M2 Pro 512GB MBP SSD Slower Than M1 Pro 512GB MBP

[idark77]

Is that a 14-inch only issue? how about 16-inch 512G version?

Same.

 

[Elviss116]

50% SLOW

 

[6749974]

Prices being equal, it would be a mistake to buy the M1 Pro over the M2 Pro. I'll use a video editing project as an example.

• Opening three 10-minute ProRes 4K clips takes 20 seconds on M2 Pro, but 12 seconds on M1 Pro. So the M1 Pro user saves 8 seconds.
• Then they both edit the project to completion. Both perform relatively the same.
• When it comes time to export a 15-minute project, the M2 Pro user does it 3 minutes faster.

So in the end, the M1 Pro user didn't gain 8 seconds, they lost almost 3 minutes. The M2 Pro user won.

Now imagine you're doing that 10x per day or the project is 10x longer. If time and performance is priority, it would be irrational to have picked the M1 Pro over the M2 Pro.

We can look at hypotheticals and bench scores all day to focus in on that 40% slower read number, but serving data to memory is usually a small fraction of a process. Most of computing happens in RAM.

Also, random read/write speeds are unaffected—or if anything, should be faster on the M2 Pro because it's using 256GB NANDs which are faster than the 128GB NAND.

Anyone coming from an Intel Mac should see no issue upgrading to an M2 Pro MacBook Pro.

And if you're coming from an M1 Pro—feel free to gloat about the slower read/write speeds, but an M2 Pro user would still likely beat your workflow by 20-30% if we're talking render speeds. Otherwise they are more or less identical—no need to upgrade.

 

[transistor2000]

The point people are missing is that disk performance is typically two-fold. Not just raw throughput, but rather individual read and / or write latency. I've yet to see any YouTube videos where one is actually measuring disk latencies at various block sizes. I'd venture there's no difference there between the M1 and M2 machines from a latency standpoint (may even be lower / better on the M2), and hence no perceptible difference in normal day to day use, unless huge large sequential read/writes are taking place in moving gigabyte sized files around. Also the destination disk needs to perform just as fast in order to realize any throughput performance.

 

[Beau10]

Is that a 14-inch only issue? how about 16-inch 512G version?

It's a general config issue for this generation of Apple machine. Apple is no longer 128G SSD chips.

 

[ryansebiz]

Prices being equal

The prices aren’t equal though - you can currently get the M1 Pro MBP 16” for $400 less from most retailers.

 

[6749974]

The prices aren’t equal though - you can currently get the M1 Pro MBP 16” for $400 less from most retailers.

I say "prices being equal" because that is what one says—when they are about to isolate a criteria—for discussion purposes.

"Prices being equal, I would prefer the M2 Pro MacBook Pro—despite the slower SSD—because on balance I won't notice the slower SSD but I will notice my exports and renders completing faster."

"Prices being equal, I would prefer to live in X-neighborhood over Y-neighborhood because X-neighborhood provides safer passage for my bicycle riding."

 

[maka344]

Still double the M2 Air base. Most people won’t notice.

 

[Lacos]

Very disappointing. I was waiting for the M2Pro as a new work device and now this.

 

[maka344]

Very disappointing. I was waiting for the M2Pro as a new work device and now this.

It will mostly likely not impact you until you are constantly transferring very large files, even then, you’ll lose 60 seconds or so. It’s still 3&4GB per minute read and write. The base Air is more like 1.5GB.