Base model Apple M2 MacBook Pro SSD Up To 50% slower than M1 MacBook Pro SSD | Half the NAND chips, half the speed

[AlTech]

Summary

 

The Verge reports that Apple's M2 MacBook Pro with 256GB SSD Storage allegedly has 50% slower read speeds and 30% slower write speeds than similarly specced M1 MacBook Pros.

 

This is believed to be caused by Apple skimping on the number of NAND flash chips on the base model MacBook Pro going from 2x 128GB chips for M1 MBP to 1x 256GB chip for M2 MBP. The result is a devastating loss in performance.

 

To be clear, none of the other M2 MacBook Pro models seem to suffer from this issue but it is unknown if the M2 MacBook Air also suffers from this issue.

 

Quotes

Quote

Apple’s new 13-inch MacBook Pro M2 base model appears to have slower SSD speeds than its M1 predecessor. MacRumors reports that YouTubers Max Tech and Created Tech have both tested the 256GB base M2 model and discovered the SSD’s read speeds are around 50 precent slower than the M1 MacBook Pro with 256GB of storage. Write speeds are reportedly around 30 percent slower.

 

Quote

Other 13-inch M2 MacBook Pro models with larger SSD storage don’t appear to suffer from slower SSD speeds. Another YouTuber with a 512GB M2 model ran tests and found similar speeds to the M1 version, and most reviewers were seeded with fast 1TB models and didn’t find any speed issues.

 

Quote

The downgrade also raises concerns about Apple doing the same with the entry-level M2 MacBook Air, which won’t be available in stores until next month.

 

My thoughts

I have to confess that I am not impressed by this and It really seems like such an unnecessary place to save money (assuming this is the reason for the change and not NAND chip shortages) especially when it has such a noticeable impact on end users. This will be a major disappointment to those buying the base model M2 MBP and assuming it also affects the M2 MBA then the same will be true of the M2 MBA.

 

Sources

https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/27/23184515/apple-macbook-pro-m2-slow-ssd-speeds

Alternative Source: https://9to5mac.com/2022/06/26/m2-macbook-pro-slower-ssd/

[leadeater]

I'm not so sure skimping is the right label and way to frame that. Apple updated to the latest NAND packages that are more dense, yes that means less packages required so will reduce the performance per capacity, mostly on the lower end, but it's realistically a necessary step at some point. NAND makers aren't going to make everything forever so supply availability and also standardization is a thing and important too. 

 

Maybe just not offering a 256GB option would have been the better move, not sure how well that would have played out affordability though.

 

28 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

I have to confess that I am not impressed by this and It really seems like such an unnecessary place to save money (assuming this is the reason for the change and not NAND chip shortages) especially when it has such a noticeable impact on end users. This will be a major disappointment to those buying the base model M2 MBP and assuming it also affects the M2 MBA then the same will be true of the M2 MBA.

All models will be using the updated NAND, there's a break point where the controller and also I/O stack achieve optimal performance capability, 256GB just isn't large enough capacity i.e. not enough NAND packages to achieve that.

 

Per package the performance is higher on these newer more dense packages, if thoroughly tested the new M2 512GB should show a small increase in SSD performance compared to M1 256GB as these should be equivalent in NAND package count.

 

I dunno, just don't buy 256GB anymore, that capacity won't be relevant forever 

 

28 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

especially when it has such a noticeable impact on end users

Yea only in benchmarks, doubt anybody at all will notice in every day usage. Where it might matter you'd be highly unlikely using a 256GB model Mac....

[Sauron]

this could at least in part be due to a firmware bug, the M1 also had a few issues with its storage firmware that impacted performance and were later fixed.

 

also I would caution against buying a laptop with soldered storage and getting the lowest capacity available. my phone has more internal storage than this.

[Doobeedoo]

In any premium device base storage and memory is a meme sadly. Need expensive tier that they will price gouge indeed.

[Blademaster91]

I think claiming people won't notice is an interesting claim, this is a "pro" device and people moving large files around might notice, and its still a storage downgrade on a device with a premium price.

[WereCat]

17 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I think claiming people won't notice is an interesting claim, this is a "pro" device and people moving large files around might notice, and its still a storage downgrade on a device with a premium price.

You're both right and wrong. 

 

"Pro" should notice the difference in performance... but at the same time a "pro" moving large files around  should go at least for 512GB/1TB.

[Sauron]

7 minutes ago, WereCat said:

You're both right and wrong. 

 

"Pro" should notice the difference in performance... but at the same time a "pro" moving large files around  should go at least for 512GB/1TB.

Arguably a "pro" should not rely on onboard storage beyond the project they're working on right now, and if that's not the case then even a couple TB of unexpandable storage should be unacceptable. 256GB are insufficient for a modern video project but they're more than enough for photography.

[Blademaster91]

59 minutes ago, WereCat said:

You're both right and wrong. 

 

"Pro" should notice the difference in performance... but at the same time a "pro" moving large files around  should go at least for 512GB/1TB.

I agree with that, although the 16GB RAM and 1TB SSD adds $600 making it $1899 usd, really close to the price of a base 14" macbook pro.

And I would also add the 16GB ram as 8GB isn't enough, especially when its soldered in, also 8GB isn't enough for anything more than just basic use.

Edited June 27, 2022 by Blademaster91

[HenrySalayne]

On 6/27/2022 at 2:54 PM, leadeater said:

Maybe just not offering a 256GB option would have been the better move, not sure how well that would have played out affordability though.

If we take a look at the pricing of current high perfomance SSDs, costs should be negligable. The 980 250 GB costs around 70€, the 500 GB model costs 90€.* These are end-consumer prices so it should be less than $30 for Apple. Apple maintains a healthy profit margin, so this shouldn't put too much stress on their earnings.

This is probably a case of market segregation. It wouldn't paint the right picture to ship an entry model of a lower class device with a higher capacity SSD.

*I previously had the price for the 1 TB model for 120€ here.

[Techstorm970]

Power users like us do not like this at all, evidently.

 

Typical users couldn't care less.  Typical users are still happy with QLC and SATA SSDs or even *gag* boot HDDs.  This 256GB arrangement is still faster than all three.  Over 1GB/s is no slug.

 

@leadeater I agree.  If you're actually ok with buying a new 256GB laptop in 2022 or 2023 then you probably just need it for office work and/or you store a bunch of your stuff in the cloud 24/7 anyway.

[Techstorm970]

4 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

If we take a look at the pricing of current high perfomance SSDs, costs should be negligable. The 980 250 GB costs around 70€, the 500 GB model costs 120€. These are end-consumer prices so it should be less than $30 for Apple. Apple maintains a healthy profit margin, so this shouldn't put too much stress on their earnings.

This is probably a case of market segregation. It wouldn't paint the right picture to ship an entry model of a lower class device with a higher capacity SSD.

Apple has always marked up component upgrades beyond their actual value.  It's typical for Windows prebuilts, too.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

I think claiming people won't notice is an interesting claim, this is a "pro" device and people moving large files around might notice, and its still a storage downgrade on a device with a premium price.

Moving large files from where to where? Going off device interface choice will be the limit not local SSD almost always. And also you don't know what you're missing out if you don't know.

 

Also use cut and paste, it's instant and just a filesystem metadata update. Copying files around use case is way overblown to justify a use case where someone might notice, if they have the information required to notice and the time difference is large enough to take notice.

 

Quote

M1 MacBook Pro: 2900 MB/s (read speed) and 2215 MB/s (write speed)
M2 MacBook Pro: 1446 MB/s (read speed) and 1463 MB/s (write speed)

Hardly think anyone is actually going to care, being absolutely honest here.

 

Over 1GB/s is enough for almost any file format, codec, compression etc etc etc for video editing. Twice as fast as more than what is needed is no net benefit or gain here. Numbers are just numbers without meaning and context, bigger is better but better != necessary.

 

Oh no it's a "Pro" device that can literally do anything a professional could want or need to do. Not seeing the problem here?

 

May I remind everyone lower SSD performance on small capacity SSDs has always been a thing, this is not an Apple thing. It exists on Samsung SSDs, Kioxia, Micron, WD, Seagate etc. If you buy small you get less, has been the case for very long time. It also exists on M1 Mac devices too so 

 

M1 MacBook Pro:

• 256GB: 2.9GBps/2.2GBps
• 512GB: 3.6GBps/2.8GBps

[leadeater]

45 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

If we take a look at the pricing of current high perfomance SSDs, costs should be negligable. The 980 250 GB costs around 70€, the 500 GB model costs 120€. These are end-consumer prices so it should be less than $30 for Apple. Apple maintains a healthy profit margin, so this shouldn't put too much stress on their earnings.

This is probably a case of market segregation. It wouldn't paint the right picture to ship an entry model of a lower class device with a higher capacity SSD.

I mean affordability for the consumer, not Apple. Not offering a 256GB increases base retail price because parts cost isn't half for these NAND packages and even if Apple could wear the cost of course they won't, nobody does.

[Kisai]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

 

 

Over 1GB/s is enough for almost any file format, codec, compression etc etc etc for video editing. Twice as fast as more than what is needed is no net benefit or gain here. Numbers are just numbers without meaning and context, bigger is better but better != necessary.

No, not really. ProRes requires more than 1GB/s if you're going to work with more than one video file. ProRes 4444 XQ is around 750MB/sec

https://blog.frame.io/2017/02/13/compare-50-intermediate-codecs/

 

To be fair, I think people are insane if they are going to edit video on a laptop. Capture? Sure. Edit? No.

 

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

Oh no it's a "Pro" device that can literally do anything a professional could want or need to do. Not seeing the problem here?

 

May I remind everyone lower SSD performance on small capacity SSDs has always been a thing, this is not an Apple thing. It exists on Samsung SSDs, Kioxia, Micron, WD, Seagate etc. If you buy small you get less, has been the case for very long time. It also exists on M1 Mac devices too so 

 

M1 MacBook Pro:

• 256GB: 2.9GBps/2.2GBps
• 512GB: 3.6GBps/2.8GBps

Yeah, it's never been "an apple thing", anyone can tell you that the performance always increases with capacity until you hit the bandwidth of the connection.

 

[leadeater]

34 minutes ago, Kisai said:

No, not really. ProRes requires more than 1GB/s if you're going to work with more than one video file. ProRes 4444 XQ is around 750MB/sec

https://blog.frame.io/2017/02/13/compare-50-intermediate-codecs/

 

To be fair, I think people are insane if they are going to edit video on a laptop. Capture? Sure. Edit? No.

Run a Blackmagic Disk Speed Test on any SSD that can do above 1GB/s, you'll get ticks on everything. Not the most perfect benchmark by all means because not all editing workflows are the same.

 

Which is also the flaw in what you point out, even with multiple files that still doesn't mean you need that much disk performance to actually do the video editing. Whether be using proxy footage instead or relying on the software to not be terrible and actually do read ahead and loading in to memory direct one to one file(s) bitrate to required disk performance for editing isn't actually how it works out in reality.

 

And you sure as heck, like I mentioned, not doing any of this on a 256GB SSD Mac.

 

P.S. I think you transposed/misread the columns, ProRes 4444 XQ is ~1.6GB/s or 716GB/hr so unless you are doing a very short project anything more than a sneeze isn't fitting in that 256GB heh. Actually sane people record in formats and bit rates/compression that they can work with btw.

[Sauron]

23 minutes ago, Kisai said:

To be fair, I think people are insane if they are going to edit video on a laptop. Capture? Sure. Edit? No.

It depends on your requirements, after all most people aren't rolling around with RED cameras and 8k raw footage.

 

I would then argue that spending this much on a laptop for relatively mild editing is a bit of a waste of money but that's another matter.

[Kisai]

45 minutes ago, leadeater said:

 

P.S. I think you transposed/misread the columns, ProRes 4444 XQ is ~1.6GB/s or 716GB/hr so unless you are doing a very short project anything more than a sneeze isn't fitting in that 256GB heh. Actually sane people record in formats and bit rates/compression that they can work with btw.

Probably transposed it. I was reading stuff on ProRes in FFMPEG and how it's basically impossible to use on anything. If you're recording 4k/5k/6k video, you're doing it to SSD's and probably putting your shots on separate drives. If you're making youtube content, it's overkill in a way that you'd be hard pressed to even upload the files to YT in the first place.

 

[hishnash]

8 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

I have to confess that I am not impressed by this and It really seems like such an unnecessary place to save money

I don't think this is saving money, typically going from 2 NAND dies to 1 die that is 2x the capacity costs more as high density dies have a higher price due to lower yields.

What I expect is going on here is supply shortages there is a higher demand on these lower capacity NAND modules (apple is not saving any money on the main board as it still has the pads for the second die).  Apple might just have higher volume stockpile of 256GB dies than it does of 128GB or wants to ensure they have enough 128 GB dies for the MBA. I think this has been done purely so that they can ship these devices in normal times it would be cheaper to have 2 128 GB dies after all. 

 

[ImAlsoRan]

15 hours ago, WereCat said:

You're both right and wrong. 

 

"Pro" should notice the difference in performance... but at the same time a "pro" moving large files around  should go at least for 512GB/1TB.

At the same time Apple seems to be a little confused as to what "pro" means. They have the 14" and 16" MacBook Pro which I would classify as a "professional MacBook" but the "pro" in MacBook Pro for the 13" seems to be the public's view of anything labelled "pro", which just means "better" to them. I can't think of any professional that would need more than the MacBook Air but less than the 14" MacBook Pro. It's a weird release in general and seems to just be Apple sucking up to idiots that just buy something that ends in "Pro" instead of needing a more versatile computer.

[Roswell]

17 hours ago, leadeater said:

Hardly think anyone is actually going to care, being absolutely honest here.

 

Over 1GB/s is enough for almost any file format, codec, compression etc etc etc for video editing. Twice as fast as more than what is needed is no net benefit or gain here. Numbers are just numbers without meaning and context, bigger is better but better != necessary.

 

Oh no it's a "Pro" device that can literally do anything a professional could want or need to do. Not seeing the problem here?

Tell me you've never worked professionally in media/design without telling me you've never worked professionally in media/design.

[Paul Thexton]

There's no real justification here IMV, either nobody at Apple noticed the storage performance impact of the base spec BOM, or they knew full well and simply didn't care.

 

For me I'm in the camp of most people who bought the base spec probably won't even notice until they run a synthetic benchmark, where-as people who work with large files absolutely would notice... I'm not sure why, when working with large files, that they would buy such a low storage option, but they would notice.

 

For me I just see this as a completely unnecessary own goal. At this point 512GB should be the minimum storage tier anyway IMO.

[hishnash]

46 minutes ago, Paul Thexton said:

There's no real justification here IMV, either nobody at Apple noticed the storage performance impact of the base spec BOM, or they knew full well and simply didn't care.

I would not be surprised if apple started to ship single die 256GB NAND in some M1 MBP before they even updated to M2. This is not a cost saving measure it's a being able to get the parts. Moving to a single double capacity die (when you already have traces etc made for 2) costs more than buying 2 smaller dies, however the smaller capacity dies will be much more popular and harder to get hold of in a reliable supply. 
 

46 minutes ago, Paul Thexton said:

For me I just see this as a completely unnecessary own goal. At this point 512GB should be the minimum storage tier anyway IMO.

I agree for all laptops, for some auxiliary  desktop devices like the macMini that are used more like compute heavy IOT devices these days (video injest, build machines etc) having an option to get it with a lower capacity does make sense since many of these use cases just prefer a 10Gb/s networking and a remote driver for long term data storage. So the local SSD is really just a os boot and single application running in kiosk mode.  

[saltycaramel]

I wish every -gate was a whole-bag-of-nothing-fit-for-slow-news-summer like this one. 

 

The lowest-end base capacity (256GB aka "as long as you give me something to boot off") is just super-fast (it's not like we're talking eMMC) instead of ultra-fast, during a chip shortage at that, oh the humanity.

[Blademaster91]

19 hours ago, leadeater said:

Going off device interface choice will be the limit not local SSD almost always. And also you don't know what you're missing out if you don't know.

The use case would be going off device interface, there are USB-C SSD's that are faster than the 256GB SSD in the M2 macbook pro.

19 hours ago, leadeater said:

Hardly think anyone is actually going to care, being absolutely honest here.

You can insist most people won't care, a lot of people probably won't if they're buying a macbook as an office machine, although the people that are upgrading from a base M1 macbook pro may notice moving around large files.

19 hours ago, leadeater said:

May I remind everyone lower SSD performance on small capacity SSDs has always been a thing, this is not an Apple thing. It exists on Samsung SSDs, Kioxia, Micron, WD, Seagate etc. If you buy small you get less, has been the case for very long time. It also exists on M1 Mac devices too so 

The performance difference isn't that much on smaller capacity SSD's, at least on the decent quality ones from Samsung, Crucial, or WD. And I think there isn't any excusing the SSD in the 256GB macbook pro, because its as slow as some low end QLC DRAM-less M.2 drives.

[Blademaster91]

5 hours ago, ImAlsoRan said:

At the same time Apple seems to be a little confused as to what "pro" means. They have the 14" and 16" MacBook Pro which I would classify as a "professional MacBook" but the "pro" in MacBook Pro for the 13" seems to be the public's view of anything labelled "pro", which just means "better" to them. I can't think of any professional that would need more than the MacBook Air but less than the 14" MacBook Pro. It's a weird release in general and seems to just be Apple sucking up to idiots that just buy something that ends in "Pro" instead of needing a more versatile computer.

I agree the 13" macbook pro with a 256GB SSD doesn't make sense compared to a macbook air, or spending more for the 14" macbook pro, and I think a lot of apple consumers have the extra budget for the 14" macbook pro.

22 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

I wish every -gate was a whole-bag-of-nothing-fit-for-slow-news-summer like this one. 

 

The lowest-end base capacity (256GB aka "as long as you give me something to boot off") is just super-fast (it's not like we're talking eMMC) instead of ultra-fast, during a chip shortage at that, oh the humanity.

If the chip shortage is the excuse people want to use then apple should've made 512GB storage the base option, as there isn't any reason why they couldn't as the M2 macbook is already price hiked compared the M1 macbook pro.