has ifixit tear down these mini machines and check the NAND SSDs? are they 1 or 2 for base modes (M2 and Pro)l and other higer models as well?
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.
M2 Mac Mini Storage: 256GB vs 512GB single NAND?
- Thread starter Mity
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In other words, a 16GB/256GB setup is considerably faster than an 8GB/512GB setup in the testing they used (Adobe products), which makes sense.
I find the discussion on disk speeds to be a bit silly. Actual benchmarks show what is important - get RAM, don’t worry as much about disk.
Unless… can someone show a difference in performance, 256GB vs 512GB disk?
The video in reply #20 shows a comprehensive story of someone screwed by a base M2 Air on task that the base M1 Air was fine with. So both at 8GB 256GB with the M2 supposedly have performance to remedy the NAND number difference (Apple's words).
Look for benchmarks of the 256GB SSD on Mac mini M2 please. Still haven't seen a single one!!!
There is complaining about nothing. All that was seen from the teardown was that it has a NAND chip but it is not known with what performance.
For now it could be:
Mac mini M2 256GB = 1500MB/sec.
While these are certain data:
Mac mini M2 Pro 512GB = 3000MB/sec.
Mac mini M2 Pro 1TB = 6000MB/sec
There is complaining about nothing. All that was seen from the teardown was that it has a NAND chip but it is not known with what performance.
For now it could be:
Mac mini M2 256GB = 1500MB/sec.
While these are certain data:
Mac mini M2 Pro 512GB = 3000MB/sec.
Mac mini M2 Pro 1TB = 6000MB/sec
Yes we are all waiting for actual field test, but, we can already conjecture quite confidently since the base M2 Air was benched at 1500MB/s while having virtually the same logical NAND layout as the base M2 mini.
I agree. Apple have gone cheap, which I understand. The problem is the lack of communication about their decision and what the impact is to the user if they want maximum performance for their use case. The community shouldn't have to buy every stock and CTO machine just to find out what the specs and performance are.
The mini Pro being half the I/O performance of the MBP 14/16 without informing buyers is really disgusting.
It's about time!!! Finally!!! Did it take so long?!
Same performance as the Mac mini 2018 256GB SSD and no one ever complained. For an entry level it's good enough! Those who complain that they want more performance get the 512GB and stop complaining please.
Half the performance of the M1. Nobody here is comparing to a 5 year old platform. According to what we are hearing, it's questionable you can get dual channel unless you buy a 2TB model. Apple really clustered this.
It does not matter at all if it is half of M1. The basic Mac mini is meant for basic things. Not for heavy graphics programs or continuous benchmarking. There is no noticeable difference. Anyone who says otherwise is in bad faith.
I just went back to the 2021 M1 Pro 14" teardown, its 512GB config actually had 4 pieces of 128GB NANDs.
Say a ~1500MB/s is for a single NAND, then it seems the M2 Pro mini base is already using 2 with 3400MB/s. However we already know the base M2 Pro 14" is using 4 since it reaches almost 7000MB/s.
Judging by the ability of the M2 Pro mini to also spec to 8TB matching the 14" 16", I am confident that its logic board does have space for 4 NANDs but the base only uses 2.
If Apple is min-maxing its SSD sourcing with 256GB modules as lowest denominator, then we can conjecture that the M2 mini with two spaces will take 512GB config to be filled, then the M2 Pro mini will need 1TB. (btw it doesn't explain why the 14" can have 4 NANDs of 128GB still, maybe Apple reserves this for the MBP)
Say a ~1500MB/s is for a single NAND, then it seems the M2 Pro mini base is already using 2 with 3400MB/s. However we already know the base M2 Pro 14" is using 4 since it reaches almost 7000MB/s.
Judging by the ability of the M2 Pro mini to also spec to 8TB matching the 14" 16", I am confident that its logic board does have space for 4 NANDs but the base only uses 2.
If Apple is min-maxing its SSD sourcing with 256GB modules as lowest denominator, then we can conjecture that the M2 mini with two spaces will take 512GB config to be filled, then the M2 Pro mini will need 1TB. (btw it doesn't explain why the 14" can have 4 NANDs of 128GB still, maybe Apple reserves this for the MBP)
One of us certainly trying to muddy this thread and it isn't me.
You claimed that MKBHD was referencing MaxTech. That is False!
"And we actually noticed this using it so I highly, highly recommend upgrading from that base to at least 512GB of storage."
You claimed you Dan Seifert didn't run his own benchmarks and was getting his results from MaxTech. That is False!
"In my benchmark testing, the 512GB M2 Air outguns the M1 model in every test, though the differences aren’t especially stark..."
You also claimed that he didn't test the base Air. That is False!
"We were able to test a base model Air with 8GB of RAM and 256GB of storage and sure enough, the storage is a lot slower than the prior M1 Air or M2 models with 512GB."
You claimed that the Air isn't mean for video editing. That is False!
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...gb-vs-512gb-single-nand.2377687/post-31901005
You tried to conflate the Macrumors video on the M2 Air that I linked by linking this video on the M2 Pro vs the M1 Pro. Did you think that I wouldn't notice? And even though this thread was originally about the Mini's specs, it turned into an Air thread since we needed a proxy for the base M2. Why switch to the Pro all of the sudden? Because the articles that I had linked couldn't validate your claims. That's unethical.
You provided Monica's one-liner about she's able to "open apps" but no mention is made about actually using the apps. That's unethical because a person reading it going to interpret opening an app with using it. Opening Photoshop is not the same as editing photos on it. The closest we have to this are the benchmarks Dan and MaxTech ran but you say that "I won't watch a bunch of YouTube videos to prove this one way or the other." If you don't want to listen to reviews, then what will you use?
I don't know whether you've been deliberately providing false information or whether you've genuinely made mistakes.
Thanks for uploading this. The speeds on the M2 Mini are actually slower than the 2018 Intel Mini according to this benchmark test.
The baseline for comparison for the M2 is the M1, not the 4-yr old Intel model. It's normal to expect benchmarks to improve, not worsen.
2018 Intel Write: 1627
2018 Intel Read: 2485
2020 M1 Write: 2733
2020 M1 Read: 2854
2023 M2 Write: 1431
2023 M2 Read: 1482
So is it safe to assume that the M2 Pro Mac Mini 2023 will need a minimum of 1TB storage for the same read/write speeds as the 512GB MacBook Pros?
I will cancel my order once confirmed. This disappoints me greatly.
I will cancel my order once confirmed. This disappoints me greatly.
One more interesting data:
This guy got a base M2 Pro mini, and testing it side-by-side against a base M1 mini with only the 16GB upgrade so the SSD is 256GB but dual NANDs.
The BlackMagic speed test results are so close, you can just call them identical.
This further confirms the M2 Pro mini being dual NAND default, while possibly having ability to config to 4 NANDs with higher capacity BTO (or not, we need teardowns to confirm).
Last edited:
I was also trying to decide between the 512GB and the 1TB and now I'm going to wait for teardowns to make sure I make the right choice: M1, M2 Pro 1TB or wait next year for M3.
No I didn't, quote me.
No I didn't, quote me.
You see this is about the 512GB model, right? Right there in what you quoted! Again, you can't keep track of what data goes with which models...
He didn't. Chin did. Exactly as I said. (Note: that underline in their article isn't for emphasis, it's a link).
No I didn't, quote me.
No I linked it after saying "they provided their results here:" specifically so that you would notice. If that qualifies as a slick maneuver in your book then it explains why so many of these review details slipped by.
Because the 13" Pro and the Air have the same configuration, that's why. Seriously, look it up. Study the subject you're trying to understand.
I'm not sure what to even make of that accusation after all the words you just tried to put in my mouth. I've spent way too much of my time trying to help you tease apart what is and isn't important about these different benchmarks and explaining what each of the reviews you're referencing actually talks about.
For example, you keep talking about how Seifert's and Chin's reviews prove the base Air doesn't stack up when they're referring to systems with 512GB drives and Chin is referring a Pro which you say with one side of your mouth we shouldn't discuss and with the other that it makes your point-- and both sides of your mouth somehow manage to get it wrong.
No I didn't. That was one test among many, which I quoted as a full paragraph. Claiming otherwise is unethical. Quote me.
That deserved to be put in bold because I think a lot of people might miss that point.
I rarely watch YouTube reviews because they're serial and it takes too darn long to find the information you're looking for and then almost as long to find it again a second time.
I've already looked at that absurd MaxTech review in detail and the amount of ******** per minute is just off the charts. I will never again waste my time on it unless I need a practical example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I also won't bother to respond to any other review that bases it's conclusions on that MT video without engaging their own critical thinking.
I read Seifert's review which is how I know it doesn't support your point. He's reviewing a 512GB machine which has 2 NAND chips and is completely irrelevant to your comments-- did you read to his review?!. Why, after I've pointed this out, can you still not grasp this?
*sigh*
Last edited:
This review confirms the M2 Pro mini 1TB is with 4 NANDs. The additional performance of the MBPs maybe due to the Max chip being better at handling SSD data links than the Pro chip (we got a thread somewhere here discussing this). The Studio is also on M1 Max but is lower than MBP was thought to do with their use of SSD boards, which are further away from the SoC than if you solder them close.