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

David1986H

macrumors 6502
May 12, 2020
251
201
Cheshire, UK
Hopefully as long as swap memory is not being used and there's plenty of ram it should be less as a concern right?

its just plugging external ssd that's the problem
 
  • Like
Reactions: VaruLV

Svetlin

macrumors newbie
May 19, 2021
23
86
I went for the 16" with 512gb 32gb ram, I don't do any file transferring so fingers crossed I should be ok
Congrats on your purchase!
You have a lot of Ram so i am sure you won`t notice it. Either way if your experience is worse than expected don`t be afraid to use the 14 days return window.
 

OneBar

macrumors regular
Dec 2, 2022
122
150
I love how people act like this is anything new. This is why 2 sticks of RAM are faster than 1. This is why RAID can be faster than a single drive. If the top capacity is increased, then the lower capacities must necessarily swap to single modules of storage. It's not like anyone is going to notice the difference between 3950 and 3150. Heck my 860 EVO ssd does 520 and I can barely tell any difference between that and my work M2 970 Pro at 2700.
 

Berries-A-Million

macrumors 6502
Feb 24, 2019
354
306
You’ll never notice that speed difference. Apple had to give and take on some things to improve performance or reliability elsewhere. Going from a spinning disk to a SSD was massive performance jump. Going from 3k to 3800 you won’t notice it at all.
 

fenderbass146

macrumors 65816
Mar 11, 2009
1,350
2,088
Northwest Indiana
I love how people act like this is anything new. This is why 2 sticks of RAM are faster than 1. This is why RAID can be faster than a single drive. If the top capacity is increased, then the lower capacities must necessarily swap to single modules of storage. It's not like anyone is going to notice the difference between 3950 and 3150. Heck my 860 EVO ssd does 520 and I can barely tell any difference between that and my work M2 970 Pro at 2700.
the problem is they managed not to do that on the first gen... this is a cost saving gambit, not a tech problem.
 

TinyMito

macrumors 6502a
Nov 1, 2021
575
748
I love how people act like this is anything new. This is why 2 sticks of RAM are faster than 1. This is why RAID can be faster than a single drive. If the top capacity is increased, then the lower capacities must necessarily swap to single modules of storage. It's not like anyone is going to notice the difference between 3950 and 3150. Heck my 860 EVO ssd does 520 and I can barely tell any difference between that and my work M2 970 Pro at 2700.

Many people don't know how those chip works, they see lower perf = Apple cheap out on it. Single vs Dual channels, as for RAM. Dual channels will always be faster.

This is why I opt for 1TB SSD on my MacBook Pro 14.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OneBar and jdelcorr

jdelcorr

macrumors newbie
Dec 16, 2016
17
11
USA
I had this hunch when ordering the computer and although I only needed 512 GB, ordered 1 TB. Fingers crossed that it is solved at this capacity :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: VaruLV

jdelcorr

macrumors newbie
Dec 16, 2016
17
11
USA
Many people don't know how those chip works, they see lower perf = Apple cheap out on it. Single vs Dual channels, as for RAM. Dual channels will always be faster.

This is why I opt for 1TB SSD on my MacBook Pro 14.
Do we know of a reviewer that has already tested the 1TB?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Two Appleseeds

james2538

macrumors 6502
Jul 11, 2008
484
1,452
Many people don't know how those chip works, they see lower perf = Apple cheap out on it. Single vs Dual channels, as for RAM. Dual channels will always be faster.

This is why I opt for 1TB SSD on my MacBook Pro 14.

It's technically still dual channel (256GB x2), just no longer quad channel (128GB x4). Probably why it is a performance hit but not as big as the MBA which went down to a single chip.

With the notable lower SSD performance in my M2 Pro MacBook Pro, I wanted to take a look inside to confirm why. Sure enough, where the 512GB M1 Pro MacBook Pro had two NAND chips visible on the front of the motherboard and another two on the back, the M2 Pro MacBook Pro had only one visible on the front of the board. There is likely a second NAND chip directly apposing this, as the M1 had.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VaruLV

chill991

macrumors member
Apr 8, 2020
89
45
Its still faster then my 18 MBP I'm upgrading from. Not disappointed at all. Raw read/write speeds are not real world use.
 

james2538

macrumors 6502
Jul 11, 2008
484
1,452
So what does this mean for real world usage? In what scenarios will you notice this?

Hardly anything. Only times you might notice is when you start nearing the RAM limit and swap kicks in, or you’re constantly transferring large files.

If you’re having either of these issues then you probably aren’t getting the base model.

Is this a reason for people to buy an M1 Pro over the M2 Pro (even if prices are the same)?

Absolutely not. The additional battery life, faster performance from both single and multi-core applications , Wi-Fi 6E, and HDMI 2.1 completely dwarf any perceived drive performance issue.

It’s also nowhere near the drop in base MacBook Air or Mac Mini SSD speeds because the base Pro still uses a RAID configuration. Just in a 2x 256GB vs 4x 128GB configuration.

Remember that 3000 MB/s for read/write is still screaming fast. It’s roughly double the speed of the SSD in the base Air/Mini and will blow past almost all Windows laptops.
 

james2538

macrumors 6502
Jul 11, 2008
484
1,452
Overall, I’d say this isn’t as big of an issue as it is in the Air and Mini. A bit overblown.

The base model of those only come with 8GB of RAM which means you’re more likely to run into a situation where you’re swapping to the SSD.

Those transferring large files likely need more than 512GB of storage anyways. In addition, the external drive you’re transferring to/from also need to support these speeds or greater for it to even make a difference. So a USB 4 or Thunderbolt SSD.

This also might not necessarily be a cost cutting issue. Don’t forget these Pros were significantly delayed due to supply chain issues. It’s possible Apple just couldn’t get their hands on 128GB NAND chips anymore.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BanjoDudeAhoy

BanjoDudeAhoy

macrumors 6502
Aug 3, 2020
414
605
Remember that 3000 MB/s for read/write is still screaming fast. It’s roughly double the speed of the SSD in the base Air/Mini and will blow past almost all Windows laptops.

Out of curiosity I looked at some of the measured speeds on the new 256 GB internal SSDs and then looked up the speeds of my old-ish SATA SSDs. It looks like mine are listed at about a quarter of the write speed those new ones reach (depending on the test - I couldn’t find a 1:1 comparison).
When I (a relatively recent Windows to Mac convert) used those SATA SSDs as internal drives for Windows computers, I already thought they were pretty damn fast. I sold the last computer that used one of those SATA SSDs last year and the SSDs have since been relegated to external backup drive duties.

This doesn’t mean that the situation isn’t… unfortunate, of course.
I do wish there was some information as to why Apple went this way. Supply chain issues? Suppliers don’t produce 128 GB chips anymore? Cost cutting?
 

Berries-A-Million

macrumors 6502
Feb 24, 2019
354
306
So what does this mean for real world usage? In what scenarios will you notice this? Is this a reason for people to buy an M1 Pro over the M2 Pro (even if prices are the same)?

You won’t notice it at all. It’s all benchmark stuff and people will whine about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sagnet
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.