I can understand doing it to the MBA, but it's pretty pathetic to do it on the $2000+ MBP where the buyer is paying extra for speed. The NAND is significantly worse than what cheapo PC laptop makers are using these days on their PCIe 4.0 SSDs.
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.
Looks like the MBP M2 Pro's have neutered SSDs on the base models like the MBA...
- Thread starter magbarn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
2700Mb/s is something to complain about? Talk about first-world problems.
Looks like Apple is back selling dud base models forcing people to buy super overpriced upgrades, as all Macs (even their desktops) are non-repairable / upgradable computers. Even the $1300 M2 Pro Mini doesn't have it's full performance unlocked as it comes with a slow SSD.
If Mac computers were user upgradable, Apple wouldn't do this because they would make no extra money of it, as people can then simply buy a $150 Samsung 1TB SSD that can hit 7000MB/s and put it inside their Mac computers.
I guess this is the reason why governments are after Apple now with the Apple Store, as you can see that if Apple takes away control from it's users, Apple will abuse it.
If Mac computers were user upgradable, Apple wouldn't do this because they would make no extra money of it, as people can then simply buy a $150 Samsung 1TB SSD that can hit 7000MB/s and put it inside their Mac computers.
I guess this is the reason why governments are after Apple now with the Apple Store, as you can see that if Apple takes away control from it's users, Apple will abuse it.
I'm gonna be completely honest. But first I want to be clear that I'm not trying to bash on the OP, so I hope it doesn't come across as that; I'm just trying to respond to the post with my thoughts. What I am doing though is bashing on Apple for their "downgrade." I'm super close to just giving up entirely and switching to a PC. At this point, Macs are almost becoming scams in a sense. I can't believe I'm saying this, but it's true. I think the Apple ecosystem is great—you get seamless integration with all your devices, which is lovely, but that is secondary—I can figure out how to work around that. The Mac is a stable platform, but y'know, I can live with something slightly unstable. Apple charging $200 to upgrade to 16 GB of RAM is infuriating to me. And I believe they charge $400 for 24 GB? So that's even worse. Of course, this is nothing new, they've been doing this for years, but what makes 16 GB of RAM worth $200? Maybe I'm missing the point...
Before these new Macs were announced, I was not even considering switching to PC as my main computer, but now that I've read about the disgustingly-slow SSDs, I think I'm gonna do it. I was considering getting one of these M1 Pro Mac minis as a replacement for my 5,1 Mac Pro, but not anymore, they're a decent deal at first glance, but you get the binned M1 Pro, not the full one, so no way. I know this is probably not an excuse to rant about how bad of a deal the new M2 Macs are (maybe with the exception of the M2 Mac mini base model), but I'm doing it anyway...
Feel free to downvote this post to your heart's content, I don't care. I'm just stating the truth.
Before these new Macs were announced, I was not even considering switching to PC as my main computer, but now that I've read about the disgustingly-slow SSDs, I think I'm gonna do it. I was considering getting one of these M1 Pro Mac minis as a replacement for my 5,1 Mac Pro, but not anymore, they're a decent deal at first glance, but you get the binned M1 Pro, not the full one, so no way. I know this is probably not an excuse to rant about how bad of a deal the new M2 Macs are (maybe with the exception of the M2 Mac mini base model), but I'm doing it anyway...
Feel free to downvote this post to your heart's content, I don't care. I'm just stating the truth.
Last edited:
"dud base models"? I feel like this thread came out straight outta reddit. Do people not see the price tag on those machines for the performance you are getting out of them? They are the best bang for the buck you can get, 90% of the people will do just fine, and the only tune people can sing is "SSD performance is bad".
Honestly if they put a fast NVMe SSD and a slow NVMe SSD in front of you and ask to do daily tasks ( sans disk benchmarks and file transfers ) you'd never notice it.
To everybody else, you have options. Don't like Apple's SSD pricing, you can go elsewhere. Including with higher price, more noise, and of course, no MacOS nor Apple support/warranty.
Honestly if they put a fast NVMe SSD and a slow NVMe SSD in front of you and ask to do daily tasks ( sans disk benchmarks and file transfers ) you'd never notice it.
To everybody else, you have options. Don't like Apple's SSD pricing, you can go elsewhere. Including with higher price, more noise, and of course, no MacOS nor Apple support/warranty.
Apple is simply trying to force people to spend money on extremely overpriced upgrade prices since all Mac computers are non-upgradable.
I have already seen someone here at MacRumors coping with Apple their new business strategy. But the 14" MBP is supposed to be a "Pro" computer so this is BS.
But the good news is, we can expect the Apple stock price to bounce back with all the extra money Apple makes selling super overpriced upgrades.
I have already seen someone here at MacRumors coping with Apple their new business strategy. But the 14" MBP is supposed to be a "Pro" computer so this is BS.
But the good news is, we can expect the Apple stock price to bounce back with all the extra money Apple makes selling super overpriced upgrades.
These speeds are what my 5-year Intel MacBook Pro was doing. This is not performance you expect from a "Pro" machine in 2023.
Ok, fair enough... it won't be noticeable in daily use, but the OP has a point in the whole SSD performance loss on the base models, you're still getting a slower SSD, and it's still a bad deal because of this IMO.
I actually will notice it as even my 16" M1 Max MacBook Pro with 32GB RAM can hit disk swapping. I believe my 16" M1 Max MacBook Pro has 6000MB/s+ speeds, so it is fine. But with a slow SSD, the performance would be less in such conditions.
The thing I'm now worried about, will Apple do the same thing to the base 16" M3 Max MacBook Pro base model (32GB RAM and 1TB SSD). And why stop there, they can do the same thing to the Mac Pro.
Things like these is why I would never switch my PC desktop to a Mac desktop.
Last edited:
What constitutes a bad deal?
I usually go with "There are no bad products, only bad prices". I feel like everybody agrees with that on different levels with Apple.
You will find people that complain that "8gb is not enough on a base model", but won't upgrade to 16gb because "it shouldnt cost that much"
Same tune for the 256gb of space.
And now the same tune for the SSD speed.
I think for the average user, SSD speeds will be the last of their bottleneck. We are getting generational improvements in almost every other component of those systems, where you can feel the difference on daily use.
"My 16" M1 Max Macbook Pro with 32GB RAM can hit disk swapping". You are clearly not the user for the base model machines, will probably never use them, and even if you did, you probably wouldnt use them like the average user would to. Which makes you unable to comment on their performance.
And, no, they will not do the same for the 1Tb drives or any higher end model. If you did any research on the why the reduced performance exists in the first place, is simply because they are sourcing 256gb nand flashes for the new products instead of 128gb ones.
You are incorrect, it is the $599 base M2 Mac mini, with 8GB of RAM & a 256GB SSD that is hampered by the single NAND chip...
But the $1299 base M2 Pro Mac mini, with 16GB of RAM & a 512GB SSD is not hampered at all, as it has two NAND chips...
If you're this offended, why are you still even considering being a customer? Just cut the cord already.
Last edited:
I am much more interested in latency, endurance and speed at different block sizes rather than large block sequential bandwidth. Frankly, I don't care much whether a 10GB file is copied in 3 or 3.3 seconds. If the large block bandwidth has been reduced but access to small files has been improved, it's a net win for virtually everyone.
People need to get over it. Inflation since the original M1 Pro has been 10%+ but base prices are still the same in US. Apple has to cut costs somewhere and the least important is sequential read/write.
Sequential read/write matters very little unless you're constantly copying very large files.
Sequential read/write matters very little unless you're constantly copying very large files.
For that to work, wouldn’t Apple need to make it known that the entry-level storage option is not only smaller but also slower? Instead, they’ve kept completely quiet about it.
For it to work, Apple would need to make it known (spec sheet) AND, it would have to actually matter for most people. Unlike RAM size where 8GB vs 16GB can be "felt", virtually no one can tell the difference between 3000 MB/2700 MB and 3500 MB/4000 MB sequential SSD speeds in everyday tasks.
Hell, most people would never know if their SSD was running at 500 MB/500 MB or 3000 MB/2700 MB.
I'd much rather Apple cut costs on the SSD sequential speed over increase the base price of the Mac or cutting elsewhere.
This irritated me with the M2 MBA for two reasons - 1) Apple isn't upfront about it, 2) it seems reasonable to think that a new machine should be at least as good if not better than the prior. I'd be less concerned about #2 if Apple was forthright and people could make an informed decision. (I ultimately purchased a base M2 MBA knowing full well about the issue - so that's my choice)
It's even worse on the MBP. I get that Apple held the price constant in a time of extraordinary inflation and that's great. But to compromise on SSD speed on their Pro machine feels bad to me. I guess folks (like me) who buy the smallest drive are doing so because we use the internal SSD 99% for OS and apps which probably makes this whole thing less relevant. But maybe not when one considers that the base unit has only 16 GB RAM and is likely to get in to the swap unless closely managed.
Either way - Apple should be upfront about it. We shouldn't learn this from YT.
It's even worse on the MBP. I get that Apple held the price constant in a time of extraordinary inflation and that's great. But to compromise on SSD speed on their Pro machine feels bad to me. I guess folks (like me) who buy the smallest drive are doing so because we use the internal SSD 99% for OS and apps which probably makes this whole thing less relevant. But maybe not when one considers that the base unit has only 16 GB RAM and is likely to get in to the swap unless closely managed.
Either way - Apple should be upfront about it. We shouldn't learn this from YT.
Apple doesn't make any promise on SSD sequential write speed for large files. There's no reason for them to be upfront about it. And even if they do, it doesn't affect everyday usage at all.
Here's the thing, people have crowed, and brought up how great apple's SSD speeds are. So when they choose to slow them down, by using cheaper technology, highlighting, and complaining about it is fair game.
Under typical usage, most consumers won't notice, but on the other hand, Apple as a premium brand cutting corners is unfortunate.
I understand your point. Obviously Apple knew about the impact of this change and went the way you advocate. That's their business choice. They have no obligation to do anything. But there's a cost to that as well.
That has been their M.O. Since day one it seems. Make the lower configurations in such a way that people spend more money for the pricier models - the whole future proof idea is predicated on people spending more money "just in case"
My base MacBook Air M2, with the supposedly slower hard drive, is fast as hell. I'm just saying, most of us regular people don't notice and don't care about all the hard drive hoopla that people are bickering about.
Funny you mention that. In software sales we were taught to sell on the bugs. So in this case a different approach would be to promote that the upgrade to a 1TB drive comes with an added performance enhancement over the base. Put it out there front and center and allow people to choose if they want to pay for more performance along with more storage. Analogous to a "Good/Better/Best" line-up.
Allowing this to be the fodder of YT cedes the narrative to folks who benefit from turning it negative - "the base MBP is crippled" or whatever.
Like I said before, it's Apple's choice. And they made one.
One of the first lessons I learned as I was trained to be a programmers. There's no such thing as bugs, just undocumented features
The only way you'd notice is that if you had the prior generation laptop sitting next to the M2, you then run a large file copy on both and compare.
You're 100% percent right, that most people won't notice, BUT I think the idea of a premium brand cutting corners is not something I'd like to see. I hope this isn't a trend, i.e., giving us cheaper components so they can protect their profit margins. Companies have done this throughout history and it always catches up to them, in a really bad way.