The board only has space and wiring for 2 NAND’s, that’s the best it will ever get even for 2TB BTO.
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
Someone needs to do a side by side full performance comparison between the
M2 Mac mini 8/256
M2 Mac mini 8/512
Yes we know he 256 has one chip, but, what are the specifics of the BASE M2 8/512, is that extra $200 really worth it?
Mine is on back order, but, need to know today which one to get, that extra $200 is not in my budget
M2 Mac mini 8/256
M2 Mac mini 8/512
Yes we know he 256 has one chip, but, what are the specifics of the BASE M2 8/512, is that extra $200 really worth it?
Mine is on back order, but, need to know today which one to get, that extra $200 is not in my budget
Slightly off topic here, but does anyone know what the SSD speeds were in the original M1 13" 8GB RAM/500GB SSD Touchbar MacBookPro?
I've often repeated my experience here that I once pounded an 8GB 13" M1 with my full workflow that included concurrent running of Parallels, Windows, a Web server, PHPStorm, Capture One Pro, sometimes XCode, and more. I was stunned that this very hardcore test drive from hell didn't go up in flames on me and it completely changed my mind on how much RAM the average user really needs. I consumed buckets of swap space for most of 2 weeks and barely noticed it.
If the SSD speeds between that model and current day base models differ a lot, I might have to change my mind on either the importance of more RAM or the SSD speed. Granted, no average user is running Windows 10 over Parallels or XCode on their own much less at the same time.
I've often repeated my experience here that I once pounded an 8GB 13" M1 with my full workflow that included concurrent running of Parallels, Windows, a Web server, PHPStorm, Capture One Pro, sometimes XCode, and more. I was stunned that this very hardcore test drive from hell didn't go up in flames on me and it completely changed my mind on how much RAM the average user really needs. I consumed buckets of swap space for most of 2 weeks and barely noticed it.
If the SSD speeds between that model and current day base models differ a lot, I might have to change my mind on either the importance of more RAM or the SSD speed. Granted, no average user is running Windows 10 over Parallels or XCode on their own much less at the same time.
Last edited:
There's another thread showing the M2 Pro Mini has a larger circuit board with up to 8 channels (4 NAND per side). It has been reported the M2 Pro Mini with 1 TB hits the 6000mb/sec range.
The M2 Mini tops out at 2TB but the M2 Pro models can be configured with up to 8TB, achieved through more memory channels/NAND chips for faster speed.
Last edited:
So, it is 1/2 the speed of the M2 mini Pro 1TB? Does that make sense? Thought it would be the same speed as the Pro 1TB SD.
Here are the benchmarks from yesterday:
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...gb-vs-512gb-single-nand.2377687/post-31906521
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...s.2378187/page-14?post=31908552#post-31908552
2018 Intel Write: 1627
2018 Intel Read: 2485
2020 256GB M1 Write: 2733
2020 256GB M1 Read: 2854
2023 256GB M2 Write: 1431
2023 256GB M2 Read: 1482
2023 512GB M2 Write: 3417
2023 512GB M2 Read: 2987
The M1 is a far superior machine to the Intel Mini in every way (even for practical things like boot). If your budget only allows for a base model, consider the base M1 Mini for $500-$550:
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/mac-mi...mory-256gb-ssd-silver/6427497.p?skuId=6427497
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1604799-REG/apple_mgnr3ll_a_mac_mini.html
https://www.adorama.com/acmgnr3lla.html (may be able to price match)
But to actually address your question - I have not seen anyone compare the 256GB with the 512GB yet. I think MaxTech or some other YouTuber eventually will but you'll have to wait. But I think the benchmarks above indicate that the base M2 is not worth it. You're better off buying a base M1 if budget is an issue.
Last edited:
Just for comparison sake: My 2017 iMac is dead and I've been waiting for the M2 Mac Minis. In the mean time I'm using a 2010 MacBook (the big heavy white one) running High Sierra with 8GB of RAM and a 250 GB WD Blue SSD (WDS250G1B0A). It's perfectly fine for every day use. In fact, when I cranked it up I was surprised at how responsive it is. Played a 1080p video on an external 1080p monitor (HDMI) flawlessly.
Times change.
BTW - M2 Mac Minis still not available here in Thailand.
Times change.
BTW - M2 Mac Minis still not available here in Thailand.
If Google Translate is correct, you are asking about M2 Pro 512GB 16GB speeds? This person has created a table of the speeds: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ds-than-previous-models.2378187/post-31908457
Thanks for your info, the SSD Speed of M2 Pro 512GB is 3000MB/s, which is good enough for me.
I am afraid if it is only 1500MB/s.
So for those who want to see actual tests between the 256 & 512 base models of the M2 Mac mini, I watched this last night:
However, while most recommend getting the 512 version, he’s saying, if you need the speed, get 16GB RAM. Now, both are correct, if you have the 8GB model, and you start doing intensive tasks that exceed 8GB it will begin using the NAND(s) to swap RAM, so, having the 512 version will be faster, but, he’s also correct, in that if you have 16GB of RAM, that will be harder to max out and need to swap RAM with the NAND(s), but, if you do exceed 16GB, (only power users will), and you only have one NAND (256) it will slow things down. Personally, IMHO, if the extra $200 is more than your budget, I think the 512 is the better option, even though in a couple years it may be easier to max out 8GB, no matter how much you need past that, it will be faster than getting a slowdown with the 256. …if you have the $ and don’t care about cost, you may want to go with 16GB and 512…more than 512 is not necessary, having 1 or 2TB will not be any faster here (base model, not pro), as you won’t need it for swapping ram and you can get an external SSD for more storage, and it will be as fast as you want depending on type, (USB 3-thunderbolt 4, etc).
You wouldn’t know from the title, but here’s the answer most in this thread have been looking for.
However, while most recommend getting the 512 version, he’s saying, if you need the speed, get 16GB RAM. Now, both are correct, if you have the 8GB model, and you start doing intensive tasks that exceed 8GB it will begin using the NAND(s) to swap RAM, so, having the 512 version will be faster, but, he’s also correct, in that if you have 16GB of RAM, that will be harder to max out and need to swap RAM with the NAND(s), but, if you do exceed 16GB, (only power users will), and you only have one NAND (256) it will slow things down. Personally, IMHO, if the extra $200 is more than your budget, I think the 512 is the better option, even though in a couple years it may be easier to max out 8GB, no matter how much you need past that, it will be faster than getting a slowdown with the 256. …if you have the $ and don’t care about cost, you may want to go with 16GB and 512…more than 512 is not necessary, having 1 or 2TB will not be any faster here (base model, not pro), as you won’t need it for swapping ram and you can get an external SSD for more storage, and it will be as fast as you want depending on type, (USB 3-thunderbolt 4, etc).
RAM is hundreds to thousands of times faster than even the fastest SSD; there's just no comparison; any SSD speed (6000, 3000, 1500) absolutely crawls compared to keeping the application in RAM.
Help me understand - why exactly is the 512GB drive suggested over the 16GB of RAM, for those who might use it?
From the field tests of the M2 Air it was already well established that if someone has no storage needs above 256GB, then between 16+256 vs 8+512, the 16+256 will definitely give better performance across the board.
The only argument with going for the 8+512 is that it is a standard SKU where you can readily get stock and discounts elsewhere than Apple.
A little bit off topic maybe. I am considering adding a M2 Mac mini to my household and am doubting between the 512 GB and 1 TB options.
When I check Disk Utility on my M1 MB Pro (1 TB) I get 995 GB volume size of which 565 GB used. I was wondering what this 565 GB of data comprises and used Tree Size to check. Tree Size tells me there is 135 GB used in applications, files and documents and that there is 393 GB free out of 926 GB.
I understand the difference in GB calculation (1000 versus 1024 bytes per kB) but if my files, applications and documents are only 135 GB, then what is the rest occupying so much space?
Apart from the speed, my apps, docs and files could justify the 256 GB, so 512 GB for some overhead. But based on the above I would need a 1 TB....
Any ideas?
When I check Disk Utility on my M1 MB Pro (1 TB) I get 995 GB volume size of which 565 GB used. I was wondering what this 565 GB of data comprises and used Tree Size to check. Tree Size tells me there is 135 GB used in applications, files and documents and that there is 393 GB free out of 926 GB.
I understand the difference in GB calculation (1000 versus 1024 bytes per kB) but if my files, applications and documents are only 135 GB, then what is the rest occupying so much space?
Apart from the speed, my apps, docs and files could justify the 256 GB, so 512 GB for some overhead. But based on the above I would need a 1 TB....
Any ideas?
Last edited:
I was torn between the 256/16 and the 512/16 but seeing the difference I'm going with the 512 since I keep my machines for as long as they still receive security updates. The extra $200 spread out over 8-10 years is pretty minor for double the speed.
Yes but 130 GB in files docs and apps and 565 Gb used? 565-130=435 GB in iOS backups?? And the backups are in the library folder and counted for in te 130 GB...
Am not saying you are wrong, am just saying I don't get it based on the information I have.
Yes, there's probably more to it. Your post just reminded how I cleared several hundred GBs worth of iOS backups recently. At first I couldn't figure what was occupying all that space and I had ruled out everything else.
Are you also syncing a bunch of iCloud photos/videos? IIRC, on my M1 MBA Final Cut Pro also had a couple of project files consuming 140 GB. Not sure if you use FCP or not.
But Apple's genius pricing structure will have you immediately looking at $300 more straight up to the M2 Pro base model. The pricing makes you feel ripped off by upgrading the M2 mini to 16/512 but feel like getting a good deal by getting the M2 Pro base since you get the bonus of better chip, 2 more thunderbolts, and then HDMI2.1.
Apple's marketing is good.
Nevermind that for the majority, they will see zero increase in speed in most day to day things (after all, in ALL the M2 chips, the per-core CPU speed is exactly the same), and they use such things that would take advantage of the extra 2 cores and extra memory bandwidth (for the GPU, primarily) so rarely, the money's just wasted for most.
They just tell everyone how fast their new Mac is.
For most, faster CPU speed meaning faster per-core speeds would be of more benefit vs more cores.
Yes this is such an engineered dilemma. Before the M2 Pro mini existed which was just a week ago, the M1 base mini costed 100$ more, and the 16/512GB config was still considered a good deal since the step up is already a Mac Studio, even with discounts it costs 50% more.Apple's marketing is good.
Nevermind that for the majority, they will see zero increase in speed in most day to day things (after all, in ALL the M2 chips, the per-core CPU speed is exactly the same), and they use such things that would take advantage of the extra 2 cores and extra memory bandwidth (for the GPU, primarily) so rarely, the money's just wasted for most.
They just tell everyone how fast their new Mac is.
For most, faster CPU speed meaning faster per-core speeds would be of more benefit vs more cores.
On one hand I am glad Apple is now giving so many options leaving no gaps in between, but on the other hand they are really desperate in upselling us to higher pricing tiers.
Well, I guess you solved the mystery although I can't explain it.
After some deeper digging I found that in my users library folder there is a 75 GB Group Containers folder (contains One Drive data) and there is also a 73 GB Cloud storage folder, also containing OneDrive data. TreeSize gives me 169 GB of use for my user account but when I do a Get Info in finder on my user folder it says 497 GB in use... that explains the difference.
The difference is occupied by 12 GB (edit: 120 GB!) of phone backups 135 GB of Pictures and some other stuff. For one reason or another TreeSize doesn't scan those folders even though they are not excluded...
Anyway, means I need to get myself the 1 TB version
Last edited: