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

ApplesAreSweet&Sour

macrumors 68020
Sep 18, 2018
2,299
4,255
Hi!

A few months ago the news came out that the new Macbook M2 have a slower SSD than the M1. In the base model, because in the advanced ones it is not slower:
https://www.macrumors.com/2022/06/26/base-m2-13-inch-macbook-pro-slower-ssd-speeds/

I would like to buy a Macbook 14" M2 Pro with 512GB. Is the M2 Pro base model.
And I would like to know if the same thing happens in the Pro/Max models. If SSDs are slower than M1.


Thanks!
Yes, the M2 MacBook Pro's in the baseline 512GB configuration have slower SSDs than the previous generation M1 MacBook Pro's in the same baseline configuration, 512GB SSD.

In short: If you want to buy an M2 MacBook Pro with only equal or better than M1 MacBook Pro components/specs/features, that is to say only improvements and no downgrades, then you have to opt for the 1TB configuration or higher.

Whether or not the step down in read/write speeds for the 512GB SSD's in the M2 MacBooks Pro is noticeable or not, or matters to you enough to warrant the price increase that come with opting for a 1TB M2 MBP instead of a 512GB M1 or M2 MBP, only you know.

Maybe it's also the case that other specs or less obvious details about the M2 Pro and M2 Max SoCs make up for the slower speeds in the 512GB configuration (by comparison to the M1 equivalent configuration)?

I don't know. But I'm sure someone else has already explained the whole thing here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: semiraw

OnawaAfrica

Cancelled
Jul 26, 2019
470
377
I don't understand this hand-wavy attitude. People making large purchases for something that usually gets held on to/used for several years are entitled to seek out the best specs. Apple is being opaque about it because it makes them look bad.
has nothing todo with opaque. the suds where faster cause back them apple could easily buy unlimited supply of them but currently thats no longer the case
 
  • Like
Reactions: missingar

ApplesAreSweet&Sour

macrumors 68020
Sep 18, 2018
2,299
4,255
Thanks. As in all decisions that can frustrate us consumers, part of the magic of fans is the rationalizations in defense of them. Classics like "it's not a notch, it's more screen R.E. to the left and right" seem to illustrate this well. I'm quite sure it WAS a notch. It's hard to miss the notch. I'm quite sure it is there. But that not-a-notch created only by subtraction of bezel to the left & right was a dazzler! ;)

Apple can make ANY decisions it wants and the fans will rationalize it (passionate support for Butterfly keyboards even when the real issues began to pile up, why 1TB RAM in iDevices was "plenty" while Apple clung to that too long, why a 1080p AppleTV made no sense while Apple clung to 720p and then why a 4K AppleTV made no sense while Apple clung to 1080p (overwhelmingly the very same reasons by the way, currently waiting to be resurrected again as the call for an 8K AppleTV begins to build), and on and on).

I recall iPad 1s launch with no front-facing camera and that was passionately rationalized against anyone saying it should have had one... until iPad 2 rolled out with one and then that was spun as a primary reason to upgrade. I recall 2 iPad models launching in a single event: one with retina and one without. The former's retina was THE gushingly, positive reason to upgrade while the latter "did not need" retina... until the next year when the latter rolled out with a retina screen and then retina was the reason to upgrade.

I recall massive ridicule of phablet-sized phones while Apple clung to 3.5" and then 4" as "perfection"... until Apple went phablet and now almost all ridicule small screen phone wishes. NFC (pay by phone) was dumb, stupid, nobody needed... until Apple Pay at which point people wanted to boycott any stores that wouldn't let them pay with Apple Pay.

I could write a hundred examples here but hopefully the point is somewhat made. Apple and/or fans will always come up with what can seem like plausible reasons for such decisions and, when some seem to stick, they will get reposted and reposted until they gain some steam in being believed, accepted, etc. Soon people are just offering them up as if they are fact.

To buy the "Apple had to go single chip SSD because of supply chain" logic means that mighty Apple was "forced" into the half-speed choice because the flash memory industry gets to decide what they want to make and Apple has to shop & buy only whatever that industry chooses to offer... that Apple has no say and these supply chain players are actually the ones that heavily influence key features of Apple tech.

Meanwhile, chips with Ms and As and Ts, etc branded on them, specifically and intricately designed for Apple and only Apple are purchased by Apple... and those chips are made as Apple wants them... to Apple's own specifications. To believe the "supply chain driver" excuse implies that Apple could not do the same with (much less complex) SSD chips... that Apple is at the mercy of whatever the flash memory industry wishes to offer.

Personally, I believe that if Apple wanted TWO 128GB Flash modules for M2 computers instead of ONE 256GB module, multiple flash manufacturers would have fallen all over themselves trying to get Apple's business... as is the case with TSMC and key competitors like Samsung, etc. for custom Apple chip orders. In fact, since someone was ALREADY able to make the dual 128GB chips for M1, it would have been SIMPLER than new M or A or T chip orders because all it would have taken is to leave an established line in place and keep making them for this huge Apple order.

Nevertheless, if we still wish to believe the supply chain has dominant say in SSD configurations, let's hope the Flash manufacturers decide to only sell 512GB or 1TB modules to Apple so that the 256GB minimum is "forced" larger. And hopefully they can call their RAM-making friends to force 8GB to 16GB or 32GB or whatever each of us would like to see in base specs. I thought such decisions were mighty Apples to make, motivated by Apples money buying whatever it wants. But if the supply chain gets to decide such things, let's hope they "force" Apple to upgrade both for future Macs by simply not making 256GB SSD or 8GB RAM available to Apple anymore. Who knew almost no-name supply-chain players actually get to decide key spec features in our new Macs? ;)

The moral of this story: just because we read something posted 50 or 500 times doesn't mean it is true. Applying a little "think different" against such facts should easily poke some big holes in this particular bit of very popular rationalization. With rare exception, I doubt modern Apple has "no choice" about anything that goes into Apple hardware. The pile of Apple money will buy them anything THEY want in there.
The fact that consumers like OP are still confused and worried about making the right decision on which M2 Mac to buy, worried about bad value having to seek out tech discussion boards like MR proves to me how increasingly misleading and unintuitive Apple's product strategy is becoming.

Every word from its mouth has a footnote explaining that nobody can be held responsible for anything.

M3 Macs are going to be such a major disappointment when iFixit opens them up and gives us the facts.

I can already see the oceans of back and forth, and the fans coming up with all kinds of excuses and justifications about what certain demographics want and need that are nothing but pure conjecture to make themselves feel good about the brand they put so much money, effort and emotions into.
 

RokinAmerica

macrumors regular
Jul 18, 2022
207
386
Thanks for your answer.

Is it true that Macbook Air M2 start to heat up after 30 minutes of continuous work (without stopping work)?
The difference from a Macbook Pro M2 13" I was told is that they have fans and you notice the fan shortage after 30 minutes. Do you think it is true?
In fairness, my Air is an added part of my work system, so it is not the hardest taxed part of my system. But no, I do not see that.
I don't care that "in real usage you won't notice."

The fact that every part of the newer computer wasn't faster than the the older one it replaced is a shame, in my opinion.
Research tells you what you are getting. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
 

AlixSPQR

macrumors 65816
Nov 16, 2020
1,078
5,466
Sweden
Why do people always defend Apple, no matter what? I've been using Apple products since 1990 and still have a healthy critical stance to Apple's business decisions. No, none of the SSD's are slow, if you mean that literally. But it is nonetheless valid critique, since a particular Apple SSD configuration is slow compared to another. Stop splitting hairs, please.
 

Allen_Wentz

macrumors 68040
Dec 3, 2016
3,378
3,828
USA
Still may be reason enough to go for a M1 Pro instead of M2 Pro...
No, it is not. If you are concerned about performance A) M2 is stronger, period. B) Also look to having plenty of RAM. IMO anyone coming here to discuss will be sub-optimized during the life cycle of a new box if they buy at base level.
 

Allen_Wentz

macrumors 68040
Dec 3, 2016
3,378
3,828
USA
I don't care that "in real usage you won't notice."

The fact that every part of the newer computer wasn't faster than the the older one it replaced is a shame, in my opinion.
I disagree. Macs come in a full range, and one can build what one wants. The fact that it is possible to spend less by choosing a slower part like an SSD is simply choice. Build what you want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: herbert7265

gpat

macrumors 68000
Mar 1, 2011
1,936
5,346
Italy
Still may be reason enough to go for a M1 Pro instead of M2 Pro...
No, it is not. If you are concerned about performance A) M2 is stronger, period. B) Also look to having plenty of RAM. IMO anyone coming here to discuss will be sub-optimized during the life cycle of a new box if they buy at base level.

It is reason enough, if you also factor in price, and the fact that M2P is not really that much of an upgrade over M1P.

On clearance sales you can get them for prices nearing Air territory, and you're still getting more features and surely a longer lifespan compared to any 8GB machine.

We're talking entry level here, so anyone buying won't be terribly concerned about performance, and if they are, they might as well spend the extra $200 and get the faster 1TB SSD or upgrade RAM as you're suggesting.
 
Last edited:

Makisupa Policeman

macrumors 6502
Sep 28, 2021
488
354
I have searched and there is no longer stock of M1 Pro.

You would have to look at refurbished. And the price difference is not significant.
You can save a lot on the refurbs if you happen upon a binned version. The value decreases as they get more spec’d.

However I think one of the best bangs for you buck right now on there is if you happen upon a 14” M2 Pro with binned CPU/GPU and 1TB SSD. It’s actually cheaper than the 10/16/1 M1 because that one’s spec’d up from the binned 8/14.
Screenshot 2023-08-19 at 2.47.36 PM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2023-08-19 at 2.47.10 PM.png
    Screenshot 2023-08-19 at 2.47.10 PM.png
    420.9 KB · Views: 58
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: semiraw

Zest28

macrumors 68030
Jul 11, 2022
2,588
3,953
I don't care that "in real usage you won't notice."

The fact that every part of the newer computer wasn't faster than the the older one it replaced is a shame, in my opinion.

It is a bunch of misinformation by MacRumors.

Real world tests such as video editing and photo editing showed that SSD speeds does matter.
 

leman

macrumors Core
Oct 14, 2008
19,530
19,709
It is a bunch of misinformation by MacRumors.

Real world tests such as video editing and photo editing showed that SSD speeds does matter.

I did a cursory search but wasn’t able to find any tests comparing the 256GB to 512GB or higher models for these tasks. Do you happen to have a link?
 

Zest28

macrumors 68030
Jul 11, 2022
2,588
3,953
I did a cursory search but wasn’t able to find any tests comparing the 256GB to 512GB or higher models for these tasks. Do you happen to have a link?

Check out one of Max Tech his youtube videos.

In any case, Microsoft their instant loading technology only works with fast SSD‘s on the Xbox Series X. Which is an other real world example showing a difference between a fast and a slow SSD.
 
Last edited:

dmccloud

macrumors 68040
Sep 7, 2009
3,155
1,911
Anchorage, AK
Check out one of Max Tech his youtube videos.

In any case, Microsoft their instant loading technology only works with fast SSD‘s on the Xbox Series X. Which is an other real world example showing a difference between a fast and a slow SSD.

I stopped considering MaxTech a realiable source when they admitted they crafted one test specifically to being the 14 MBP down to its knees. I also wouldn't use the XBox (or any gaming console) as an example relevant to any computer, whether running MacOS, Windows, or a Linux distro. All that shows is their HW compatibility requirements, not any measurable differences between a "fast and a slow SSD".
 
  • Like
Reactions: semiraw

Zest28

macrumors 68030
Jul 11, 2022
2,588
3,953
I stopped considering MaxTech a realiable source when they admitted they crafted one test specifically to being the 14 MBP down to its knees. I also wouldn't use the XBox (or any gaming console) as an example relevant to any computer, whether running MacOS, Windows, or a Linux distro. All that shows is their HW compatibility requirements, not any measurable differences between a "fast and a slow SSD".

Microsoft said themselves it didn't work with slow SSD's, it is limitation of slow SSD's.

And you guys really believe that my M2 MBA with it's 3000 MB/s SSD can bounce Logic Pro and Davinci Resolve projects as fast as my 16" M1 Max MacBook Pro with it's 7000MB/s SSD? No way.

I'm not even going to try it because it is a waste of time. I already know the outcome.

Due the lower SSD speed, I'm pretty sure the M2 MBA will be way more limited on how many audio tracks can be played in Logic Pro too at the same time, as it will hit the SSD bottleneck much earlier.
 
Last edited:

traveler01

macrumors member
Jun 27, 2023
44
48
Slow?

Surely you mean 'less fast'?

In the real world, nobody will notice the difference.
Still, for the price of the computer itself, being 'less fast' than the previous model is a bit of a fail in my books.
 

ArkSingularity

macrumors 6502a
Mar 5, 2022
928
1,130
I think Apple's dilemma is the M1 set the bar so high so quick that everything since has been incremental improvements , that's the laws of physics I guess
Apple's rate of improvement still hasn't been bad though. Intel was, for many years, achieving essentially 3-6% performance improvements per generation. The M2 has approximately a 12% increase in single threaded performance and about an 18% increase in multithreaded performance (according to Geekbench 5 and Cinebench R23, at least). It's mostly clock speed differences, but that's still a pretty decent improvement.

The M2 appears to have been more of a stopgap while the M3 was waiting on 3nm to be ready for production, there weren't many IPC changes to speak of on the P-cores. The E-cores did get a pretty big uplift on the M2 though (I've heard that the performance improvements are somewhere around 30%, which is a insanely good for one generation.)
 

mr_roboto

macrumors 6502a
Sep 30, 2020
856
1,869
In any case, Microsoft their instant loading technology only works with fast SSD‘s on the Xbox Series X. Which is an other real world example showing a difference between a fast and a slow SSD.
The console wars over special SSD loading tech (Sony has their own equivalent) are mostly marketing noise. The vast majority of games don't fully integrate this tech because coding a game around one console's fast loading APIs is a great way to reduce its portability to other platforms. Even exclusives don't have much use because there are few cases where loading speed is all that important after clearing the bar of "loads fast enough that it doesn't annoy the user", which can typically be done without recourse to special APIs and 8000 MB/s SSDs.

Yes, I know, Microsoft and Sony fed you lots of propaganda about how their respective SSD technologies would revolutionize gaming, but that's just marketing.

And you guys really believe that my M2 MBA with it's 3000 MB/s SSD can bounce Logic Pro and Davinci Resolve projects as fast as my 16" M1 Max MacBook Pro with it's 7000MB/s SSD? No way.
No, I do not believe that. I don't think anybody does, except the strawmen living in your head. What I do believe is that it's not a big deal. There's only a small overlap in the Venn diagram of users who "are OK with only 256GB capacity" and "frequently use apps where SSD sequential throughput matters". Everybody else just isn't hit very hard by the speed downgrade in the base SSD.

To expand on that... most people buy a MBA to surf the web and do light office work. They are not doing anything whose performance is seriously influenced by SSD sequential throughput, therefore they won't notice.

On the other hand, when someone does buy a MBA intending to use it for professional creative apps like Logic Pro and Davinci Resolve, how often do you suppose they get the base SSD? If you know you're going to be capturing or editing large media files, would you really want to live with only 256GB capacity? I sure wouldn't, I'd opt for 1TB (or more if I could afford it).

You told us a little about your own choices here, BTW. The base 16" M1 Max was 512GB, but that one couldn't do 7000 MB/s. I have a 1TB 16" M1 Max and even it scores only 5500 MB/s in Blackmagic's benchmark. So I'm guessing you have at least the 2TB, if not larger.
 

senttoschool

macrumors 68030
Nov 2, 2017
2,627
5,482
You told us a little about your own choices here, BTW. The base 16" M1 Max was 512GB, but that one couldn't do 7000 MB/s. I have a 1TB 16" M1 Max and even it scores only 5500 MB/s in Blackmagic's benchmark. So I'm guessing you have at least the 2TB, if not larger.
Not naming users here but there are a few x86 diehards who troll this forum. They don’t actually own Macs. They just want to show off their Cinebench results of x86 chips.

But of course, Cinebench is highly unoptimized for ARM, is niche software, and caters to CPUs with many slow cores which is not how most people use their computers.

They’ll also continuously harp on M2’s SSD speeds despite the fact that sequential disk speeds hardly matter for 99% of use cases.
 

semiraw

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Aug 8, 2023
27
3
Macbook Pro 14" with 10-Core + CPU 16-Core GPU or 12-Core CPU + 19-Core GPU?
 

ArkSingularity

macrumors 6502a
Mar 5, 2022
928
1,130
On the other hand, when someone does buy a MBA intending to use it for professional creative apps like Logic Pro and Davinci Resolve, how often do you suppose they get the base SSD? If you know you're going to be capturing or editing large media files, would you really want to live with only 256GB capacity? I sure wouldn't, I'd opt for 1TB (or more if I could afford it).
This reminds me of when a certain very popular youtuber ran a 110GB file transfer test on the 256GB M2 Air and used the test to criticize the performance of the SSDs. I'm like, yes, you demonstrated that the SLC cache was not going to be sufficient to make that a particularly fast transfer on the 256GB option, but who exactly is transfering files this large on the 256GB model?

Anyone doing those kinds of transfers regularly is definitely not going to be buying the 256GB model.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Queen6
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.