Tom's Guide reports 5000 Read and 6000 Write on their M2Pro 1TB, and I found about 3000/3500, so maybe not as sigificant as one might think. It would be interesting to see what R/W speeds are for the M2 512GB and 1TB SSD, would expect slightly lower all things considered.
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.
New 256GB Mac Mini and 512GB MacBook Pro Have Slower SSD Speeds Than Previous Models
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I understand the theoretical, I’m asking if it’s user perceptible.
I ask because I’m constantly trying to upgrade users at work anytime I see an 8th gen Intel. I keep getting shot down by users because it’s plenty fast *from their perspective*. Sometimes I’ll convince them to let me bump up the RAM, but there’s a huge gap between what us tech nerds see and what user’s experience. That’s what I’m getting at here, this is a huge thread because it boils the blood of tech people, when the audience for these devices *in these configurations* couldn’t give less of a ****. The Apple silicon devices are simply magic in their eyes regardless of these shortcomings.
8 GB of core is already painful for me on my M1 MBA when paging at 3,000 MB/s speeds. I can't imagine the experience after cutting that bandwidth in half.
It just dawned upon me that this accounts for the new baseline "Pro" M2 Pro mini.
I thought I was dead wrong by saying the baseline $1999 M1 Studio was better value than the 12/19/16+32RAM+512SSD M2 Pro mini.
But if the 512GB SSD in the M2 Pro mini is 50% slower than the one in the M1 Studio then I might be right after all.
Very happy I didn't jump the trigger.
Always so many caveats with new Apple products. Embarrassing how much fine print you have to read to make a good purchase.
To all the people defending Apple's cheapskate move to penny-pinch on components to save a dollar or two (literally), there's a thing called PRINCIPLE. Apple isn't some cheap computer company known for low end, low performance products. I would say most people put them on a pedestal as a company that puts the best tech in their products.
Why won't Apple publicly say why they're choosing the cheap road on SSD implementation? They have a choice. They could have done what they did last generation but instead they KNEW by choosing only one NAND chip that performance would be drastically cut. THEY KNEW IT and did it anyway.
I guess these same people that don't see a problem wouldn't mind buying a new car with one less cylinder, thinner tires, cheaper headlamps, etc? I mean, most car buyers would never notice, right? Is that the yardstick we measure things by now?
Why won't Apple publicly say why they're choosing the cheap road on SSD implementation? They have a choice. They could have done what they did last generation but instead they KNEW by choosing only one NAND chip that performance would be drastically cut. THEY KNEW IT and did it anyway.
I guess these same people that don't see a problem wouldn't mind buying a new car with one less cylinder, thinner tires, cheaper headlamps, etc? I mean, most car buyers would never notice, right? Is that the yardstick we measure things by now?
Once again the apple fanclub is okay with apple screwing them over
Personally, I’d never buy an 8 GB RAM config to begin with. I’d rather save up a little longer and get what I want/need.
Can I ask what you’re doing and running? You might have been underspecc’d for your usage from the very beginning.
I don’t like that Apple offers these configs to begin with, but being in IT and seeing how acquisition works from the inside it makes total sense. You can get business class machines spec’d out with 128 SSD’s (though thankfully they’ve mostly moved as an industry away from SATA to NVME at least) and 8 GB RAM from any of the big name OEM’s. So you can see how Apple still plays in that space given how large reoccurring leasing programs will always be ordering “base” configs as their standard units. The higher end machines get orders too, but in much lower quantities every quarter because it’s overkill for *most* of the white collar workers they get deployed to.
Principle isn’t a thing in capitalism. You’re confusing PR with the cold hard reality of what’s required due to the “law of big numbers” in an economic system that mandates *rising* revenue/profit per quarter.
It’s not the players, it’s the game…which in this case the players happen to be on the rules committee but that’s a larger topic…
Current 512GB:
Mini = single NAND
MBP = double NAND
Previously 512GB:
Mini = double NAND
MBP = quad NAND
So…the headline is false. The SSDs are not of a lower spec speed but their performance is less.
We can safely assume ongoing supply chain issues because it’s usually more expensive to put one big one in instead of two small ones.
We can safely assume ongoing supply chain issues because it’s usually more expensive to put one big one in instead of two small ones.
There are no supply chain issues.
Micron has cut NAND production. Samsung has cut NAND production. Kioxia has slashed production. Sales have plummeted for the last few quarters due to recession.
There's also something to be said about reducing unique parts counts in production. Apple buying one massive batch of 256GB NAND chips, which work in multiple machine configurations, could have worked out favorably over splitting the order between different sizes.
I just measured the M2 14" w 512 and I get appox 3500 write 2800 read - half what this guy got.
"Most people won't notice" is not a defense of what Apple has done, because the point of a scam or fraud is to avoid detection by the majority. Rather, the question is whether most people are getting what they think they are paying for. And it is reasonable for most people to assume that they are paying for a device in which EVERY component would have equal or greater performance than previous models.
In addition, IF most people do not notice, it is not because the difference is negligible, but because they are not constantly comparing, or they have nothing to compare to (for example, if they do not have the previous model, or if they are coming from a much older model). The difference is indeed noticeable for certain operations, such as transferring large files.
In addition, IF most people do not notice, it is not because the difference is negligible, but because they are not constantly comparing, or they have nothing to compare to (for example, if they do not have the previous model, or if they are coming from a much older model). The difference is indeed noticeable for certain operations, such as transferring large files.
Not surprised with the mini.This was pretty much given based on last year's M2 Airs. Not sure why ppl are surprised by this
Pulling this on the Pro?
Now, that takes… “courage”.
Sigh
Thank you. I wonder if that means 'normal' SSD speeds, or is 4 NAND chips the ultimate.
I am waiting for 128Gb 5400rpm HDD version for $100 lower price than current base variant.
But for whatever reason, Apple seems to have entirely moved away from 128gb nand. And only purchasing 256gb nand. Which is what is causing this issue. So perhaps their are supply issues at apples scale for 128gb nand. Maybe they'll move next generation to 512gb (2x256) base for m3 and 1tb (4x256) base for m3 pro/max/etc.
I think the main issue is people see this synthetic benchmark of 3000 vs 6000 (on the new m2 max models, the old one were apparently more like 3900), and think oh no its half as fast - my computer will be half as fast. But its very unlikely in almost any work load on a m2 pro chip, that you would actually encounter a situation where you could observe this as an issue.
SSD speeds have really increased in the last few years. A quick look on google found this PC gamers experience of moving from a 500mbp/s SSD to a 2000mbp/s drive:
What actually matters is that the whole computer can take advantage of the drive speed, if not, the theoretical max speed of 6000 is meaningless. Which is likely the case on the m2 pro.
The cost for upgrading to 1tb is not expensive. It's not likely to be noticeable in practice. And means, they are able to offer a lower entry price point for the machines up and down their line. People act like Apple's alternative was to give away more storage for less, but, its apple, they dont really cut margins, the option for them was increase the base price, or do this.
I look forward to seeing the youtuber/website which has a real world demonstration of this effecting performance.