Hands-On With the New M2 Pro Mac Mini

[foo2]

At that point, i would say just go Ubuntu.. It's really not bad at all these days. An install takes up about 4GB on the hard drive. It's pretty smooth and stable at this point. I like it way better than Windows 10 at least. The feature cruft on new proprietary OSes is getting ridiculous. I can't remember the last time Apple released a feature on Mac OS I actually cared about! And it's so nice not to be locked down so much. Every app I run pretty much is now sandboxed and isolated from the OS. Dockers, AppImages, Flatpaks are the norm. I have an extension with ChatGPT right on my desktop. As Apple gets sued and forced by government laws to unlock their stores and operating systems and such, it's clear linux will be the future.

Yeah, I've run Ubuntu for years, but as a consumer / desktop OS I still think it's dead in the water. It's just too complicated, too "much", for most. Why would a consumer need to know about flatpaks and dockers and appimages? Why do I need to go through a special process to get Chrome (!!) installed via GUI? Why do I need to visit the commandline to work around an issue with the normal Ubuntu update mechanism in 22.4.1 whining about closing the updater in order to update itself, almost straight out of the box? There are just too many issues like this still.

Plus I don't have full photos / messages (chat) / etc. integration. That to me is the killer feature. If I didn't have full messages / SMS / etc. + photos integration in MacOS, it's far less likely I'd still be using it. But ... it's awesome.

I can get video, audio, 3D, and lots of other apps anywhere, on any platform. I can't get that chat, etc stuff (without a Mac VM and all kinds of nonsense) otherwise.

With a Hackintosh, one thing I like is that (as long as I don't use processor graphics, and I stick with supported AMD graphics) I can use any modern Intel chip I want (including the i9-13900k) and, honestly, it screams.

 

[foo2]

2TB Mac Mini M2 (Non Pro) model is likely also limited. Someone said it was a PCI channel bandwidth limitation with the M2

Nothing to do with PCI channel bandwidth.

 

[SSDGUY]

Non-skid pad for the bottom of your mini:

NewerTech NuPad Base for 2010 and later Mac mini models and Mac Studio

Attach the rubber foot to the underside of your Mac mini or Mac Studio and you will never worry about your Mac skating across the desk again.

eshop.macsales.com

Under 5 bucks … not bad. I don't think I can DIY it for less.

 

[foo2]

Here is the most recent update on the SSD Speed Issue (I also updated my first post on this thread to reflect this, but am including it here for people who don't go back to the beginning of the thread to read):

Here are the updated SSD speeds for Mac Mini M2, Mac Mini M2 Pro, and 14" MacBook Pro M2 Pro and M2 Max:

Mac Mini M2 (non Pro) at 256GB SSD is about 1,500 MB/s. (1 x 256GB SSD nand chip)
Mac Mini M2 (non Pro) at 512GB SSD is about 3,000 MB/s. (2 x 256GB SSD nand chip)
Mac Mini M2 (non Pro) at 1TB is about 3,000 MB/s. (Not sure about nand chips/sizes)
Mac Mini M2 Pro at 512GB SSD is about 3,000 MB/s. (2 x 256GB SSD nand chip)
Mac Mini M2 Pro at 1TB SSD is about 6,000 MB/s. (4 x 256GB SSD nand chip)
Mac Mini M2 Pro at 2TB, 4TB, or 8TB SSD is about 6,000 MB/s. (This needs to be confirmed.)
14" MacBook M2 Pro with 512GB SSD is about 3,000 MB/s. (1 X 512GB SSD nand chip)
14" MacBook M2 Pro with 1TB SSD is about 6,000 MB/s. (2 X 512GB SSD nand chip)
14" MacBook M2 Max with 512GB SSD is about 3,000 MB/s. (1 X 512GB SSD nand chip)
14" MacBook M2 Max with 1TB SSD is about 6,000 MB/s. (2 X 512GB SSD nand chip)

Note: The 16" MacBook Pro models with 512GB should also be limited to 3,000 MB/s. The Mac Mini M2 (Non Pro) model appears to have a PCI controller limitation that limits the 512GB, 1TB, and 2TB SSD models to 3,000 MB/s.

Can you include the differences (if any) in random i/o for each of these? That would be vastly more useful to the majority, as that fits far more into the use case we use everyday. I've seen a few posts with such information, and I think gathering and reporting on that would be genuinely useful, rather than a top-speed benchmark that really only applies when copying large, flat files - a rare use case for most.

 

[adamw]

Here are the latest updated SSD speeds for Mac Mini M2, Mac Mini M2 Pro, and 14" MacBook Pro M2 Pro and M2 Max:

Mac Mini M2 (non Pro) at 256GB SSD is about 1,500 MB/s. (1 x 256GB SSD nand chip)
Mac Mini M2 (non Pro) at 512GB SSD is about 3,000 MB/s. (2 x 256GB SSD nand chip)
Mac Mini M2 (non Pro) at 1TB is about 3,000 MB/s. (Not sure about nand chips/sizes)
Mac Mini M2 Pro at 512GB SSD is about 3,000 MB/s. (2 x 256GB SSD nand chip)
Mac Mini M2 Pro at 1TB SSD is about 6,000 MB/s. (4 x 256GB SSD nand chip)
Mac Mini M2 Pro at 2TB, 4TB, or 8TB SSD is about 6,000 MB/s. (This needs to be confirmed.)
14" MacBook M2 Pro with 512GB SSD is about 3,000 MB/s. (2 X 256GB SSD nand chip)
14" MacBook M2 Pro with 1TB SSD is about 6,000 MB/s. (4 X 256GB SSD nand chip)
14" MacBook M2 Max with 512GB SSD is about 3,000 MB/s. (2 X 256GB SSD nand chip)
14" MacBook M2 Max with 1TB SSD is about 6,000 MB/s. (4 X 256GB SSD nand chip)

Note: The 16" MacBook Pro models with 512GB also appear to be limited to 3,000 MB/s. The Mac Mini M2 (Non Pro) model appears to be limited on the 512GB, 1TB, and 2TB SSD models to 3,000 MB/s.

Interesting New Video by Max Tech "M2 Pro Slow SSD's a BIG Problem? Real-World Apps Tested!", where they do more extensive testing on the Mac M2 Chips SSD issue:

 

[applebento]

@adamw Great summary, thanks!

Are there any signs of SSD speeds differing between the 10 and the 12 core Mac Mini M2 Pro?

At this point anything seems possible...

 

[adamw]

@adamw Great summary, thanks!

Are there any signs of SSD speeds differing between the 10 and the 12 core Mac Mini M2 Pro?

At this point anything seems possible...

Not that I'm aware of.

 

[ShufromChina]

That’s sweet. What’s your 8K screen? Is it an actual computer monitor or is it an 8K TV?

Sony 85" Z9J

 

[oneMadRssn]

Disappointed with the slower SSD speed. That was an unnecessary move by Apple. Still an impressive machine for what you pay for tho.

Everyone is talking about the slower speed, but not the increased reliability.

When Apple was splitting the storage into two chips, it was essentially running RAID0/JBOD. This provides a speed boost because it can in theory read/write to both chips simultaneously. But it also doubles the chances of failure, as the entire drive goes down if either of the chips fails. Say for example each single chip has an 0.25% odds of failure, then a combined the two-chip drive has 0.5% odds of failure whereas a single-chip drive has a 0.25% odds of failure. By using a single chip drive, you don't get that speed boost (but it's still ridiculously fast), but you also don't get the increased odds of failure. This could be framed as an improvement.

 

[drumcat]

Once again, stupid SSD, and not sealed.

 

[dogstar]

Yeah, I've run Ubuntu for years, but as a consumer / desktop OS I still think it's dead in the water. It's just too complicated, too "much", for most. Why would a consumer need to know about flatpaks and dockers and appimages? Why do I need to go through a special process to get Chrome (!!) installed via GUI? Why do I need to visit the commandline to work around an issue with the normal Ubuntu update mechanism in 22.4.1 whining about closing the updater in order to update itself, almost straight out of the box? There are just too many issues like this still.

Plus I don't have full photos / messages (chat) / etc. integration. That to me is the killer feature. If I didn't have full messages / SMS / etc. + photos integration in MacOS, it's far less likely I'd still be using it. But ... it's awesome.

I can get video, audio, 3D, and lots of other apps anywhere, on any platform. I can't get that chat, etc stuff (without a Mac VM and all kinds of nonsense) otherwise.

With a Hackintosh, one thing I like is that (as long as I don't use processor graphics, and I stick with supported AMD graphics) I can use any modern Intel chip I want (including the i9-13900k) and, honestly, it screams.

I agree but you don't sound like a normal user at all And I have a macbook pro m1 and I like the messages integration too, even if the messages app seems to lock up all the time on Mac OS..

 

[chucker23n1]

When Apple was splitting the storage into two chips, it was essentially running RAID0/JBOD. This provides a speed boost because it can in theory read/write to both chips simultaneously. But it also doubles the chances of failure, as the entire drive goes down if either of the chips fails. Say for example each single chip has an 0.25% odds of failure, then a combined the two-chip drive has 0.5% odds of failure whereas a single-chip drive has a 0.25% odds of failure. By using a single chip drive, you don't get that speed boost (but it's still ridiculously fast), but you also don't get the increased odds of failure. This could be framed as an improvement.

Apple isn’t running two SSDs in a RAID0. They’re running one SSD with either n cells (one chip) or n*2 cells (two chips).

 

[oneMadRssn]

Apple isn’t running two SSDs in a RAID0. They’re running one SSD with either n cells (one chip) or n*2 cells (two chips).

Explain, why is a two-chip SSD is faster than a one-chip SSD?

 

[chucker23n1]

Explain, why is a two-chip SSD is faster than a one-chip SSD?

Because of parallelization.

Your scenario is highly unlikely. What’s more likely is individual cells dying, which is why SSDs tend to overprovision. Even then, catastrophic data loss takes a long time to occur. Not within the typical lifetime of a device.

 

[spnc]

I today purchased at my local Apple Store a new Mac Mini M2 Pro (10 core CPU, 16 core GPU) $1,299 model. It has 512GB SSD, and I was surprised to find the SSD disk read and write speed at about 3,000 MB/s each. This compares with M2 Pro and M2 Max Macbook Pros I watched reviews on with about 6,000 MB/s. I wish Apple would have disclosed this, as my only option now is to order a BTO (Build To Order) custom Mac Mini to rectify this problem (and wait for them to send it to me from the factory in China.)

This appears to mean that all of the Mac Mini M2, and Mac Mini M2 Pro models, that are in stock at stores, will have either the 1,500 MB/s limit on 256GB SSD models, and around 3,000 MB/s limit on 512GB SSD models.

Influencers who received 1TB or larger SSD Mac Mini M2 Pro review models are reporting the normal 6,000+ MB/s SSD disk speed. I wonder is other online reviewers also got 1TB or larger SSD Macbook Pro M2 Pro/M2 Max models to review also.

Perhaps, Macbook Pro M2 Pro/Max models with 512GB SSD have the slower problem as the M2 Pro Stock Mac Mini model. This will create bad press for Apple all around. They release Macs with slower SSD drives on many of their retail in stock models in stores. I specifically bought the 512GB SSD Mac Mini M2 Pro model to avoid this kind of silliness that regular 256GB SSD M2 Macbook Airs and 13" Macbook Pro M2 model had. Now I found out that I am only getting half the speed that I should get due to penny pinching on the 512GB SSD chips by Apple...

A great video comparing the Mac Mini M2 and the Mac Mini M2 Pro base models in stock at stores, with benchmarks for the 256GB and 51GB SSD disk issue and other info:

Summary of what we know so far:

Get the 1TB Mac Mini M2 Pro to get 6000 MB/s SSD drive read/write speed, instead of the 3000 MB/s SSD drive read/write speed on the 512GB Mac Mini M2 Pro model (due to 2 SSD nand chips being used vs. 4 SSD nand chips on the 1TB Mac Mini M2 Pro model). The base 256GB Mac Mini M2 (non-Pro) only gets a 1,500 MB/s SSD drive read/write speed, per the above video's benchmarks, and other people reporting the same issue, which is due to Apple using only 1 256GB nand SSD chip in the Mac Mini M2 256GB model.

The SSD nand speed issue appears to not only affect the M2 and M2 Pro Mac Mini models, but also both the 14" and 16" MacBook Pro M2 Pro 512GB models as well!

Here are the latest updated SSD speeds for Mac Mini M2, Mac Mini M2 Pro, and 14" MacBook Pro M2 Pro and M2 Max:

Mac Mini M2 (non Pro) at 256GB SSD is about 1,500 MB/s. (1 x 256GB SSD nand chip)
Mac Mini M2 (non Pro) at 512GB SSD is about 3,000 MB/s. (2 x 256GB SSD nand chip)
Mac Mini M2 (non Pro) at 1TB is about 3,000 MB/s. (Not sure about nand chips/sizes)
Mac Mini M2 Pro at 512GB SSD is about 3,000 MB/s. (2 x 256GB SSD nand chip)
Mac Mini M2 Pro at 1TB SSD is about 6,000 MB/s. (4 x 256GB SSD nand chip)
Mac Mini M2 Pro at 2TB, 4TB, or 8TB SSD is about 6,000 MB/s. (This needs to be confirmed.)
14" MacBook M2 Pro with 512GB SSD is about 3,000 MB/s. (2 X 256GB SSD nand chip)
14" MacBook M2 Pro with 1TB SSD is about 6,000 MB/s. (4 X 256GB SSD nand chip)
14" MacBook M2 Max with 512GB SSD is about 3,000 MB/s. (2 X 256GB SSD nand chip)
14" MacBook M2 Max with 1TB SSD is about 6,000 MB/s. (4 X 256GB SSD nand chip)

Note: The 16" MacBook Pro models with 512GB also appear to be limited to 3,000 MB/s. The Mac Mini M2 (Non Pro) model appears to be limited on the 512GB, 1TB, and 2TB SSD models to 3,000 MB/s.

Interesting New Video by Max Tech "M2 Pro Slow SSD's a BIG Problem? Real-World Apps Tested!", where they do more extensive testing on the Mac M2 Chips SSD issue:

Latest Update with Further Testing about the SSD speed issue with some humor:

Final Update (hopefully) on this issue:

Everyone's needs and requirements are different. I appreciate all who posted on this forum thread about the nand SSD speed issue. I have learned so much, and can now make a better informed choice when buying new Macs going forward. Thanks to everyone who commented, especially those who suggested we look at all SSD speeds stats, such an Random Access speeds, in addition to the Sequential SSD speeds.

While I understand more now why Apple chose to go with single or double 256GB SSD nand chips in all their M2, M2 Pro, and M2 Max Macs, now we as consumers can better choose the SSD nand speed maximum that we want for current and future use of the particular Mac that we buy.

We can choose a $499 educational priced Mac Mini ($599 non-education) if we are on a very tight budget, and settle for an M2 with 8GB of Unified Memory, 256GB SSD drive with maximum 1,500 MB/s read/write Sequential speeds, or for an extra $200 each bump up either the RAM to 16GB, or increase the SSD to 512GB, with maximum 3,000 MB/s read/write Sequential speeds, or do both. Above 512GB on the Mac Mini M2 (Non Pro version) if you increase the SSD to 1TB or 2TB you still get 3000 MB/s maximum read/write Sequential speeds.

If we instead choose the $1,199 education priced Mac Mini Pro base model ($1,299 non-education), then we get a M2 Pro chip with 16GB Unified Memory and a 512GB SSD drive, with maximum 3,000 MB/s read/write Sequential speeds, or we can spend $200 more to get 1TB SSD storage, with maximum 6,000 MB/s read/write Sequential speeds. The 2TB, 4TB, and 8TB model of the Mac Mini M2 Pro will also benefit from the higher SSD speeds. Of course, we can upgrade the CPU to 12 cores for $300, upgrade the RAM to 32GB for $400 more, upgrade the Gigabit Ethernet port to 10Gbps for $100 more, etc. I recommend if we want to get a maxed out Mac Mini M2 Pro model, that we either get a Mac Studio M1 Max model which is now on clearance, or as a refurb, or wait and get a new Mac Studio M2 Max when they are released, as they will see significant GPU benefits, as we have now seen on the MacBook Pro M2 Max models.

We can also choose a MacBook Pro 14" or 16" M2 Pro or M2 Max model now, with a 512GB SSD drive having maximum 3,000 MB/s read/write Sequential speeds, or upgrade to a 1TB or larger SSD model, with maximum 6,000 MB/s read/write Sequential speeds, or we can get a clearance, refurb, or used MacBook Pro M1 Pro or M1 Max model with all models having faster SSD drives in them, without the 3,000 MB/s limitation.

I hope this helps everyone with a summary of where we are, to help us make the best buying decision for our needs.

Brilliant thanks for the summary. So we do need a MBP M2 Pro or Max to make sure large disks (eg. 8TB) are running with 6'000 MB/s read/write speeds. Good to know.

 

[adamw]

A new video just dropped about the SSD speed issue. The author goes into the most detail I've seen about this issue, although he focuses just on Sequential SSD RAM issue, not mentioning Random access speeds.

 

[chucker23n1]

"I expected a certain speed that Apple didn't actually claim" is not a "scam". It would be nice if the BTO options clarified that the SSD size also affects the SSD speed, but Apple never claimed that all sizes are the same speed.

 

[adamw]

"I expected a certain speed that Apple didn't actually claim" is not a "scam". It would be nice if the BTO options clarified that the SSD size also affects the SSD speed, but Apple never claimed that all sizes are the same speed.

The general sentiment I have seen is that many Apple customers are discouraged that the Sequential SSD speeds on the base SSD models of the new Mac Mini M2 (256GB), Mac Mini M2 Pro (512GB), and 14" and 16" MacBook Pro M2 Pro and M2 Max (512GB) models get less Sequential SSD speeds than some of the previous Mac models, including the 2018 Intel Mac Mini, 2020 Mac Mini M1 256GB and higher models, and previous MacBook Pro M1 Pro and M1 Max base models. Some people are disappointed that Apple is selling products with slower SSD drives, due to using a single or double 256GB SSD nand chip, instead of Apple using at least double the amount of 128GB SSD nand chips in previous models, which resulted in faster Sequential SSD read/write speeds. Who wants to buy a new product that has slower rated speeds on a SSD drive? It is like a buyer's remorse issue.

 

[foo2]

The general sentiment I have seen is that many Apple customers are discouraged that the Sequential SSD speeds on the base SSD models of the new Mac Mini M2 (256GB), Mac Mini M2 Pro (512GB), and 14" and 16" MacBook Pro M2 Pro and M2 Max (512GB) models get less Sequential SSD speeds than some of the previous Mac models, including the 2018 Intel Mac Mini, 2020 Mac Mini M1 256GB and higher models, and previous MacBook Pro M1 Pro and M1 Max base models. Some people are disappointed that Apple is selling products with slower SSD drives, due to using a single or double 256GB SSD nand chip, instead of Apple using at least double the amount of 128GB SSD nand chips in previous models, which resulted in faster Sequential SSD read/write speeds. Who wants to buy a new product that has slower rated speeds on a SSD drive? It is like a buyer's remorse issue.

Would it have been better to reuse what the M1 had, so thus you’d have slower random io, so slower operations in what most people do most of the time? Is that the better answer? What should Apple have done?

Nobody posts disk benchmarks. If they change disk providers that would become a nightmare, and my recollection is Apple has used different disk specs in the past.

To me this feels like a blame game for the sake of a blame game (or mouse clicks and YouTube monetization, perhaps). I think it’s reasonable that more expensive products are faster, and I think it’s typical in the SSD industry that higher capacity is faster.

I also think it’s reasonable that people wait for benchmarks before buying; some people jumped the gun and if they were making that choice (about something important to them personally; not saying I agree, necessarily) before they had the facts, that’s on them.

 

[chucker23n1]

The general sentiment I have seen is that many Apple customers are discouraged that the Sequential SSD speeds on the base SSD models of the new Mac Mini M2 (256GB), Mac Mini M2 Pro (512GB), and 14" and 16" MacBook Pro M2 Pro and M2 Max (512GB) models get less Sequential SSD speeds than some of the previous Mac models, including the 2018 Intel Mac Mini, 2020 Mac Mini M1 256GB and higher models, and previous MacBook Pro M1 Pro and M1 Max base models. Some people are disappointed that Apple is selling products with slower SSD drives, due to using a single or double 256GB SSD nand chip, instead of Apple using at least double the amount of 128GB SSD nand chips in previous models, which resulted in faster Sequential SSD read/write speeds. Who wants to buy a new product that has slower rated speeds on a SSD drive? It is like a buyer's remorse issue.

And that's all fair, but it doesn't make it a "scam". (I also don't entirely buy it. If disk speed is important enough to you that you notice the difference between 3 GiB/s and 6 GiB/s, I imagine you're very likely to also want more disk capacity. Therefore, this issue in practice affects very few people.)

 

[Tagbert]

And that's all fair, but it doesn't make it a "scam". (I also don't entirely buy it. If disk speed is important enough to you that you notice the difference between 3 GiB/s and 6 GiB/s, I imagine you're very likely to also want more disk capacity. Therefore, this issue in practice affects very few people.)

But it does make it a "scam" on YouTube where revenues are directly related to the number of scare words in the episode title. I've listened to interviews with YouTube reviewers where they explained that simple and factual headlines get less than half the clicks and views as inflammatory headlines. That has direct financial impact on those interviews and is a significant motivator to do hot takes and scary headlines.

I don't doubt that is change is a disappointment to some people and may affect performance for some. For many people it may not have much real world impact. This does highlight, once again, that Apple sucks at communication when the story is less than positive.

 

[chucker23n1]

But it does make it a "scam" on YouTube where revenues are directly related to the number of scare words in the episode title. I've listened to interviews with YouTube reviewers where they explained that simple and factual headlines get less than half the clicks and views as inflammatory headlines. That has direct financial impact on those interviews and is a significant motivator to do hot takes and scary headlines.

I don't doubt that is change is a disappointment to some people and may affect performance for some. For many people it may not have much real world impact. This does highlight, once again, that Apple sucks at communication when the story is less than positive.

It's possible that they can't, because they might multi-source their SSDs (or plan to leave it open as a possibility), and thus the answer to "will this SSD have one or two chips and therefore have half or full speed" is complicated.

If that's not the case and they always use one chip: just prefix the standard SSD option with "fast" and all others with "fastest".

 

[NeonNights]

Here's what I don't get. I have the base Studio model and it SHOULD either be faster or comparable to the m2 Mac Mini but when I run Speedometer I'm getting very different results (see screenshot) What is this due to???? Browser View attachment 2147658 ? Monitor? Tabs?

That is really bizarre you're only getting a score of 230.

Just got my base Mac Studio a couple of days ago. I don't remember which version of MacOS was loaded from factory but it originally scored in the 270s on Speedometer 2.0. After updating to Ventura 13.2 I'm seeing 377.

 

[foo2]

420-ish on 8/256 M2 Mini, $499.

 

[NeonNights]

420-ish on 8/256 M2 Mini, $499.

Great score but that base Mini isn't gonna handle my app development, VM use, and photo/video editing needs quite as well.

As long as you know your needs, and have proper expectations, $499 is phenomenal for a very decent Mac and a better deal than my base M1 Mini for sure. Enjoy!