maybe some optimization can bring it at least over 2000mbps
also can anyone test multithreaded sequential read/write speeds who have a 256gb m2 mbp?
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.
M2 MacBook Pro SSD read/write speeds compared to M1
- Thread starter mattyjoe
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
also can anyone test multithreaded sequential read/write speeds who have a 256gb m2 mbp?
I've been asking this for at least a year but whenever I mention it I get crucified by touchbar fans.
It's still for sale because it's the second-best-selling Macbook.
It's the second-best-selling Macbook because it's the cheapest Macbook with Pro in the name.
These facts annoy touchbar fans because they live in an alternate universe where they think the majority of its purchasers buy it because of its touchbar.
I am thankful to the group of people who are looking into these things and publishing with confidence the results. This won’t change anything with it’s install base of blind loyalist, though. They could add another $2k to the price of the slower machine, and you would have some people still buy it just for the Apple logo being displayed on the outer case…
The only "optimization" is the pads on the logic board look ready to accept another chip.
Maybe those skilled with a heatgun can add another chip on their own.
Likely they have them in stock, and the few that make don't move enough chips to warrant delays.
I remember those days. Extreme delays, just like what the M-flavoured MBPs suffered.Of course they can. Do you seriously think Apple, well know for having the best supply chain management in the world, turns like the Titanic?
We’ve seen Apple move chips from iPad to feed iPhone. Late 2021 and early 2022 we saw iPads with 50-60 days lead time.
Apple trims iPad production to feed chips to iPhone 13
U.S. tech giant produces 50% fewer tablets than planned in September-Octoberasia.nikkei.com
iPad deliveries remain squeezed as Apple prioritizes iPhones
Buyers endure nine-week waits as even procurement champ suffers constraintsasia.nikkei.com
Keep in mind it's not just iPhone SE or 11. This includes iPhone 12 and even iPad Pro - they all have a 128GB or 256GB configuration. Apple sells about 200 million iPhones per year and about 10% would be SE and 11. That's comparable to the entire Mac family of 20 million/year. We'd be seeing delays across all existing iMac, MacBook, Mac mini with 256GB storage, unless Apple secretly downgraded them all to a single chip.
They might have to soon if there is an issue with 128GB chip production. However, as per devices that use 1 chip, they are priority. On bigger devices with space for two? Not so much as they can just slap 1 and ship the device at the cost of R/W performance.
However, my main theory is that:
- Apple has a small 128GB chip bottleneck and is trying to get these out the door
- The 256GB chips are now cheaper than 2x 128GB and hence reduce scrap due to missed solders of BGA.
Personally, I don't see Apple compromising performance for earlier shipping time. They have priority in the supply chain. We've seen it happen for the past two years.
Most importantly, there is no evidence of any 128GB shortage. Western Digital has said the Kioxia incident is fully resolved and that it cost only $200 million.
Yup, but the WD incident costed them something in the exabytes of chips. Unsure which were the ones affected.
I do see it in order to make it look as business as usual given their supply chain crunch with the 14/16 MBPs and the Mac Studios. They can only milk that excuse for so long during investor calls why they didn't hit the sales numbers intended.
So what's your conclusion? Apple just hates its customers and did this on purpose? You're shooting down every hypothesis. What are we left with?
$
I'm not trying to shoot down every hypothesis, it's just what's the data to suggest a supply issue? Why wouldn't other JIT assembled devices like iPhone and Mac devices be affected? The Kioxia incident affected 6.5EB of supply, which represents only 3% of annual SSD shipments.
It's worth saving some people who don't blindly buy an Apple product.
If Apple got the 256GB chips cheaper than using 2x 128GB chips, then it boils down to cost.
Enough to be a pain point since some apps only work with Monterey while others only with Big Sur, testing MacOS memory leak, testing when something new breaks, etc. For comparison, a clean install of Windows 10/11 takes about 15 minutes on a $500 Lenovo laptop with much faster storage.
15 minutes to get to setup, then (maybe) another 5 to get past the prompts.
Either way, it is true that clean installs of Windows are easily half (if not less) the time of macOS.
The only people I know who bought a touchbar mac didn't know what an F key or a touchbar was. If anyone chose that turd I wonder about their mental health.
Actually not.
Keep in mind that what's halved is sequential transfers. Random speeds are closer and are much slower than sequential. Large sequential transfers are surprisingly rare, and when they do occur, transfer time often isn't the long pole in the tent anyway. If you have a process that takes say an hour on the older machine, it might take 10 minutes longer on the new. Even assuming pure sequential reading, it would take about a minute and a half to read the entire 256GB with the old SSD and 3 minutes with the new; so whatever you are doing that takes hours isn't just I/O unless it's a remarkably poorly written process.
Bottom line is that in real life you will be hard pressed to notice; and if you think you might be the exception, you are likely to be buying the larger SSD's anyway.
I mean this product as a whole doesn't make any sense and these problems will keep the 'enthusiasts' away from it as well. I suppose this is the 'cheap' model to sell to the people who want a 'Pro' Macbook just for the sake of it.