x" on the metrics that are listed on the product page because of the much slower SSDs.

Apple is lying about the performance and consumers need to know before buying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dustin_, mtrm, Jim Lahey and 5 others
ApplesAreSweet&Sour said:
Apple blatantly promotes this new M2 13" Pro as "1.4x" faster than the M1 version of the same product but doesn't disclose that the base configuration does not deliver "1.4x" more and is in fact markedly slower than the base configuration of the 256GB M1 13" Pro on many metrics.

In other words, Apple is straight up lying on the M2 13" Pro product page.

And no, it's not just a matter of them omitting a tiny footnote about a spec that doesn't impact performance significantly -The 256GB M2 13" Pro does not come close to delivering "1.4x" on the metrics that are listed on the product page because of the much slower SSDs.

Apple is lying about the performance and consumers need to know before buying.
Click to expand...
Exactly and I'm 100% confident we'll see this exact same scenario unfold with the M2 Airs
 
  • Like
Reactions: dustin_ and entropys
teohyc said:
Upgrade some parts, downgrade some parts.
And when you upgraded the previously downgraded parts, it looks like there's an actual upgrade.
Click to expand...

Apple finding it too difficult these days to go forward so they go backwards now and then to make it look like they are still going forward!

Next year - "The new Macbook Pro has an SSD two times as fast as the previous model!"
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: entropys, arkitect and MajorFubar
Apple is lying about the performance and consumers need to know before buying.
Click to expand...

i like my Apple products, but pretty much every marketing claim they do is a lie / alternative fact / distorted reality, etc. so this accusation will not strike them as something out of the ordinary
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkitect
cicalinarrot said:
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.
Click to expand...
You got to think like the current Apple.
SSD failing in 2/3 years? Money for Apple from expensive replacements or people upgrading sooner than they would’ve. So not only this decision saved Apple money upfront, it potentially brings quicker revenue in the future. Tim is happy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkitect
The fact that they still sell 256 GB and 8 GB in 2022 is the same kind of money pinching that is going on with 64 Gb iPhones. My MBP in 2012 had that configuration already.

I hate to say it but at least Steve Jobs valued user experience somewhat when making business decisions
 
CWallace said:
Apple charges $200 for the 512GB storage configuration so making that the base storage (rather than 256GB) would have raised the price to $1499 from $1299.
Click to expand...
What Apple charges for BTO upgrades has nothing to do with the actual cost. You can see that just by looking at the cost of Apple RAM upgrades in machines like the Intel Mini that use bog standard SODIMMS. The difference in retail price - I.e. including a profit for the seller - between a comparably fast 512GB SSD and 1TB SSD is about $50. It would be perfectly feasible for Apple to bump the base model to 512GB with modest or no price increase rather than ship bad product.

If this is due to supply issues with 128GB chips, then that’s probably because the MBPs are behind the curve on base specs, with most laptops in the mid-$1000s shipping with 512GB as standard, so manufacturers will be winding down production of the smaller chips.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkitect
contacos said:
The fact that they still sell 256 GB and 8 GB in 2022 is the same kind of money pinching that is going on with 64 Gb iPhones. My MBP in 2012 had that configuration already
Click to expand...
Yep. My 10 year old old Windows laptop already had 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD. The fact that Apple offered that spec for a $1500 laptop in 2022 is astounding.
 
unrigestered said:
you have to keep in mind that Apple just raised the minimal wages of all employees. And they still have to live off something after all... and those 600$ wheels and $1000 stands alone don't cut it
Click to expand...
I don’t necessarily mind Apple trying to cut cost, but be honest when selling your product. Disclose the performance discrepancy between models with different SSD size. Right now, people think they all have the same performance, with storage size being the only thing different. Just be honest about it. But that’s too hard for Apple.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: dustin_, arkitect and Menneisyys2
MauiPa said:
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?
Click to expand...
my sister's 500$ Dell laptop gets 6k r/w ,wtf are u on about
 
ian87w said:
Yep. My 10 year old old Windows laptop already had 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD. The fact that Apple offered that spec for a $1500 laptop in 2022 is astounding.
Click to expand...

The Surface Pro 1 (which I bought) in 2013 had a 64GB SSD and I remember the outcry about this at the time. At least it had an SD card slot and the SSD was technically upgradable if you could get it open.

2022, iPad's still rocking 64GB with no expandability. It's deplorable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dustin_ and arkitect
Most likely they opted for cheaper slower SSD module for that little bit extra profit margin.
Disappointing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back