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

[RedRound2]

3 hours ago, Brian McKee said:

The fact that a 256GB capacity is even available in 2022 is a joke in of itself. Crap speed on an unusable amount of space just doesn't matter.

 

The only form 256GB ssds should come in is SATA for use in a bootdrive in a super budget pc or as an upgrade to grandma's 10 year old dell.

What the fuck are you doing on your SSD that's going to need more than 1.4 Gb/s sequential read?

256 GB is enough for most people, especially when people work mostly on their browsers these days. If they want - they can upgrade at the time of purchase, IF YOU DIDNT KNOW

[Brian McKee]

4 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

What the fuck are you doing on your SSD that's going to need more than 1.4 Gb/s sequential read?

256 GB is enough for most people, especially when people work mostly on their browsers these days. If they want - they can upgrade at the time of purchase, IF YOU DIDNT KNOW

I don't care much about the speed itself. But I really don't care what your use case is, 256GB is absolutely nothing. I consider 512GB to be the absolute minimum, especially on a computer that isn't expandable in the future.

 

And yah of course they can change it at the time of purchase; I'm merely saying it shouldn't even be an option in 2022 on a professional machine.

[RedRound2]

5 minutes ago, Brian McKee said:

I don't care much about the speed itself. But I really don't care what your use case is, 256GB is absolutely nothing. I consider 512GB to be the absolute minimum, especially on a computer that isn't expandable in the future.

 

And yah of course they can change it at the time of purchase; I'm merely saying it shouldn't even be an option in 2022 on a professional machine.

Jus because you THINK something, doesn't make it true. People like my dad are more than happy with 256GB. I won't but for a lot of people it really doesn't matter. Sure even I could hope that Apple puts 1TB on all their base products, but we don't live in a perfect world

 

Nobody thinks M2 Macbook Pro is a professional machine just because it has "Pro" in it. If they do think that, they don't even know what a professional machine or the kinds of specs it should have is. So stop complaining about something suggested in the name

[hishnash]

28 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

Nobody thinks M2 Macbook Pro is a professional machine just because it has "Pro" in it. If they do think that, they don't even know what a professional machine or the kinds of specs it should have is. So stop complaining about something suggested in the name

Even if you do care about the name. pro is short for professional. A `Professional tool` just means used for work, I would say the vast majority of peoples jobs do not need powerful computers most people who use computers in their work the most stressful task they need it for is Zoom/Teams video calling. Almost all data on a work machine of this calibre will likely be in a cloud drive solution (one drive or box or something like that).

Just becomes someone is not editing 16 8k video streams of raw video while solving n-body slingshot orbit problem from their local machine not mean they do not have a profession.

[RedRound2]

8 minutes ago, hishnash said:

Even if you do care about the name. pro is short for professional. A `Professional tool` just means used for work, I would say the vast majority of peoples jobs do not need powerful computers most people who use computers in their work the most stressful task they need it for is Zoom/Teams video calling. Almost all data on a work machine of this calibre will likely be in a cloud drive solution (one drive or box or something like that).

Just becomes someone is not editing 16 8k video streams of raw video while solving n-body slingshot orbit problem from their local machine not mean they do not have a profession.

Actually this is true. In the past we've always used "Pro" monikers to indicate higher specs, since workplaces typically required higher end systems with better reliability, etc.

But these days, office computers are usually the more basic ones compared to any enthusiast grade computers. So the "Pro" standing for "professional" is still valid for the Macbook Pro as it does indeed have other qualities like having amazing endurance, quality and reliability.

 

But PC diehards wouldn't call approve anything as professional unless it has a 3090, 4TB SSD, and 64GB RAM in it (even though Nvidia themselves don't consider 3090 as professional tool). Say Apple does make a computer available close to that (like Mac Pro/Studio), the goal post changes and then they keep talking about how you can make a cheaper PC with non-professional components for cheaper, while ignoring all the Apple specific quality, advantages and features

[HenrySalayne]

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The M2 does NOT have "insufficient amount of RAM bandwidth". If anything, the M2 has a ridiculous amount of RAM bandwidth. If you think it is "insufficient" then I'd love to know what you think is sufficient. Unless you got DDR5, you probably don't even have half the memory bandwidth of the M2.

Did you ever wonder why Apple have 8 GB, 16 GB and 24 GB options, but not 12 GB? How much of their promised "up to 100 GB/s" are you actually getting?

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I don't necessarily think 256GB is "insufficient". I only use ~160GB on my work PC. 256GB would be enough for my use case. I like having more, but I really don't need it. You might need more, but not everyone does the same things you do. Besides, you can get more if you want.

This is not even an argument. You might be using 160 GB today, and tomorrow?

And you can't get more if you want. There is no space in this machine to install any dump storage. Kudos to Microsoft for what they did on the latest Surface Pro. You can not only upgrade the SSD but you can throw in a 1 TB micro SD card as well. Apple on the other hand - you're s**t out of luck.

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

You might not have noticed this, buy A LOT of things have gone up in price. It is not exactly exclusive to Apple, and probably not something they wanted to do. It's just a fact of life that anything electronics related will be expensive these days. Besides, you can still buy the old M1 Macbook if you want.

Maybe today, probably not in a month. And why should a slower machine be 10% more expensive? That's not inflation, that's stupid. Even worse, the M2 Macbook Air has been bumped up by 300€. That's 25% more for probably a worse experience compared to last gen.

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

8GB of RAM is fine for plenty of people. It depends on your workload. Not everyone is running tasks that requires a lot of memory, and for those people 8GB is enough. It might not be enough for you, but not everyone does the same things as you. Besides, you can get more if you want.

Those people should buy Macbook Airs or an iPad and not a Macbook Pro. That's my entire arghument: don't sell an e-waste base-config for the Macbook Pro.

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

• It's only 50% slower in certain situations, and even in those situations it doesn't really matter because it is still fast enough for what people will use it for. 
• I don't think you can say the M2 is being "held back". It entirely depends on which config you get and what you use it for.

Base config! The config 82% of the costumers will pick when they see how much the upgrades cost.

"No real world impact" - just see for yourself. Opening more than 2 apps is nowadays considered "unreal"?

[saltycaramel]

As a techy/enthusiast user I wouldn't personally buy that particular base model for myself (but the same could be said about its M1 8GB/256GB predecessor, that's why I have a 32GB/4TB M1 Pro), but I see nothing in that video to lose sleep over for most of the target demographic. Would I buy it for a non-techy relative of mine? Sure, no question asked. 

 

Yes it's worse in some regards and under some circumstances, but it's also a ton better on the GPU front and has record-breaking battery life. 

 

Also I would apply at least 2 caveats to this kind of videos:

- we're super early in the M2 life cycle so the apps and the OS itself may not be fully optimized yet

- the tendency to skew towards sensationalism to drive clicks, of course

[HenrySalayne]

49 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

it's also a ton better on the GPU front and has record-breaking battery life. 

Next round of bulls**t claims by Apple. Battery testing was done on the base model, all performance tests were done on a fully equiped model. With a suspected 1/3 of the memory bandwidth of the 24 GB model, the GPU could be just as limited as the rest of the base model.

Quote

Testing conducted by Apple in May 2022 using preproduction 13‑inch MacBook Pro systems with Apple M2, 8‑core CPU, 10‑core GPU, and 24GB of RAM, and production 13‑inch MacBook Pro systems with Apple M1, 8‑core CPU, 8‑core GPU, and 16GB of RAM, all configured with 2TB SSD, as well as production 1.7GHz quad-core Intel Core i7-based 13‑inch MacBook Pro systems with Intel Iris Plus Graphics 645, 16GB of RAM, and 2TB SSD. Final Cut Pro 10.6.2 tested using a complex 2-minute project with 4K ProRes 422 media. Performance tests are conducted using specific computer systems and reflect the approximate performance of MacBook Pro.

 

Quote

Testing conducted by Apple in May 2022 using preproduction 13‑inch MacBook Pro systems with Apple M2, 8‑core CPU, 10‑core GPU, 8GB of RAM, and 256GB SSD. The Apple TV app movie playback test measures battery life by playing back HD 1080p content with display brightness set to 8 clicks from bottom. Battery life varies by use and configuration. See apple.com/batteries for more information.

And M1 Macbook Pro had the very same battery runtime:

[Blademaster91]

8 hours ago, Brian McKee said:

The fact that a 256GB capacity is even available in 2022 is a joke in of itself. Crap speed on an unusable amount of space just doesn't matter.

 

The only form 256GB ssds should come in is SATA for use in a bootdrive in a super budget pc or as an upgrade to grandma's 10 year old dell.

The only PC laptops I see that still come with a 256GB SSD are ones in the $350-500 price range, its a lot more understandable in that price range, and people aren't going to be doing intensive tasks on a $400 laptop.

And the point of the M2 macbook pro SSD only having 1.4GB/s sequential is rather sad, its just slightly better than SATA, but is crap in comparison to any decent M.2 drive.

5 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

 

Nobody thinks M2 Macbook Pro is a professional machine just because it has "Pro" in it. If they do think that, they don't even know what a professional machine or the kinds of specs it should have is. So stop complaining about something suggested in the name

No people think the M2 macbook pro is a professional machine because its in the lineup with the rest of the pro laptops, and the average apple consumer is going to see pro in the name and think its the same level of pro hardware as a M1 macbook pro, not a slower SSD to get you to buy another laptop later, so please stop defending a bad product because the name suggests what the system is for.

4 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Actually this is true. In the past we've always used "Pro" monikers to indicate higher specs, since workplaces typically required higher end systems with better reliability, etc.

But these days, office computers are usually the more basic ones compared to any enthusiast grade computers. So the "Pro" standing for "professional" is still valid for the Macbook Pro as it does indeed have other qualities like having amazing endurance, quality and reliability.

 

But PC diehards wouldn't call approve anything as professional unless it has a 3090, 4TB SSD, and 64GB RAM in it (even though Nvidia themselves don't consider 3090 as professional tool). Say Apple does make a computer available close to that (like Mac Pro/Studio), the goal post changes and then they keep talking about how you can make a cheaper PC with non-professional components for cheaper, while ignoring all the Apple specific quality, advantages and features

Not really true for workstations, the only workplaces buying the most basic systems are uploading everything to servers, I'm also gonna doubt that claim on quality or reliability, macbook pros have had so any issues I don't see why a workplace would go with them compared to HP or Dell which at least offers on site service, and HP and Dell offer repair manuals for their pro laptops so IT can actually service them.

And I would rather build a PC or have a PC workstation as I could expand onto it later, no need to take it to a store if anything breaks, and there is no advantage if the same software is used.

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Did you ever wonder why Apple have 8 GB, 16 GB and 24 GB options, but not 12 GB? How much of their promised "up to 100 GB/s" are you actually getting?

What exactly are you implying? Are you suggesting that the 8GB version do not get 100GB/s of bandwidth? If so, do you evidence to back it up with?

 

 

3 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

This is not even an argument. You might be using 160 GB today, and tomorrow?

And you can't get more if you want. There is no space in this machine to install any dump storage. Kudos to Microsoft for what they did on the latest Surface Pro. You can not only upgrade the SSD but you can throw in a 1 TB micro SD card as well. Apple on the other hand - you're s**t out of luck.

I have used ~160GB of local storage for the last 5 years. The expected lifetime of a business laptop is 3-5 years. Even if my requirements were to double over the next 5 years, it still would not be an issue because I would have replaced my laptop by then anyway.

This is of course if we are talking about a business use case, where most files are not stored locally for a wide number of reasons.

Things are different for influencers like MKBHD and LTT that might want to start working with other cameras that produce larger video files, but the 256GB model is not aimed at them. They should get a different SKU or laptop all together.

 

And I strongly doubt the average person will suddenly need more local storage in the foreseeable future. If anything, the importance of local storage has gone down in the last 10 or so years, as people have moved more and more towards storing their things in online services. This is especially true for businesses.

 

 

3 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Maybe today, probably not in a month. And why should a slower machine be 10% more expensive? That's not inflation, that's stupid. Even worse, the M2 Macbook Air has been bumped up by 300€. That's 25% more for probably a worse experience compared to last gen.

Stop with the broad generalizations. The M2 MacBook Pro is not "slower" than the M1 MacBook Pro. It is slower in one particular area, but is faster in several other areas.

And who said anything about inflation? Maybe you have been living under a rock for the last year or so, but if you pick up a news paper you might realize that there is a quite big war going on (which heavily impacts things like access to noble gases), and several lockdowns happening in China which fucks up not just manufacturing but also shipping.

 

3 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Those people should buy Macbook Airs or an iPad and not a Macbook Pro. That's my entire arghument: don't sell an e-waste base-config for the Macbook Pro.

Except that is not what you have argued.

If you had just said "I think the MacBook Air is a better buy than the M2 MacBook Pro" then I would have agreed with you. But pretty much all the reasons you have given for why you believe that to be true have been bullshit in my mind.

 

Just to be clear, I think the M2 MacBook Air is a better buy than the M2 MacBook Pro. I also think the M1 MacBook Pro is a better buy than the M2 MacBook Pro.

But so far you have not mentioned any of the reasons why I believe that to be the case. I think you are right in your conclusion, but how you reached that conclusion have been completely wrong.

If you had said "people should get the MacBook Air M2 instead of the MacBook Pro M2 because it is cheaper, has an updated design, MagSafe, a better keyboard and a better webcam" then I would not have had any objections.

But since your arguments have been "the storage is slower and 8GB of RAM is unusable, and so is 256GB of storage" I have had to object. Besides, the MacBook Air M2 also starts with 256GB of storage and 8GB of RAM so I am not sure why you are pushing for the MacBook Air if those are your gripes with the MacBook Pro. Your arguments do not make any sense.

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Base config! The config 82% of the costumers will pick when they see how much the upgrades cost.

"No real world impact" - just see for yourself. Opening more than 2 apps is nowadays considered "unreal"?

-video-

Can you please summarize that video? I don't feel like watching a ~12 minute long video with that annoying guy if all he does is run some very unrealistic tests deliberately designed to create storage bottlenecks.

[Obioban]

3 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Did you ever wonder why Apple have 8 GB, 16 GB and 24 GB options, but not 12 GB? How much of their promised "up to 100 GB/s" are you actually getting?

Probably most, as it looks like the M2 is often getting a 50-100% FPS increase in gaming over M1, which implies it has all the (V)RAM speed (8gb config in this video):

 

[Obioban]

3 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Those people should buy Macbook Airs or an iPad and not a Macbook Pro. That's my entire arghument: don't sell an e-waste base-config for the Macbook Pro.

I'd agree nobody should buy this machine-- everyone buying it should really buy an M2 Air. The problem is that many corporate IT departments will only buy "Pro" machines, not consumer machines, despite the consumer machine (Air) meeting 100% of their clients needs. This product exists so Apple can address a price point with a product that IT departments are willing to buy. 

 

... but, yes, no rational individual should buy it over an M2 Air. 

[Rauten]

I'm seeing a lot of people claim "256GB is enough for most people!"

Hard disagree.

 

Our normal users (I'm leaving the engineers outside, as they use 3D modelling workstations) do 99% of their work in the browser and the Office suite.

256GB became painfully small for them 4 years ago!

 

Since 2018, the team in charge of computer leasing from the OEM simply will NOT accept models under 512GBs because it's not enough storage.

[LAwLz]

3 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

The only PC laptops I see that still come with a 256GB SSD are ones in the $350-500 price range, its a lot more understandable in that price range, and people aren't going to be doing intensive tasks on a $400 laptop.

First thing first, are we going to talk about the MacBook Pro as a "pro" (as in, business related) machine or not?

If we are going to pretend like the name defines what it should be used for like you want, then how about we compare the MacBook Pro vs other laptops aimed at businesses?

 

For example the HP EliteBook 840.

Oh look, it comes with 256GB of storage as well.

 

How about the Lenovo ThinkPad T14s? That's a very popular business laptop too.

Oh wouldn't you know it, it is available in 256GB storage configurations as well.

 

But maybe Dell and their very popular Latitude business line are different.

Oh wait, nope, they also start at 256GB of storage.

 

 

Weird. It's almost as if you have no idea what you are talking about and are just making a bunch of baseless assumptions.

In before you move the goalpost and the discussion is no longer about the statement that "256GB is not enough".

 

 

14 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

And the point of the M2 macbook pro SSD only having 1.4GB/s sequential is rather sad, its just better SATA, but is crap in comparison to any decent M.2 drive.

Again, sequential read and write performance of a drive is arguably the least important of all the performance metrics. Do we even know how it performs in other metrics such as low queue depth tasks? I don't think we should form our opinion on the two least important tests. It's like trying to judge a PSU by just looking at the rated wattage, or judge a case by how many fan slots it has.

 

I also think you are exaggerating when you say it is "just better SATA". SATA tops out at like 1/3 of this sequential performance, and most likely A LOT better at bursty and small tasks. I wouldn't call something that is ~200% faster "just better".

 

Also, do we even know if this is worse than M.2 drives? Please remember that the peak throughput that SSD manufacturers put on their product pages are not the same as what you will get in some benchmarks.

For example the Samsung 980 Pro 2TB is rated for 7GB/s read and 5GB/s write speeds, but in Anandtech's storage bench it gets 1.1GB/s (breakdown of their suite can be found here). In fact, no drives goes above 1.4GB/s in Anandtech's test suite.

You can't compare the numbers manufacturer gives you to the numbers that appear in benchmarks. They might not be talking about the same things.

[saltycaramel]

48 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

Next round of bulls**t claims by Apple. Battery testing was done on the base model, all performance tests were done on a fully equiped model.

 

You don’t have a clue about M1/M2 Macs do you.

You should try one someday. 

You can read The Verge review of the M2 MBP” in the meantime.

[LAwLz]

13 minutes ago, Rauten said:

I'm seeing a lot of people claim "256GB is enough for most people!"

Hard disagree.

 

Our normal users (I'm leaving the engineers outside, as they use 3D modelling workstations) do 99% of their work in the browser and the Office suite.

256GB became painfully small for them 4 years ago!

 

Since 2018, the team in charge of computer leasing from the OEM simply will NOT accept models under 512GBs because it's not enough storage.

What do your users use all that storage for?

 

If they only use a browser and the Office suite then I really don't see what all that storage gets filled with.

Windows takes maybe 50GB, Office takes about 3GB, and a browser takes maybe 1GB? That adds up to 54GB, which should leave about 180GB of free space.

 

For optimal performance you shouldn't really go above 80% SSD usage either, so to be on the conservative side let's say they got 130GB left. That's still more than half the drive free for junk files.

[Brian McKee]

52 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

First thing first, are we going to talk about the MacBook Pro as a "pro" (as in, business related) machine or not?

I think a better question is who cares about desk jockey business users. Apple has marketed the apple silicon and especially the macbook pros as laptops for creatives. 3d modeling, video editing, photo editing, etc... The 256GB base option seems to clash with this marketing.

 

For most companies they're looking for large contracts at cheap prices; I'm sure most businesses will not be getting macbook pros. Basically every macbook purchased will be on the consumer end of thing, or be higher spec'd models for studios.

 

Edit: Just to back myself up here:

 

[igormp]

14 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If we are going to pretend like the name defines what it should be used for like you want, then how about we compare the MacBook Pro vs other laptops aimed at businesses?

On the other hand, most of its competitors on the consumer side start at 512gb, such as the dell xps, hp spectre and lg gram.

 

10 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

What do your users use all that storage for?

^{Porn ofc}

Important office documents

[Rauten]

8 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

For optimal performance you shouldn't really go above 80% SSD usage either, so to be on the conservative side let's say they got 130GB left. That's still more than half the drive free for junk files.

*Sad story voice*

I was once naïve and foolish, like you. 

But then, I saw them. And I wept.

The endless sea of Excel files, filled to the brim with formulas, connections and graphs.

The countless Word documents explaining the most absurd minutiae possible.

The overburdened, overcomplicated PowerPoint presentations.

The multi-gigabytes Outlook OST files, capable of crippling the freshest and cleanest OS installations.

And so, I wept. For I knew there was no hope. No salvation.

I was surrounded by users, and no deity, above or below, would come for me.

[Blademaster91]

36 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

First thing first, are we going to talk about the MacBook Pro as a "pro" (as in, business related) machine or not?

If we are going to pretend like the name defines what it should be used for like you want, then how about we compare the MacBook Pro vs other laptops aimed at businesses?

Except those are for a completely different market, the Macbook "pro" laptops are usually targeted at photo and video editors, running multiple apps at once, anything more intensive than what a basic office laptop is for.

The Thinkpad T14 or an HP Elitebook in the most basic configurations are going to be fine for Excel and Word documents, and a point missed is all of those can be upgraded later to more storage so they aren't e-waste once 256GB isn't enough.

36 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Again, sequential read and write performance of a drive is arguably the least important of all the performance metrics. Do we even know how it performs in other metrics such as low queue depth tasks? I don't think we should form our opinion on the two least important tests. It's like trying to judge a PSU by just looking at the rated wattage, or judge a case by how many fan slots it has.

 

I also think you are exaggerating when you say it is "just better SATA". SATA tops out at like 1/3 of this sequential performance, and most likely A LOT better at bursty and small tasks. I wouldn't call something that is ~200% faster "just better".

 

Also, do we even know if this is worse than M.2 drives? Please remember that the peak throughput that SSD manufacturers put on their product pages are not the same as what you will get in some benchmarks.

For example the Samsung 980 Pro 2TB is rated for 7GB/s read and 5GB/s write speeds, but in Anandtech's storage bench it gets 1.1GB/s (breakdown of their suite can be found here). In fact, no drives goes above 1.4GB/s in Anandtech's test suite.

You can't compare the numbers manufacturer gives you to the numbers that appear in benchmarks. They might not be talking about the same things.

A sequential rating is an important metric when dealing with large files, and again its a downgrade from the M1 macbook pro. I meant to say its just slightly better than SATA, and still find it ridiculously slow on a system in that price range.

A high end M.2 SSD like a Samsung 980 Pro is still a much better SSD in every way, and a concern with an SSD that only has a single NAND die is how long it will last before performance degrades, Apple clearly went cheap with the 256GB model so again it doesn't make any sense to have the "pro" naming.

[Dracarris]

38 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I meant to say its just slightly better than SATA

Among all your other BS claims without factual backup in this thread, once again - this one is very easy to debunk. SATA at 6GB/s has a theoretical max throughput of 750 MByte/s, so the "trash-tier" SSD you keep bashing is almost double the speed.

 

Here's a "Pro" laptop for over 2.200$ with 256GB of storage:

https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/p/laptops/thinkpad/thinkpadt/thinkpad-t14s-g2/22tpt14t4s2?visibleDatas=705%3A256 GB

 

And for the low low price of only 2700$ or 2890$ you'll get the upgrade to a "doorbuster" with 512GB.

With a quad-core i5, iGPU, 1080p screen (seriously, WHY), and a 720p webcam. WHAT. LE. FUCK.

Screw Apple and their storage upgrade prices, right?

[Brian McKee]

18 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Among all your other BS claims without factual backup in this thread, once again - this one is very easy to debunk. SATA at 6GB/s has a theoretical max throughput of 750 MByte/s, so the "trash-tier" SSD you keep bashing is almost double the speed.

 

Here's a "Pro" laptop for over 2.200$ with 256GB of storage:

https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/p/laptops/thinkpad/thinkpadt/thinkpad-t14s-g2/22tpt14t4s2?visibleDatas=705%3A256 GB

 

And for the low low price of only 2700$ or 2890$ you'll get the upgrade to a "doorbuster" with 512GB.

With a quad-core i5, iGPU, 1080p screen (seriously, WHY), and a 720p webcam. WHAT. LE. FUCK.

Screw Apple and their storage upgrade prices, right?

If you want a lenovo laptop that people would actually consider versus a macbook pro would be something like the P line not the T line, which starts at 512 not 256. They actually one up everyone by offering a no drive option to just get past the people buying the cheapest SKU to upgrade it later.

 

As a photo/video editor by trade I use a Lenovo P17 but am still considering a higher end macbook pro in the future.

[igormp]

15 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

With a quad-core i5, iGPU, 1080p screen (seriously, WHY), and a 720p webcam. WHAT. LE. FUCK.

1080p is fine for that screen size. I say that because I had a t14 gen2 before.

But yeah, the price is abusive.

 

2 minutes ago, Brian McKee said:

If you want a lenovo laptop that people would actually consider versus a macbook pro would be something like the p line not the T line, which starts at 512 not 256.

 

As a photo/video editor by trade I use a Lenovo P17 but am still considering a higher end macbook pro in the future.

As a developer, the previous company I worked at went with either 13" M1 MBPs or T14s for devs (the latter being more common due to personal preference, dealing with ARM was annoying and linux just played better with our stack), and really simple latitudes for office workers.

 

I can't see most places going with the P series since those are bulky and heavy, those are only a competitor for the 16" MBP models but the only market they share in common is the one of heavy-duty photo/video editors. Other user cases for that niche would me something like engineering, which are stuck with Windows, which makes the "competition" point moot.. 

[Dracarris]

18 minutes ago, igormp said:

1080p is fine for that screen size. I say that because I had a t14 gen2 before.

Without wanting to start that discussion all over again: Hard disagree. I'm very glad my 13.3" MBP has 2560x1600 and I often use it at 100% scaling. I agree that is a bit of an edge case (too small fonts for most users) but even at mildly scaled resolutions the panel is just noticeably sharper and I'd be really happy if 1080p panels would finally go the way of the Dodo.

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, Dracarris said:

Among all your other BS claims without factual backup in this thread, once again - this one is very easy to debunk. SATA at 6GB/s has a theoretical max throughput of 750 MByte/s, so the "trash-tier" SSD you keep bashing is almost double the speed.

 

Here's a "Pro" laptop for over 2.200$ with 256GB of storage:

https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/p/laptops/thinkpad/thinkpadt/thinkpad-t14s-g2/22tpt14t4s2?visibleDatas=705%3A256 GB

 

And for the low low price of only 2700$ or 2890$ you'll get the upgrade to a "doorbuster" with 512GB.

With a quad-core i5, iGPU, 1080p screen (seriously, WHY), and a 720p webcam. WHAT. LE. FUCK.

-snip-

Screw Apple and their storage upgrade prices, right?

And you're still making the 1GB/s SSD sound better than it really is, it sounds fine when you say its "double the speed of SATA" but its still crap in comparison to laptops that comes with a pci-e gen 3 or gen 4 SSD.

Also that is some interesting cherry picking, I don't know what business that has competent IT staff would order a thinkpad with base specs for over $2,000usd unless they're getting significant bulk discounts.

A 1080P screen is fine on a 14" display, and you're cherry picking by choosing a laptop with an 11th gen i5, intel 12th gen or a Ryzen 5000 Pro would be a much better choice, also a 720P webcam is fine for business use, and you still missed the point of the Thinkpad having a M.2 SSD so you aren't stuck with the purchased storage configuration. Anyway the Thinkpad T and P series are a completely different market for professional use, businesses usually get discounts on them, and a Thinkpad has other things like a much better keyboard and dust and spill resistance.