Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

mattyjoe

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Oct 12, 2020
20
105
Los Angeles, CA
Okay, there are a couple YouTubers who have done BlackMagic Disk Speed Tests on the M2 13inch MacBook Pro, and have found that the speeds are SLOWER than the M1 13inch. I've done some investigating and discovered what I think the difference is.

max tech speed test 256 GB.png


MaxTech got a write of 1463 MB/s and read of 1446 MB/s, give or take a few MB between each run. His model is a 256GB. He opened it up, and showed that Apple is now using one 256GB NAND chip for it, while the M1 has 2x 128GB NAND chips.

max tech 256GB modeules.jpg


zoneoftech also got similar results on his 256GB model.

zoneoftech speed test 256GB.jpg


Meanwhile, zollotech got very fast speeds on his 512GB M2 model.

zollotech speed test 512GB.png


So basically, it appears Apple is using a single NAND chip for 256GB models, and likely 2x 256GB chips for 512GB models, which is the reason for the faster speeds with 512GB. It's likely Apple is using 2 NAND chips for every capacity over 256, so as long as you get a model with 512GB or above, you should not see a reduction in speed.

MaxTech, for one, is already using this to say that Apple made the M2 machine worse. For the 256GB model, yes. But someone pointed out to me that 128GB NAND chips are being made much less anyway, and the majority of them are made for phones. It may just be a supply issue that caused Apple to go with single 256GB NANDs.

Most people, I would think, would get 512GB or above anyway.
 

mattyjoe

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Oct 12, 2020
20
105
Los Angeles, CA
I think you underestimate. The standard retail configuration for non-Apple resellers is the 256GB. Which means all those stocked/bought at Best Buy, Nebraska Furniture Mart and similar is what the majority of people end up with.
You're probably right. So, my hope is prospective buyers see this and if 2000MB/s+ read and write is important to them, they will get a 512GB model or higher.
 

FSMBP

macrumors 68030
Jan 22, 2009
2,622
2,062
Damn - that's quite a huge difference in speed too. Not trying to defend Apple, but I imagine people getting base machines aren't tasking their computers with read/writes; probably like most people I've seen, they're using Chrome/Zoom for everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KeithBN

drecc

macrumors member
Nov 6, 2014
78
35
Damn - that's quite a huge difference in speed too. Not trying to defend Apple, but I imagine people getting base machines aren't tasking their computers with read/writes; probably like most people I've seen, they're using Chrome/Zoom for everything.
If you're swapping out to RAM, then being able to quickly read a GB or two from RAM as you switch apps would be critical.
 

drecc

macrumors member
Nov 6, 2014
78
35
Does anyone else get significantly different SSD read/write speeds between Blackmagic and AmorphousDiskMark tests?

I set both to 4GB on my 2018 MBP, and the results are as follows:

1656198023249.png


1656198124045.png
 

Krypton Deer

macrumors member
Nov 2, 2019
65
128
my hope is prospective buyers see this and if 2000MB/s+ read and write is important to them, they will get a 512GB model or higher.
the venn diagram between people who will actually notice those disk speeds and people who only need 256GB storage is going to be pretty small.

It's the Pro name that triggers me. This M2 MBP is cheaper than M2 Air at the same config (M2 MBP starts at 10c) and I agree 8/256 MBP users are not likely to task the system enough to notice the difference.

But 8GB ram requires swapping to SSD whenever system is tasked and two-spec BTO (16/512) pushes the price uncomfortably to MBP 14 level. Given the supply constraints and inflation, maybe Apple will further increase M2 MBP 14/16 prices next year sigh.
 

AAPLGeek

macrumors 6502
Nov 12, 2009
459
843
Does anyone else get significantly different SSD read/write speeds between Blackmagic and AmorphousDiskMark tests?

I set both to 4GB on my 2018 MBP, and the results are as follows:

View attachment 2023547

View attachment 2023548

Are you using the same test data samples on both these apps? Amorphous shows 4GiBx1 and it should be the same on Blackmagic to get an accurate assessment.

In any case, modern SSD speeds tested with Blackmagic are completely pointless since it only test sequential read and write speeds. Sequential R/W performance is the least important metric when gauging day to day performance of a SSD.
 

drecc

macrumors member
Nov 6, 2014
78
35
Are you using the same test data samples on both these apps? Amorphous shows 4GiBx1 and it should be the same on Blackmagic to get an accurate assessment.

In any case, modern SSD speeds tested with Blackmagic are completely pointless since it only test sequential read and write speeds. Sequential R/W performance is the least important metric when gauging day to day performance of a SSD.
Yes, AmorphousDiskMark only does powers of 2, and Blackmagic does 1..5, so I set them both to 4GB.

> Sequential R/W performance is the least important metric

I'm guessing that when you swap back memory when switching to an app or to tabs that you've not used in a while, those are multi-MB sequential reads. The sequential writes happening in the background probably aren't critical, but I'd guess that the sequential reads are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yitwail

drecc

macrumors member
Nov 6, 2014
78
35
View attachment 2023553
View attachment 2023554
I also have the same discrepancy on my M1 Max 16inch.

2021-03-25-amorphousdiskmark.png


Now this is very strange - I found a blog post here https://blog.greggant.com/posts/2021/03/25/amorphousdiskmark-is-crystaldiskmark-for-mac.html that shows that the RND4KQD64 read performance on an M1 Air is better (1144 MB/s) than on the M1 Max MBP 16 (674MB/s)....

Although the blog post is for 1GB and the benchmark from this thread on the M1 Max is at 4GB, so I wonder if the M1 Air was returning cached data from RAM... If so, then maybe all of these benchmarks are useless.
 

antiprotest

macrumors 68030
Apr 19, 2010
2,644
5,977
I think you underestimate. The standard retail configuration for non-Apple resellers is the 256GB. Which means all those stocked/bought at Best Buy, Nebraska Furniture Mart and similar is what the majority of people end up with.
Correct. Most people buy the cheapest configuration and try to live with it even though it's not practical enough. And then they face all kinds of limitations and keep trying to talk themselves into believing that's it's acceptable, even the smarter choice because they "saved" money and they could use cloud storage etc. It's really Apple's fault but people shouldn't make themselves accept it.
 

BeatCrazy

macrumors 68040
Jul 20, 2011
3,728
2,585
Correct. Most people buy the cheapest configuration and try to live with it even though it's not practical enough. And then they face all kinds of limitations and keep trying to talk themselves into believing that's it's acceptable, even the smarter choice because they "saved" money and they could use cloud storage etc. It's really Apple's fault but people shouldn't make themselves accept it.
For the price/demographic 256GB + optional cloud storage really is enough. It's not like Apple's not letting you buy more storage. Unless I'm buying for myself, I'm very price conscious and trying to get keep the total investment as low as possible.

My wife and kids each get by just fine with 256GB + cloud. Do they really need full-res versions of their 300 cat videos on the device? They're not editing dozens of 500MB photos in Premiere. Nor are they downloading dozens of 2hr movies or albums. All that stuff just streams nowadays.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saturn007

TheMacDaddy1

macrumors 6502a
Aug 17, 2016
632
1,191
Merica!
Okay, there are a couple YouTubers who have done BlackMagic Disk Speed Tests on the M2 13inch MacBook Pro, and have found that the speeds are SLOWER than the M1 13inch. I've done some investigating and discovered what I think the difference is.

View attachment 2023492

MaxTech got a write of 1463 MB/s and read of 1446 MB/s, give or take a few MB between each run. His model is a 256GB. He opened it up, and showed that Apple is now using one 256GB NAND chip for it, while the M1 has 2x 128GB NAND chips.

View attachment 2023493

zoneoftech also got similar results on his 256GB model.

View attachment 2023495

Meanwhile, zollotech got very fast speeds on his 512GB M2 model.

View attachment 2023496

So basically, it appears Apple is using a single NAND chip for 256GB models, and likely 2x 256GB chips for 512GB models, which is the reason for the faster speeds with 512GB. It's likely Apple is using 2 NAND chips for every capacity over 256, so as long as you get a model with 512GB or above, you should not see a reduction in speed.

MaxTech, for one, is already using this to say that Apple made the M2 machine worse. For the 256GB model, yes. But someone pointed out to me that 128GB NAND chips are being made much less anyway, and the majority of them are made for phones. It may just be a supply issue that caused Apple to go with single 256GB NANDs.

Most people, I would think, would get 512GB or above anyway.
99.999999999% of Macbook users would never know. Their usage probably never allows the disk to reach maximum speed because the disk use it lite and bursty.
 

yitwail

macrumors 6502
Sep 4, 2011
400
444
The only reason is cost. There is no other legitimate reason.
It's the practical reason for doing this, one less part to stock and install, but it's debatable how legitimate it is to sell a pro machine with half the ssd speed of a base M1 MBA. Here's something else questionable I just noticed. In Apple's M2 MBP page, they claim it's up to 1.4x faster than the M1 model, but if you read the fine print, they compared a 24GB M2 to a 16GB M1. 🤦‍♂️
 

JPack

macrumors G3
Mar 27, 2017
9,750
17,136
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.