Base M5 Mac Mini storage bump to 512GB?

[farmerabc]

What do people think are the chances that the next Mac Mini will get a storage increase from 256GB to 512GB in the base model?

I want to buy a Mac Mini, and I don't consider it worth waiting for an unknown amount of time just to get M5 vs M4, for my needs. However, if waiting meant I could get double the storage for the same price, then I do think that would be worth waiting for.

 

[J@ffa]

I think it would be pretty unlikely. This isn’t based on anything specific, just knowing that Apple will want to start the Pro chip version with that. The value of the base M4 now is excellent and I don’t see Apple wanting to cut into that by upgrading specs that would be nice but we’re probably at least a few years from being the base.

 

[maflynn]

It appears the soonest you'll see the Mini, is next year. There's rumors that apple is working on a M5 mini, but who knows when we'll see it. If we are to consider prior release dates, it may not even be in 2026.

As for the 512GB vs. 256, its anyone's guess. The base model M5 14 MBP comes with 512, but that's a 1600 dollar machine, where as the mini is a 500 dollar machine. If I were a betting man, I'd say apple will keep the 256 storage for the M5, but that's just a guess.

Finally if you need one now, get one now, but wait until Black Friday to save yourself some money

 

[Fishrrman]

"What do people think are the chances that the next Mac Mini will get a storage increase from 256GB to 512GB in the base model?"

Not good.
Apple will always offer a "stripped-down, base model" to pull buyers in.

The only problem is... use one of these for anything more than "light duty"... and it gets bogged down quickly.

It's up to YOU to buy with more storage.
These days, I'd consider 24gb of RAM to be "the minimum", and 32gb "the new baseline".

Similarly, for SSD storage, 512gb is "the baseline", and 1tb is "getting there" insofar as adequate storage room goes.

Remember... it takes something like 50gb of "free space" just to do a major OS upgrade now. Before too much longer, folks who bought 256gb drives and who weren't careful about how much stuff they put on them are going to find updates problematical...

 

[ftaok]

It appears the soonest you'll see the Mini, is next year. There's rumors that apple is working on a M5 mini, but who knows when we'll see it. If we are to consider prior release dates, it may not even be in 2026.

As for the 512GB vs. 256, its anyone's guess. The base model M5 14 MBP comes with 512, but that's a 1600 dollar machine, where as the mini is a 500 dollar machine. If I were a betting man, I'd say apple will keep the 256 storage for the M5, but that's just a guess.

Finally if you need one now, get one now, but wait until Black Friday to save yourself some money

View attachment 2570222

I just saw this article on Gizmodo.

Looks like an M5 mini might be sooner than we think. Or it could be wishful thinking BS. I choose to believe that an M5 mini is imminent as my wife just expressed her wishes that she get a new Mac set-up. Her current setup is a 2014 13" MBP upgraded to 2TB. It's practically EOL'd with future MacOS updates.

 

[FreakinEurekan]

Seems unlikely to me.

256GB is MORE than enough for macOS basic files, and you can easily/cheaply add external storage for your data. Which means, 256GB is enough for a significant chunk of users... why would Apple stop selling that, when it offers a cheaper entry point for those that need it?

Think of it this way - why should I have to pay more, so that you don't, if I can work with 256GB but you can't? 🤔

 

[wyliej]

Similarly, for SSD storage, 512gb is "the baseline", and 1tb is "getting there" insofar as adequate storage room goes.

Disagree in the context of a desktop computer. I'm not normally one to defend Apple's bad choices, but, in an office environment, users would normally have access to a NAS for reliable, backed-up file storage. Only the OS and local applications would need to live on the local storage device. In that context, no one should be forced to pay Apple's outrageous tax on storage that will never be used.

OTOH, Apple really should just move to standard M.2 SSDs and let people buy 1TB for under $100 (and upgrade as needed over time). Proprietary storage is stupid, and has zero benefit for the consumer.

 

[AL2TEACH]

get a storage increase from 256GB to 512GB in the base model?

I think the base storage for any computer should be 1TB and anything less is a continued money maker for Apple which is a rip off for consumers.

 

[EugW]

I'm still not 100% convinced the Mac mini will get the M5 at all. I'm hopeful for your sake, but we can't be completely sure about that.

Even if it does get the M5, I very highly doubt it will get a bump to 512 GB base.

 

[theluggage]

Only the OS and local applications would need to live on the local storage device.

...but in 2025, 256GB is only barely adequate for that - a couple of local "pro" Apps and their associated libraries & temporary storage requirements, on top of the base system, will take a huge bite out of a 256GB drive, and having your system drive anywhere close to completely full will hammer performance.

It's not that the 256GB/16GB in the base Mini is inadequate for "personal productivity" use, it's that $200 for an extra 256GB is completely and indefensibly disproportionate (that's closer to the retail cost of a 2TB M.2 stick with comparable speed). If you were speccing out a PC or Linux system it would be false economy to put anything as small as 256GB in a $600 machine (unless it was going to be a sacrificial system/swap drive with a 1TB+ stick in the next slot).

Unfortunately, that's baked in to Apple's pricing scheme (which has never had anything to do with the actual component cost). However, we saw this same discussion re. 8GB vs. 16GB RAM a year or so back and, in the end, Apple just bumped the base RAM across the board without any price increase. Eventually, that will probably happen for SSD - but probably not until 256GB chips become expensive legacy parts. We've already seen Apple switch from 2x128 to 1x256 configurations on some systems (at the cost of halving bandwidth)...

 

[Mike82]

256GB is enough for a significant chunk of users... why would Apple stop selling that, when it offers a cheaper entry point for those that need it?

Think of it this way - why should I have to pay more, so that you don't, if I can work with 256GB but you can't? 🤔

They could have easily kept the base iPhone 17 at 128GB (like the Pixel 10 and Galaxy S25), but they doubled it to 256GB without a price increase. That makes me hopeful the next Mini will start at 512GB. Not sure it will get the M5 though. Wouldn't be surprised if they wait for the M6 to update the Mini.

 

[wyliej]

It's not that the 256GB/16GB in the base Mini is inadequate for "personal productivity" use, it's that $200 for an extra 256GB is completely and indefensibly disproportionate (that's closer to the retail cost of a 2TB M.2 stick with comparable speed).

Agreed, completely, on that point. The only excuse for proprietary storage would be if performance were better than generally available commodity hardware, and Apple doesn't have that. They should just use M.2/NVMe on everything. Users who want to pay the Apple tax on upgrades can do that, and the rest of us can just buy SSDs from Amazon/Newegg/Micro Center and upgrade storage ourselves.

 

[weckart]

Agreed, completely, on that point. The only excuse for proprietary storage would be if performance were better than generally available commodity hardware, and Apple doesn't have that. They should just use M.2/NVMe on everything. Users who want to pay the Apple tax on upgrades can do that, and the rest of us can just buy SSDs from Amazon/Newegg/Micro Center and upgrade storage ourselves.

Problem is, Apple has a T2 chip and it's going to use it.

 

[sublunar]

I'm still not 100% convinced the Mac mini will get the M5 at all. I'm hopeful for your sake, but we can't be completely sure about that.

Even if it does get the M5, I very highly doubt it will get a bump to 512 GB base.

Actually, Apple have a good excuse to bump the base storage on the Mini - to hide a price increase. They don't have to raise it by the full $200 but it would obscure any tariff uplift in the US plus raise the average selling price of a Mini.

For that reason they'd wait till an M5 refresh to also rejig the price tiers.

And it introduces room for a 256b base SKU with A19 Pro of course if they don't wish to mess with the pricing tiers and simply replace an assumed 256Gb M5 with an A19 instead

 

[EugW]

Actually, Apple have a good excuse to bump the base storage on the Mini - to hide a price increase. They don't have to raise it by the full $200 but it would obscure any tariff uplift in the US plus raise the average selling price of a Mini.

For that reason they'd wait till an M5 refresh to also rejig the price tiers.

And it introduces room for a 256b base SKU with A19 Pro of course if they don't wish to mess with the pricing tiers and simply replace an assumed 256Gb M5 with an A19 instead

There is no additional US tariff on Macs. They are exempt.

 

[sublunar]

There is no additional US tariff on Macs. They are exempt.

Good point. But if Apple really did think they could get away with dropping the 256Gb tier for Mac mini and increase average selling price that would be the way I'd go.

Another example of storage doubling is iPhone 17 dropping the 128Gb tier making the 16 seem particularly poor value for $100 less prior to 3rd party discounts.

 

[svish]

Don't know whether there will be a M5 version for the mini. Irrespective of the chip, it is unlikely to happen in the next year. Eventually it will happen, but don't know how soon.

 

[theluggage]

But if Apple really did think they could get away with dropping the 256Gb tier for Mac mini and increase average selling price that would be the way I'd go.

I suspect that, if/when it happens it will be “free” like the 8GB to 16GB RAM bump. If nothing else, the smaller, lower-density flash chips will eventually fall out of production and/or become disproportionately expensive for Apple to buy. Since the M5 now uses PCIe 5 SSDs this *could* happen with the switch to M5… don’t hold your breath.

I think that Apple’s main concern will not be the extra materials cost to them (pretty insignificant compared to their margin and easily outweighed by logistics and economies of scale) but whether they can sell the same number of 512 to 1TB upgrades as they did 256 to 512 ones.

Apple will want to keep 3 “stock” good/better/best models separated by about $200 - I don’t think they care much what the actual numbers are. 16/512, 16/1TB and 24/1TB would probably work.

 

[ftaok]

Agreed, completely, on that point. The only excuse for proprietary storage would be if performance were better than generally available commodity hardware, and Apple doesn't have that. They should just use M.2/NVMe on everything. Users who want to pay the Apple tax on upgrades can do that, and the rest of us can just buy SSDs from Amazon/Newegg/Micro Center and upgrade storage ourselves.

Isn't the design of the Apple Silicon chips the issue with using /M.2NVMe SSDs? As far as I know, typical SSDs have controllers and stuff like that, but Apple's chips directly control the NAND, so it woudn't even work without losing a major advantage of using the Mx/Ax chips.

 

[theluggage]

Isn't the design of the Apple Silicon chips the issue with using /M.2NVMe SSDs? As far as I know, typical SSDs have controllers and stuff like that, but Apple's chips directly control the NAND, so it woudn't even work without losing a major advantage of using the Mx/Ax chips.

In theory, yes - with NVMe the controller is separated from the CPU by a PCIe bus. On Apple Silicon the controller has direct access to the CPU and Unified RAM, but the actual flash storage is still on the other end of a PCIe bus.

Just speculating, but I don't think this would have much affect on the sustained read/write speed - that's always going to be limited by either the read/write speed of the actual flash or the PCIe bus getting saturated. However, for example, NVMe sticks have on-board RAM to speed up write operations and cache frequently-read data. I assume that, on Apple Silicon, the controller takes this from the unified RAM so it has more, faster cache memory, which could lead to faster performance under "realistic" loads.

The vast majority of reviews (and benchmark tools like BlackMagic) concentrate on the sustained read/write speeds which might be vital if you want to run multiple streams of 8k raw video, but for general use, including acting as the system disk, random access performance when doing zillions of smaller read/write operations might be more significant.

Any real data on this would be interesting.

Or, Apple could just look for better ways to distinguish it's good/better/best models than charging $200 for $50 (retail) worth of RAM or NAND chips.

 

[sublunar]

I suspect that, if/when it happens it will be “free” like the 8GB to 16GB RAM bump. If nothing else, the smaller, lower-density flash chips will eventually fall out of production and/or become disproportionately expensive for Apple to buy. Since the M5 now uses PCIe 5 SSDs this *could* happen with the switch to M5… don’t hold your breath.

I think that Apple’s main concern will not be the extra materials cost to them (pretty insignificant compared to their margin and easily outweighed by logistics and economies of scale) but whether they can sell the same number of 512 to 1TB upgrades as they did 256 to 512 ones.

Apple will want to keep 3 “stock” good/better/best models separated by about $200 - I don’t think they care much what the actual numbers are. 16/512, 16/1TB and 24/1TB would probably work.

That's a fair argument based on economies of scale where it doesn't cost Apple any more to go for the higher capacity chips because production of the lower ones are falling due to lower demand. Sounds very much like something for the m6 lineup when they go OLED with the screens.

There was also a moment where for some reason some SKUs of M3 class CPUs in laptops suddenly had 18Gb RAM and iPads Pro had 12Gb? I haven't been keeping up.l Was that for no other reason than Apple got a deal on those now since we seem to have returned to multiples of 8 again?

Is Mac mini storage a single 256Gb chip or 2x 128Gb chips though?

I think it will still stand for me that the lowest SKU in any lineup is the best value, there's diminishing returns on BTO stuff. Just a pity that upgrading to M5 Pro will likely be very pricey.

 

[Starfia]

If I were ready to buy a new Mac mini right now, my guess would be that waiting a year would be unlikely to reveal a new Mac mini model, and that the entry-level would be unlikely to have more than 256 gigs of storage.

Mac mini values are already better than they've ever been at the moment. If I wanted an M4 Mac mini within the next month or so, I'd focus on finding the rare (but much likelier) good deal on one with 512 gigabytes.

 

[GianL]

"If I wanted an M4 Mac mini within the next month or so, I'd focus on finding the rare (but much likelier) good deal on one with 512 gigabytes. 32GB unified memory." Fixed. You could upgrade SSD yourself in a cheaper way.

Sadly M5 has changed bus (PCIe 5) hence unsure if "after market" SSD will work as they are on the new models or if they'll need a redesign.

 

[yellowhelicopter]

I personally don't care about storage memory at all. I'm using a cheap 1TB external M2 drive anyway, which easily can be exchanged with a 2TB one, extra 256MB doesn't matter much.

What DOES matter is RAM. 24GB of RAM in base M5 machines would be very cool. It would compensate lack of dedicated additional video RAM for PC games run via GPTK that require 16GB of RAM.

 

[EugW]

I personally don't care about storage memory at all. I'm using a cheap 1TB external M2 drive anyway, which easily can be exchanged with a 2TB one, extra 256MB doesn't matter much.

What DOES matter is RAM. 24GB of RAM in base M5 machines would be very cool. It would compensate lack of dedicated additional video RAM for PC games run via GPTK that require 16GB of RAM.

Some things are still ideally put on the built-in storage, and I find that 256 GB built-in is quite tight for my main machine, even though I use iCloud as well. If I pay attention to managing the storage, I can deal with 256 GB, but 512 GB provides much more breathing room to deal with macOS bloat like with Messages which iCloud doesn't manage well and macOS System Data which iCloud doesn't manage at all. It also helps if you ever want to back up your iPhone and iPad to the Mac. My last iPhone backup alone was 80 GB, but that was on an iPhone with only 128 GB storage.

I have an external 4 TB Thunderbolt SSD for data, so total 4.5 TB for my M4 Mac mini, plus yet another external 4 TB Thunderbolt SSD for Time Machine.

BTW, I do have 24 GB memory on this machine, but for my wife's M4 MacBook Air, we went with 16 GB memory and 512 GB storage. That is a much more useful combination than 24 GB memory and 256 GB storage for her usage habits. I found with her previous 2017 MacBook Air with 8 GB and 256 GB storage, the 8 GB was actually OK on Monterey, but a couple of times a year I'd have to manually clean out her drive to make her 256 GB storage workable.