That's not how that works... 0.3x would be 70% slower. 30% faster bakes in the existing baseline of 100% performance by specifically using the word faster so it's the existing baseline compared against (100%) plus the 30% increase, which is why it's the same as 1.3x.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2025 vs. 2026 Mac Studio Buyer's Guide: All Upgrades Compared
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have to disagree. If I read 30%, I have to do some mental math to take the current speed, multiply it by 0.3, and then add that number back.
But in really, if I read 30%, I know it really means “unnoticeable increase unless you carefully measure". So I don't bother with the math. To notice at the keyboard with no benchmark tools, you have to double a spec. That is just the way human perception works.
Mac Fly (film)
macrumors 68040
You multiply it by 1.3 to get 30% faster. The point is people are less likely to misunderstand what 30% faster means.
BuffyzDead
macrumors 6502
Just ChatGTP the question: Are the new 2026 Apple Mac Studio's using PCI Gen 5, Or PCI Gen 6, for their SSD’s?
The Answer is:
Yes. The new 2026 Mac Studio with M5 Max and M5 Ultra uses PCIe Gen 6 for its internal SSD architecture — not PCIe Gen 5.
Apple explicitly states that the 2026 Mac Studio has a “next-generation SSD architecture built on PCIe Gen 6”, with storage performance up to 2× faster than the previous generation.
...the ChatGPT response will provide the source information, for their corroboration.
Who needs it? People who create the media that you consume on your iPhone or iPad. Yes, the ratio of consumers to creators is maybe 10,000 to one, so not many need it.
Also, for robotics development, although there are even fewer people doing that. I'm still OK with my M2-Pro. Faster would be nice, but not justifiable yet. But again, it is the makers, not the consumers, that tend to need it.
The aspect for the internal Apple SSD being twice the speed of previous ones is VERY appealing to me.
My workflow creates very large files and transferring them to/from the internal SSD quickly is a very welcomed benefit. Reducing the I/O wait times for frequently moving large amounts data to/from the internal SSD will reduce the wall clock time for my long running (i.e., days and sometimes weeks) workloads to complete.
The previous SSDs could be outpaced using external RAID-0 TB5 SSDs easily. For example a pair of 4TB TB5 SSDs setup as RAID-0 with each being connected to separate TB5 ports on the Mac can deliver 13,500 MB/s for reads and some 10,000 MB/s for writes. The write rate probably is limited by the external TB5 SSDs having a write cache that becomes exhausted and slows down the writing.
I'm assuming with the advent of PCIe Gen 6 being used for the Apple internal SSD some 14,000 MB/s for reads, and some ~20,000 MB/s for writes if not limited by a write cache. This aspect then competes with the current external TB5 SSDs.
Now if Apple were to design their internal SSDs to be RAID-0 the data rates would be even better!
Last edited:
It's about balancing performance and power consumption. Apple now has three different types of CUP cores:
1) efficiency -- These are slow but use very little power.
2) performance -- The mid-range compromise.
3) super -- very fast at the expense of power and heat.
Lower performing systems use a mix of #1 and #2, and the higher end systems use #2 and #3.
When a Mac has a mix of core types, it will tend to use the lowest performing cores if it can. After all, much of the time it is doing nothing more than waiting at idle. But as the computer is loaded with more work, it uses the higher spec'd cores.
The cores really are different. The iPad mini has only two performance cores and four efficiency cores, and almost all of the time is running on efficiency. But the Mac Studio turns this around and can use super cores because it runs on AC power with no battery.
killhippie
macrumors 6502a
Actually, Apple changed out on their sites. It uses their proprietary driver. It doesn’t use PCIe Gen 6 just as the previous M4 used their proprietary driver for its own speeds.
You mean by this that Apple changed their website text and removed the mention of PCIe Gen 6 to simply state SSD is twice as fast, right?
killhippie
macrumors 6502a
I got my M4 last year and it’s 17 months old. It’s fast than anything I could ever want at this time. Most sites are saying you’ve got an M4 there’s no reason to upgrade to an M5 and I would kind of agree. I would be looking further forward to maybe M9 should apple make one with Max
Also considering my M4 cost £799 less last year but with an M4 not an M5 and while it was advertising M4 it was still £799 more expensive this year with the price hikes, no thank you. I do not want an N1 in it either and that’s after experiencing issues with that chip in the M5 iPad. Hopefully others haven’t, but because I have had a few connectivity issues with the N1. I just would rather wait until Apple have a few more iterations of their own chips under their belt before I need to update not want to update.
Apple silicon is now a completely different animal and yearly upgrades at this are just not worth it in my view that is.
Also considering my M4 cost £799 less last year but with an M4 not an M5 and while it was advertising M4 it was still £799 more expensive this year with the price hikes, no thank you. I do not want an N1 in it either and that’s after experiencing issues with that chip in the M5 iPad. Hopefully others haven’t, but because I have had a few connectivity issues with the N1. I just would rather wait until Apple have a few more iterations of their own chips under their belt before I need to update not want to update.
Apple silicon is now a completely different animal and yearly upgrades at this are just not worth it in my view that is.
Mr. Bear
macrumors regular
When my library was under 4tb, I had it on a TBolt SSD, which was very fast. Last fall I was tempted to buy a Crucial 8tb SSD when they were under $400, but I didn't really need it. Kind of wish I'd bought it now, even though I still don't really need it. My LrC library is over 5tb now and I have it on one of these, which I bought last year. List price was "only $6000" but B&H had it on sale for $1200. I've got 6 drives set up as a RAID50 80tb and 2 drives as a RAID1 Time Machine drive. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...dph48h_160t_nbaab_g_raid_shuttle_8_160tb.html
I am not sure that SSDs are the best choice for Time Machine. You don't really need the speed, and TM probably hammers the drive enough to reduce its life expectancy. Just MHO, though, and I may be wrong.
dragoon2745
macrumors regular
The important thing here is that even with Apple removing their reference to PCIe 6, the mention that the new Studios have an internal SSD that's twice the speed of the 2025 Studios remains. 2x is very significant and beneficial for any workload performing intensive I/O over a long period of time. That is, involuntary I/O wait times are reduced, so these type workloads can complete in less time than before.