Apple Cuts SSD Performance for Entry-level 2023 MacBook Pro, M2 Mac Mini

News
By
published

Apple once again is crippling SSD performance on its entry-level SKUs.

MacBook Pro (M2 Pro)
(Image credit: Apple)

When Apple announced its latest M2 Pro- and M2 Max-based MacBook Pros last week, the company boasted about performance gains (up to a 20 percent uplift for the CPU, up to 30 percent for the GPU) and improved battery life. Unfortunately, it appears that one area of performance has taken a step backward for M2 Pro-based MacBook Pros, at least for the $1,999 base model with a 512GB SSD. 

Multiple reports confirm that the SSD on the 2023 14-inch MacBook Pro (M2 Pro, 512GB) is significantly slower than the one found in the 2021 14-inch MacBook Pro (M1 Pro, 512GB). The first word about the performance downgrade came from @ZONEofTECH, who compared the two systems. The M2 Pro system scored 2929 MBps write and 2703 MBps read using the AJA System Test Lite benchmark. Its M1 Pro-based predecessor scored 3450 Mbps on the write test and 4081 MBps on the read test.

In his tweet, @ZONEofTECH opined, "Apple is likely using single SSD modules again (like the base 256GB M2 Air and M2 MacBook Pro)."

Further confirmation came this afternoon from Mac-centric website 9to5Mac, which also noticed slower performance with the new base model MacBook Pro. The publication used the Blackmagic Disk Speed Test on the 2023 MacBook Pro (M2 Pro, 512GB) and recorded writes of 3154.4 MBps and reads of 2973.4 MBps. For comparison, the 2021 MacBook Pro (M1 Pro, 512GB) on hand put up higher numbers at 3950.8 MBps and 4900.3 MBps, respectively.

Given the performance degradation, 9to5Mac decided to open the case on the new MacBook Pro to see if the chip configuration had changed compared to the previous generation. "Sure enough, where the 512GB M1 Pro MacBook Pro had two NAND chips visible on the front of the motherboard and another two on the back, the M2 Pro MacBook Pro had only one visible on the front of the board," the publication wrote. "There is likely a second NAND chip directly opposing this, as the M1 had."

According to iFixit, the 2021 MacBook Pro's 512GB SSD is split among four 128GB NAND chips. Its 2023 MacBook Pro counterpart instead uses two 256GB NAND chips in parallel. That could account for the performance decrease for the new MacBook Pro.

Interestingly, this performance downgrade extends to the 256GB variant of the 2023 Mac mini with the M2 SoC. When Apple announced the M2- and M2 Pro-based Mac minis last week, the company also reduced prices for the base model. The M1 Mac mini had a starting price of $699, while the new M2 Mac mini dropped that price to just $599.

Now, we know how Apple was able to achieve at least some of those cost savings: it skimped out on storage performance. The 2020 Mac mini (M1, 256GB) uses two 128GB NAND chips in parallel and achieves 2733 MBps write and 2854 MBps read with the Blackmagic Disk Speed Test, according to Twitter user @t4bl3r0n3. Conversely, the 2023 Mac mini (M2, 256GB) sees its results roughly halve to 1431 MBps and 1482 MBps, respectively. Brandon Geekabit also confirmed these storage performance drops in a YouTube video.

If all of this sounds familiar, Apple performed the same SSD switcheroo with the base version of the MacBook Air (M2, 256GB). Using slower SSDs on the 2023 MacBook Pro and 2023 Mac mini could impact file transfer performance and overall system performance. In addition, any applications that exhaust the available physical memory would need to fall back to the SSD for virtual memory. The Mac mini would likely be impacted more by paging out to the SSD, given that the base 256GB storage configuration only comes with 8GB of RAM.

Apple's decision to lower storage performance in exchange for a $100 price cut on the entry-level Mac mini is somewhat understandable. However, the step backward in storage performance on the $1,999 MacBook Pro is less defensible. For customers paying top dollar for a "pro level" machine, you wouldn't expect storage performance to take such a dramatic hit.

TOPICS
Brandon Hill
Brandon Hill

Brandon Hill is a senior editor at Tom's Hardware. He has written about PC and Mac tech since the late 1990s with bylines at AnandTech, DailyTech, and Hot Hardware. When he is not consuming copious amounts of tech news, he can be found enjoying the NC mountains or the beach with his wife and two sons.

21 Comments Comment from the forums
  • watzupken
    This is unsurprising. If they have done it on the Macbook Pro, Macbook Air, it should not come as a surprise to see the same implemented on the base model of the cheaper Macs.
    Reply
  • USAFRet
    Or maybe, Apple has noticed, like a LOT of the rest of us....raw sequential speed numbers do not matter as much as all the test reviews and marketing wonks would lead us to believe.

    writes of 3154.4 MBps and reads of 2973.4 MBps
    as compared to
    3950.8 MBps and 4900.3 MBps, respectively.

    Means exactly squat to the vast majority of users.

    Like comparing 2 cars.
    Car A has a theoretical top speed of 170mph, Car B, a top speed of 150mph.
    But ALL your driving is on roads with a speed limit of 70mph. Or lower, mostly 45mph.
    Reply
  • hotaru251
    USAFRet said:
    .raw sequential speed numbers do not matter as much
    depending on what you do with the the thing.

    and as much as they cost its just a big "FU" as its cheap enough to add 2nd one would barely harm their profit on each sold.

    called Apple juts lvoes to shaft the users for buying the "cheap" apple product and not spend more.
    Reply
  • Amdlova
    Intel wants eat amd, mac wants eat everyone :) man 499us for a shift m2 aim sold
    Reply
  • deepblue08
    USAFRet said:
    Or maybe, Apple has noticed, like a LOT of the rest of us....raw sequential speed numbers do not matter as much as all the test reviews and marketing wonks would lead us to believe.

    writes of 3154.4 MBps and reads of 2973.4 MBps
    as compared to
    3950.8 MBps and 4900.3 MBps, respectively.

    Means exactly squat to the vast majority of users.

    Like comparing 2 cars.
    Car A has a theoretical top speed of 170mph, Car B, a top speed of 150mph.
    But ALL your driving is on roads with a speed limit of 70mph. Or lower, mostly 45mph.

    If this is MacBook Air, I would probably agree with you. But for MacBook Pro, this is not cool. If it is indeed a technical limitation, they should start the Pro lineup with 1TB of space.
    Reply
  • cyrusfox
    The biggest issue, regardless of number of NAND chips is this is a consumable that is placed on the PCB right next to the M.2 chip... NAND cells will wear out(400-2000 cycles depending on cell density and controller). A ticking time bomb. Granted the cells should last 5-20years of normal use, but if there is any sort of flaw in the cells or if MacOS or one of its apps abuse the drive, and the NAND chip goes bad, it is nearly impossible repair to replace the NAND chip, but even if you can replace, currently impossible to get the internal security chip to register and work with the newly attached NAND package.

    All new M1/M2 macs are completely proprietary and unrepairable. And apple continues to use storage as a huge price differentiator...
    Reply
  • thestryker
    USAFRet said:
    Or maybe, Apple has noticed, like a LOT of the rest of us....raw sequential speed numbers do not matter as much as all the test reviews and marketing wonks would lead us to believe.

    writes of 3154.4 MBps and reads of 2973.4 MBps
    as compared to
    3950.8 MBps and 4900.3 MBps, respectively.

    Means exactly squat to the vast majority of users.

    Like comparing 2 cars.
    Car A has a theoretical top speed of 170mph, Car B, a top speed of 150mph.
    But ALL your driving is on roads with a speed limit of 70mph. Or lower, mostly 45mph.
    In reality Apple saves money on production, maintains/increases margins and doesn't care about the reduced performance because the customer will buy a more expensive model if they care. Apple consistently treats their customers this way, and it doesn't seem to cost them so why should they change?
    Reply
  • DavidLejdar
    It may not make a difference to most users. Personally, I am now spoilt by high transfer rates. Which isn't just about moving files around (or saving e.g. a large video file after editing it), but also about how much stuff can be loaded into system memory "at once", respectively about how many programes can be launched at the same time, while also opening some folders at it (without the storage device being a bottleneck).

    And this doesn't mean that a bit of delay would be a disaster. But even if I wouldn't pay hundreds extra for it, pretty much no lag at all when it comes to accessing the storage device/s, it is nice.
    Reply
  • chickenballs
    and still soldered? :unsure:
    Reply
  • OneMoreUser
    Amdlova said:
    Intel wants eat amd, mac wants eat everyone :) man 499us for a shift m2 aim sold
    Better read the specs a little closer. The based model is very basic when it comes to ram and storage space, then once you change to just reasonable amounts of ram and storage you'll see that Apple as usual is charging like 3x-4x or more on top of what those change cost them.
    Essentially somehow when ram and storage are sold in a Apple product it is way more expensive than it is otherwise.
    Reply