Its probably more iops effecting performance than transfer speed, imagine going from a 4 lane highway to a 2 lane, of course reality is a bit more nuanced.
Except in this case, we've gone from 5 billion lanes to 2.8 billion, and I'm fairly certain that this should be more than enough lanes to load a UI and some cached images.
I'm just happy that I finally found the courage to ditch LR and Adobe a few years ago. Seeing that their performance issues are still plaguing them doesn't surprise me in the least.
Switched out to Photo Mechanic for cataloguing and Capture One / Affinity Photo for editing if anyone is interested.
What do you mean by "happy you stayed on"? Do you usually upgrade your laptop immediately to the next one the moment it's released? Or do you mean you opted to buy an m1 after the m2 pro was already available?
One thing to remember is that random I/O did not get slower: the benchmark they used is a very simple one simulating writing a single 16GB stream as quickly as possible — unless your job is something like copying high-resolution video files around, you're unlikely to see it slower.
That does affect a few people but consider what it means: you can fill the drive up in a little over 2 minutes on the M1 and a little over 3 minutes on the M2. The only way that's relevant to you is if you have some other high-end hardware which can stream data that fast _and_ you're doing relatively little processing on that data _and_ you don't actually store that data for very long (otherwise you need some kind of attached storage array).
Lightroom is a terrible app so to the extent that it needs a high-end SSD to start up, that's telling us what we've already known for a decade: Adobe doesn't care about quality and it's a shame the very noticeably faster Aperture was discontinued.
well, that is the definition of "breaking news", more is to come. You don't have to drop anything if the topic is not of interest to you, but if you're buying a laptop right now you might care.
when dawn breaks, we have a whole day ahead of us.
The SSDs in these machines consist of NAND chips soldered directly to the motherboard; the controller aspect is handled within the main M* SOC. As such there's no way that a company could offer an internal 'upgrade' or expansion to these drives.
This is not true . The SSDs on this are not soldiered but are in distinct chips that can be removed but none of them have a discrete controller on them instead the controller is on the SoC itself. Basically they are NAND modules not full SSDs at all.
The NAND chips are soldered with ball grid arrays, requiring a reflow oven to add a new chip, not to mention how the board itself would probably not even detect the extra chips.
Most likely from halving the number of SSD chips and no longer striping.
Though to be honest in day to day use, I only notice SSD speeds when transferring/loading video files in the tens/hundreds+ of GBs.
Otherwise, as long as the latency is low and the machine can load applications quickly from the disk, I never can perceive the difference. And with M1/M2 machines being able to start applications significantly quicker than my intel apple machines ever could, I'm not sure I could tell a perceivable difference in day-to-day use.
But I am still disappointed that they are not using faster SSDs.
Well, I just tried that tool on my M1 Max and I got read speed of 2900MB/s. So I ran it again and finally put it in continuous mode: it did not keep an average and quartiles. I saw a read value over 4000MB/s. I would say that this tool is not a valid measure.
These machines are still insanely fast. If you actually notice anything get substantially slower, you are either running very specialized workloads or you can forward the blame right to the developer of said application.
It seems pretty unlikely that many people have a workload that is highly sensitive to read throughput, has a disk footprint so small it fits on a 512GB SSD, and where the cost of slower disk outweighs a 20% faster CPU.
For scale we're talking > 2TBps linear read and probably > 500MBps random 4k read in both cases, compared to on the order of 50-500MBps limit on the CPU side depending on threading etc. So still CPU limited. If there's any problem with big file trees it's probably macOS's relatively slow filesystem so again, advantage to the faster CPU. It sounds like LightRoom startup is a little slower but if you use it for editing you're going to get that back in faster workflow. In general modern NVMe has removed disk as a significant bottleneck for normal peoples' workflows, even on Mac. That includes backups, zipping up collections of files, git compaction, etc. What scenario are you imagining here?
I'm imagining the large filetree zip. I've got an M1 mini at home, so I can run a test on that later today. Maybe some parts of Xcode builds are limited by the disk too.
The Twitter OP elaborates further down the thread that they're seeing real-world impact on Lightroom. That would be a bummer for me...but I'd probably buy a build with a larger drive. Waiting for confirmation that this is only on the base model.
This kind of "Breaking" news is creating drama where there isn't one.
The 'slower' SSD is still pumping out gigabytes of data per second. Gigabytes!
The real drama is that they focus on the wrong metric: they should focus on random IOPs and latency performance, throughput above certain thresholds is meaningless.
Somehow, I'm not surprised at all to see Apple users openly defending the fact that they get worse hardware when they buy the newer, more expensive model.
52 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 101 ms ] threadI wouldn't be surprised if these numbers translated to slower app startup times, a slightly faster CPU won't balance it out.
Correction: somebody already noticed that Lightroom got slower.
Not everyone cares, which is valid, but it's also kinda hidden.
Switched out to Photo Mechanic for cataloguing and Capture One / Affinity Photo for editing if anyone is interested.
Right now though I feel that the new laptop is not even superior, it's similar category (still awesome).
That does affect a few people but consider what it means: you can fill the drive up in a little over 2 minutes on the M1 and a little over 3 minutes on the M2. The only way that's relevant to you is if you have some other high-end hardware which can stream data that fast _and_ you're doing relatively little processing on that data _and_ you don't actually store that data for very long (otherwise you need some kind of attached storage array).
Lightroom is a terrible app so to the extent that it needs a high-end SSD to start up, that's telling us what we've already known for a decade: Adobe doesn't care about quality and it's a shame the very noticeably faster Aperture was discontinued.
when dawn breaks, we have a whole day ahead of us.
Here's an M2 Air logic board with 1 of 2 NAND chips soldered on (in yellow), there's an empty spot on the board for another chip: https://guide-images.cdn.ifixit.com/igi/1A2NHYEY6dJcUcd4.hug...
https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/06/m1-mac-ram-and-ssd-upgr...
Though to be honest in day to day use, I only notice SSD speeds when transferring/loading video files in the tens/hundreds+ of GBs.
Otherwise, as long as the latency is low and the machine can load applications quickly from the disk, I never can perceive the difference. And with M1/M2 machines being able to start applications significantly quicker than my intel apple machines ever could, I'm not sure I could tell a perceivable difference in day-to-day use.
But I am still disappointed that they are not using faster SSDs.
Probably no big deal for most users.
The 'slower' SSD is still pumping out gigabytes of data per second. Gigabytes!
The real drama is that they focus on the wrong metric: they should focus on random IOPs and latency performance, throughput above certain thresholds is meaningless.
I repeat, nobody is going to notice ever.