Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Cancel my M2 16GB/256GB and get 24GB/256GB?

Orizence said:
So yeah, im going to keep the 16GB and save my $250CAD :) thanks everyone
Click to expand...
I can confirm that you made the right choice.

I am a professional photographer and videographer and the M1 Mac mini with 16gb RAM is plenty enough for my needs. For intensive photo work it is absurdly fast compared to my 2017 intel i5 13" MBP. Even high demanding HDR / focus stacking photo merging runs perfectly smooth. With your M2 I bet you will be safe and happy for at least 5-6 years or even more, who knows.

Save that money for buying future external SSDs, much better investment as you may already know!
 
Orizence said:
Hey everyone. I ordered a 16GB/256 last night but Im worried I ordered the wrong one. I mostly do internet browsing, email, listen to FLACs, and edit photos in DxO Photolab 6.

I'm not worried about the SSD as I keep my home folder on an external 1TB SSD. But im worried 16GB is not enough ram anymore, is it? I would like to keep this machine for a while (hopefully last as long as my 2012 Mac Mini), is 24GB the better choice?
Click to expand...
If you expect to keep for 10 years, I would go with 16gb / 512gb SSD. 256gb is too small for next few years. You can use external SSD but not all files can be moved (I’ve tried that on my iMac); system files, cache and temp files at least should stay in boot disk. Also, I read, 256gb speed is slower than 512gb.
 
meson said:
45 minute exports?! What 2012 machine are you using? How much ram? Is the storage a spinning hard drive or ssd?

I'm inclined to believe that your machine still has a spinning hard drive. If that is the case, you are in for a real surprise. If your 2012 has an ssd, and you are still getting export times that long, then your files must be massive, or you are running into another bottleneck. Since you mention AI, the cpu may very well be the bottleneck.

I do recall my wife having some pretty long export times in photoshop when she was using her 2010 iMac, but those were pretty large batches of photos. She's actually been preferring to work on her base model 13" M1 Air with only 8GB of ram over her 2019 iMac lately. I'm not sure if it has more to do with portability or the responsiveness of the hardware, but export times are measured more in seconds now rather than minutes.

Regardless, I think you will be pleasantly surprised with the new machine.
Click to expand...
I also have the 2012 mini (i7 16gb SSD) and with DXO it can process about 1 raw file per cpu thread and minute.

That’s about 360 photos in 45 min.

When I did weddings and events I had to leave in on over night to do the exports.

Horrible by today’s standards but coming from dual core it was heaven at the time :)
 
Isamilis said:
If you expect to keep for 10 years, I would go with 16gb / 512gb SSD. 256gb is too small for next few years. You can use external SSD but not all files can be moved (I’ve tried that on my iMac); system files, cache and temp files at least should stay in boot disk. Also, I read, 256gb speed is slower than 512gb.
Click to expand...
In my Mac Mini currently, I am using about 50GB (max) of space of my internal SSD, and thats with all my apps and things. There is no home folder at all located on the internal SSD. I have been using the same 256GB in all my Macs and im not sure why this wouldn't work here either.
 
Wahlstrm said:
I also have the 2012 mini (i7 16gb SSD) and with DXO it can process about 1 raw file per cpu thread and minute.

That’s about 360 photos in 45 min.

When I did weddings and events I had to leave in on over night to do the exports.

Horrible by today’s standards but coming from dual core it was heaven at the time :)
Click to expand...
I had a photo last night that took 1 hour and 30 minutes... Denoising is where things fall apart for my little two cores.
 
Orizence said:
Hey everyone. I ordered a 16GB/256 last night but Im worried I ordered the wrong one. I mostly do internet browsing, email, listen to FLACs, and edit photos in DxO Photolab 6.

I'm not worried about the SSD as I keep my home folder on a external 1TB SSD. But im worried 16GB is not enough ram anymore, is it? I would like to keep this machine for a while (hopefully last as long as my 2012 Mac Mini), is 24GB the better choice?
Click to expand...
Be worried about the SSD. The 256GB SSD in M2 Macs is utter trash and you'll notice it across the entire system. Also do remember that, with Apple Silicon Macs, the Mac uses the internal SSD to boot and it won't boot without it. I'm not saying to buy a 2TB SSD; but at least do 512GB. Your Mac will thank you.
 
Orizence said:
In my Mac Mini currently, I am using about 50GB (max) of space of my internal SSD, and thats with all my apps and things. There is no home folder at all located on the internal SSD. I have been using the same 256GB in all my Macs and im not sure why this wouldn't work here either.
Click to expand...
First off, if you think that macOS won't keep bloating in size over the next decade, I've got an Apple Silicon Mac Pro to sell you.

Second off, with Apple Silicon Macs, the larger the internal SSD, the faster the internal SSD.

Third off, the 256GB drives in the M2 Macs (as well as the 512GB drives in the M2 Pro and M2 Max Macs) are greatly hindered by only being based on a fraction of the chips that the same capacity drives had in their M1 based predecessors. I own several M1 Macs with 256GB SSDs. For my uses for those Macs, 256GB is more than enough. For those same purposes, I would never buy an M2 Mac with only 256GB. It's just not a good idea.
 
Yebubbleman said:
First off, if you think that macOS won't keep bloating in size over the next decade, I've got an Apple Silicon Mac Pro to sell you.

Second off, with Apple Silicon Macs, the larger the internal SSD, the faster the internal SSD.

Third off, the 256GB drives in the M2 Macs (as well as the 512GB drives in the M2 Pro and M2 Max Macs) are greatly hindered by only being based on a fraction of the chips that the same capacity drives had in their M1 based predecessors. I own several M1 Macs with 256GB SSDs. For my uses for those Macs, 256GB is more than enough. For those same purposes, I would never buy an M2 Mac with only 256GB. It's just not a good idea.
Click to expand...
Over the past decade my install bloated to a WHOPPING 50GB... If it took up an entire 256GB within the next decade, I will just switch back to Linux lol. Keep your mythical machine to yourself

And my point still stands, much faster than anything I'm using right now on the SATA3 bus, and were talking a random cheap SSD from Amazon. I never use swap on the SSD either.
 
Orizence said:
Over the past decade my install bloated to a WHOPPING 50GB... If it took up an entire 256GB within the next decade, I will just switch back to Linux lol. Keep your mythical machine to yourself

And my point still stands, much faster than anything I'm using right now on the SATA3 bus, and were talking a random cheap SSD from Amazon. I never use swap on the SSD either.
Click to expand...
Look, it's ultimately your money.

However, for my money? I'm not messing with a subpar SSD (espcially on a computer wherein I can't replace it with a better one down the road), especially when Apple is charging me an arm and a leg to begin with. Again, if we were talking M1 Macs, I'd say that it doesn't matter to any seriously noticeable degree (I own several M1 Macs that have 256GB SSDs). But these 256GB SSDs on the M2 Macs actually suck. And sure, the SSDs will beat any SATA 3 SSD. But you're buying a Mac in 2023. ANY computer you buy in 2023 should have SSDs faster than SATA 3 SSDs.
 
Yebubbleman said:
Look, it's ultimately your money.

However, for my money? I'm not messing with a subpar SSD (espcially on a computer wherein I can't replace it with a better one down the road), especially when Apple is charging me an arm and a leg to begin with. Again, if we were talking M1 Macs, I'd say that it doesn't matter to any seriously noticeable degree (I own several M1 Macs that have 256GB SSDs). But these 256GB SSDs on the M2 Macs actually suck. And sure, the SSDs will beat any SATA 3 SSD. But you're buying a Mac in 2023. ANY computer you buy in 2023 should have SSDs faster than SATA 3 SSDs.
Click to expand...
I ended up getting the 512GB/24GB, is that supposed to be THAT much faster?
 
  • Like
Reactions: now i see it
Orizence said:
I ended up getting the 512GB/24GB, is that supposed to be THAT much faster?
Click to expand...
Considering that (a) you aren't hindered by fewer NAND chips and (b) that, completely aside M2 256GB SSD issues, Apple Silicon Mac SSDs are such that the larger the SSD the faster the SSD, yes.

I can direct you to many videos and articles on this topic if you don't believe me when I tell you that there is a difference.
 
Yebubbleman said:
Considering that (a) you aren't hindered by fewer NAND chips and (b) that, completely aside M2 256GB SSD issues, Apple Silicon Mac SSDs are such that the larger the SSD the faster the SSD, yes.

I can direct you to many videos and articles on this topic if you don't believe me when I tell you that there is a difference.
Click to expand...

Take note that, on the mini M2 (non-Pro), the 1TB and 2TB SSD have the same speed as the 512GB: about 3000MB/s.
On the mini M2 Pro, the 1TB is 6000MB/s, while it is 3000MB/s for the 512GB (same as on the mini M2).

So on the M2 non-Pro, excluding the 256GB, it is not true that the bigger the SSD the faster it is. Unfortunately! :-(
I hate Apple for doing this on the M2 non-Pro.
 
Cham2000 said:
Take note that, on the mini M2 (non-Pro), the 1TB and 2TB SSD have the same speed as the 512GB: about 3000MB/s.
On the mini M2 Pro, the 1TB is 6000MB/s, while it is 3000MB/s for the 512GB (same as on the mini M2).

So on the M2 non-Pro, excluding the 256GB, it is not true that the bigger the SSD the faster it is. Unfortunately! :-(
I hate Apple for doing this on the M2 non-Pro.
Click to expand...
Huh. I thought it was at least consistent on the M1 models. Your saying that goes out the window with M2 models? Seriously good to know if so!
 
Yebubbleman said:
Huh. I thought it was at least consistent on the M1 models. Your saying that goes out the window with M2 models? Seriously good to know if so!
Click to expand...

Yes, this is the fact. There are several threads on the forum that show clearly the various SSD speed. The M2 256GB is half the speed as the M1 256GB, which explains the 100$ reduced price. This sucks, but that's the Apple way!

I would have chose the 1TB on the mini M2, if it was two times faster than the 512GB (as for the M2 Pro), but it isn't faster! 3000MB/s for both the 512GB and 1TB on the M2 non-Pro, while it's 6000MB/s for the M2 Pro 1TB.
 
Cham2000 said:
Yes, this is the fact. There are several threads on the forum that show clearly the various SSD speed. The M2 256GB is half the speed as the M1 256GB, which explains the 100$ reduced price. This sucks, but that's the Apple way!

I would have chose the 1TB on the mini M2, if it was two times faster than the 512GB (as for the M2 Pro), but it isn't faster! 3000MB/s for both the 512GB and 1TB on the M2 non-Pro, while it's 6000MB/s for the M2 Pro 1TB.
Click to expand...
You have a favorite one to link me to? Would love to dive in further to this! :)
 
ArtisRight did a video on the M1 Macs comparing different configurations of CPU, GPU and RAM
DXO mainly uses CPU. You're fine with 16GB RAM. If you can, buy a machine with more CPU cores (M2 Pro Mac mini 16/19) for example).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back