I just buy the cheapest model, then read in amusement as people post that you need a minimum of 16GB RAM to web browse, and 32GB if you want to write a Word document.
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
This is annoying. The base MBP 14" is all I could afford and you're telling me I have spent £2000+ on a laptop and I'm missing out on 'Pro' speeds because I needed to spend an extra £200 on a storage upgrade.
Laughable really 🤣😭
EDIT:
I know I won't really notice the difference, but that is besides the point. It's the principal.
Laughable really 🤣😭
EDIT:
I know I won't really notice the difference, but that is besides the point. It's the principal.
My main "pro" computer is one I built. Most of my drives are slower than what Apple has. Why does "pro" automatically mean the fastest SSDs possible? I'm not supporting what Apple's done, I'm just recognizing that pro != pro != pro. Nothing that I do in my professional work is so time-sensitive that seconds differences in copying files will make a difference.
It might for some people. In that case, those individuals should consider more closely what computer to buy.
Apple can throw anything in many people's way. Any criticism about that is met with annoyance and arrogance. I've experienced that first hand.
Petty move from Apple. Looks like it's not as bad as the M2 Macs (M2 Macs went from 2 chips to 1 chip where as the M2 Pro Macs have gone from 4 chips to 2 chips as per The Verge's reporting). I agree that this isn't the end of the world on M2 Macs as these are meant for consumers who wouldn't notice it in their average tasks, but as has been pointed out in most reviews, these machines are for professionals where SSD speed could have large impacts on their productivity: a lot of the reviews are saying that the 20% CPU improvement on the M2 Pro/Max MBPs could enable professionals to get a return on investment fairly quickly. If they are unknowlingly loosing 20% performance when copying / moving files around that "M2" advantage partly goes away.
Since when is a $599 Mac mini a “Pro” machine? 🧐 Get a grip.
The issue is really Apple not disclosing that this is what's going on. If they said "X space but it's slower and Y space but also faster" then that would be fine. Now it's mystery spec SSD and you expect that the only difference is storage capacity.
While I agree that it doesn't make a difference if some large file transfers slightly slower, I want to see also other situations for those slower drives. That might make a difference when there are lots of small file read/writes etc.
For work I was considering a 16" M2 with 64 GB memory but only 512 GB storage because I don't need a lot of disk space but I do need a good amount of memory. Now I might get 1 TB too just to avoid some gimped storage solution that might become a bottleneck in an otherwise fast system.
People need to stop supporting Apple's crappy decisions, NAND is less than half the price it was when the M1 Mini and MBP M1Pro/Max were released. Sequential read/write does matter as Apple Silicon is a very swap heavy architecture. Maxtech showed clearly how much slower NAND affects swap speed significantly. These decisions are forgiveable/understandable when you're talking about the base Mac Mini which even had its price reduced, but not on the MBP14 and possibly the MBP16.
Last edited:
If people can praise apple when they do something right, then its fair game to complain when they do something wrong.
No matter how you slice it, this move by apple is only to protect their profit margin. Why do people feel the need to defend a 2 trillion dollar company and excuse their business decisions (when those decisions negatively impact their customers)?
Read the title. We're talking about the $2000 Macbook Pro 14, not the entry level mac mini. 1TB Gen 4 top tier SSD's are going for around $120 vs $240+ when the M1pro MBP's were released. Cutting the performance when NAND prices are half they were 2 years ago just because Apple wants to do the upsell. The right thing to do would've been give the $2000 base MBP 14 1TB of SSD if they don't want to use the same lower density 128gb NAND that isn't exactly rare considering it's found in almost all their iOS devices.
Copying and pasting what I said on another thread:
So the new MacBook Pro’s price increased by hundreds of pounds/dollars for features that should have been included in the first iteration (Wi-Fi 6E, BT 5.3 & HDMI 2.1) and an M2 chip - but have a slower SSD config…. I can understand it for the base line of products - but not for products with the ‘Pro’ nomenclature.
So the new MacBook Pro’s price increased by hundreds of pounds/dollars for features that should have been included in the first iteration (Wi-Fi 6E, BT 5.3 & HDMI 2.1) and an M2 chip - but have a slower SSD config…. I can understand it for the base line of products - but not for products with the ‘Pro’ nomenclature.
But you CAN feel that difference if you have an 8GB model that swaps. This is why it's BS when people go around saying how worthless 8GB is, it's not, because the SSD was so fast. That becomes less true as they neuter the SSD, which I'm sure is intentional. They probably sold a lot less upsells than they wanted because the base models were so good.
2700Mb/s for any SSD out of context? No, that's great speeds.
In the context of a premium laptop retailing for $1999+, marketed as "Supercharged" in ads that feature graphs telling us stuff like "The M2 chip is 1.4x faster than the M1, with an 18 percent faster CPU, a 35 percent more powerful GPU, and a 40 percent faster Neural Engine" over the previous generation of the exact same product? That is certainly is something to complain about.
Even worse, there's no fine print indicating which storage options are slower than the previous generation.
The fact that Apple primarily refers to >512GB configurations in its marketing material is not an indication of what to expect from 256GB and 512GB models.
Omissions of key specs is and remains an omission no matter how boldly you explain the exact performance of some configurations. What Apple does with its graphs would only be sufficient if there was no significant difference in r/w speeds between the different storage configurations. But that's not the case.
As consumers, we'll literally have to wait for tech influencers to do teardowns, and have them let the cat out of the bag before we make a purchase.
Give consumers the knowledge to decide upfront how fast they need the internal SSD in their $1999+ brand new "next generation" Macs need to be instead of this cost-cutting guessing game with every new Apple Silicon release.
Not too hard to wait a beat for those tech influencers to do what they do and then make a more informed purchase (or not) from there...
But going from the recent (limited) teardown video from Luke Miani, with the M2 Pro Mac mini mobo having eight pads for NAND chips, what kind of connection is feeding those eight "slots"...?
And what might we see in the M2 Ultra Mac Studio / Mac Pro, with what one might assume has increased bandwidth available to the internal storage array...?
1 dolllar difference, for two times worse perfs. same speeds as my mba m1 basically
I think the M2 Pro Mac mini and the 14" and 16" M2 Pro/Max MacBook Pros it is too soon for anyone to notice any complaints. For the M2 MacBook Air and M2 Mac mini, i think you are right. I haven't heard of any specific complaints and the M2 has been out for months.
Can people stop using this line?
This whole forum is about first-world problems. Do you not realize?
To be fair, that Maxtech comparison was frought with problems as another user here (forgot their name) pointed out that the single NAND model was being tested with a nearly full SSD while the other dual NAND model was half full.