Does anyone have a unit to test? Every review I see with disk speed tests have souped up models. I’m wondering if the M3 with 256 still has the lower speeds of the M2 generation.
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.
M3 iMac 256GB SSD speed
- Thread starter thingstoponder
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
He appears to be using too small file sizes. You can see on Blackmagic, which appears briefly before the screenshot you took, the scores are lower.
I cannot speak for the iMac, but with a notebook, Going from a smaller 256 to say something like a one terabyte, you’ll see a noticeable increased in speed.
If you recently migrated over your files and settings, its probably still indexing the files. There's impact on read/write speeds.
If you only require 256GB in the system, I would never upgrade the storage solely for a difference in sequential max throughput speed - because let's face it, with only 256GB you are probably not going to be doing lots of really large file reads or writes.
I would love to see some benchmarks using AmorphousDiskMark (which is in the Mac App Store) and be able to see the difference in random 4k read and write. This is way more important for perceived system feel than the maximum throughput sequential read and write numbers.
And I am going to be completely honest - regardless of what the benchmarks say, outside of really large file transfers, for a properly configured system I would bet that you would not be able to notice a difference between your iMac and one that had storage that was twice as fast. Of course a properly configured system would be one that has the correct amount of RAM and is not totally dependent on heavily swapping to disk.
I would love to see some benchmarks using AmorphousDiskMark (which is in the Mac App Store) and be able to see the difference in random 4k read and write. This is way more important for perceived system feel than the maximum throughput sequential read and write numbers.
And I am going to be completely honest - regardless of what the benchmarks say, outside of really large file transfers, for a properly configured system I would bet that you would not be able to notice a difference between your iMac and one that had storage that was twice as fast. Of course a properly configured system would be one that has the correct amount of RAM and is not totally dependent on heavily swapping to disk.
Is it a M3 iMac with SSD size? Never mind, I see you posted on the order thread 1 TB with 24GB Ram
Last edited:
Ugh of course. Thanks.
Yes upgraded models have better speeds. The 512 in the MacBook Pro with M3 is twice as fast. The 256 models are slower because they only put one NAND stack in the computer instead of two which double the bandwidth.
Brookzy wrote:
"M1 256 read 2700 write 1500.
M3 256 read 1500 write 1500.
Not sure why. Slightly disappointing."
I know why.
It's similar to the "speed differences" seen in the m2 Minis and MacBook Pros.
When the Minis were released, buyers were reporting that the internal SSDs in "the base configurations" were... slower.
The reason seems to be that in the newer SSDs, Apple is using a single "chip" in the base configurations (where in earlier versions the base configurations had used two). The result is although the drive has the same "capacity" as before, the change to a single chip slows down the read speeds.
On the other hand, if you were to buy "the next speed up" (i.e, go from 256gb to 512gb), the Mac would have TWO drive chips instead of one -- and also have the faster read speeds that previous models had.
So... the "solution"... is to NOT BUY the base model, but to special order the iMac with a 512gb SSD (I think this adds $200 to the price). Then you get the faster speeds, as well.
"M1 256 read 2700 write 1500.
M3 256 read 1500 write 1500.
Not sure why. Slightly disappointing."
I know why.
It's similar to the "speed differences" seen in the m2 Minis and MacBook Pros.
When the Minis were released, buyers were reporting that the internal SSDs in "the base configurations" were... slower.
The reason seems to be that in the newer SSDs, Apple is using a single "chip" in the base configurations (where in earlier versions the base configurations had used two). The result is although the drive has the same "capacity" as before, the change to a single chip slows down the read speeds.
On the other hand, if you were to buy "the next speed up" (i.e, go from 256gb to 512gb), the Mac would have TWO drive chips instead of one -- and also have the faster read speeds that previous models had.
So... the "solution"... is to NOT BUY the base model, but to special order the iMac with a 512gb SSD (I think this adds $200 to the price). Then you get the faster speeds, as well.
Sorry.
Yes, my iMac 24 M3 with 1TB gets at read and write 3000.
And my MacBook Pro M1 with 512 GB gets about 5000.
Well, I'm going to refund this iMac and buy upgraded model.
First, 8gb of RAM is not enough for me , I trusted Apple that time...
But as a matter of fact, the computer is slowing down because I always have tons of things opened. Really, 8 gb is terrible today, how can Apple say it's enough
I'm going to upgrade 16 gb of RAM + 1 TB of SSD, my wallet is going to die but it's better for future
First, 8gb of RAM is not enough for me , I trusted Apple that time...
But as a matter of fact, the computer is slowing down because I always have tons of things opened. Really, 8 gb is terrible today, how can Apple say it's enough
I'm going to upgrade 16 gb of RAM + 1 TB of SSD, my wallet is going to die but it's better for future
Kindly let's do the tests with the same software, we use this one which is free https://apps.apple.com/us/app/amorphousdiskmark/id1168254295?mt=12
Here is the test of my iMac M3 16GB Ram, 1TB SSD, updated in Sonoma.
Here is the test of my iMac M3 16GB Ram, 1TB SSD, updated in Sonoma.
Attachments
And unless you have some very specific use cases, you would never, ever know in real life. Unless you're a benchmark jockey.
I originally ordered a 1 TB BTO but then changed it to 512 GB. I am adding this hub with a 1 TB NVMe M.2 SSD
It is a lot more bang for the buck then apple tax on SSD with a nice hub.
It is a lot more bang for the buck then apple tax on SSD with a nice hub.
USB C HUB for iMac 24 inch 2021/2023, PULWTOP 7 in 1 USB Hub Adapter iMac Accessories for iMac M1/M3 with USB C 10Gbps 3*USB A SD/TF, Docking Station Support Expand M.2 SSD (Not Included),Blue
7 in 1 USB C Laptop Docking Station Dual Monitor Hub for iMac , Plug and play, no need to install any driver or software. 1x USB 3.2 & 1x USB C ports, up to 10Gbp/s connect smartphones, tablets, and hard drives for effortless data transfer with a USB port. 1x USB 2.0, speed up to 150mb/s, it all...
www.amazon.com
Crucial P5 Plus 1TB PCIe Gen4 3D NAND NVMe M.2 Gaming SSD, up to 6600MB/s - CT1000P5PSSD8 Solid State Drive
Are you ready for next-gen performance? The Crucial P5 Plus SSD delivers remarkable speed and data protection with sequential reads up to 6600MB/s for transformative computing. Engineered by Micron with the latest Gen4 NVMe technology, the Crucial P5 Plus includes advanced features like full hard...
www.amazon.com
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I think upgrading solely based on getting 16GB RAM instead of 8GB RAM is completely justified - that is where the biggest deficiency is - especially with smaller / slower SSDs and massive swapping.
I think @RokinAmerica has this correct in regards to the difference in speed.
It's great to see the benchmarks from the two different storage configurations. Thanks for posting these!
I contend that the last line of those benchmarks tells the whole story in perceived feel in most scenarios between the two SSDs.
At the end of the day, the iMac really needs to be configured in a way that makes you happy, since the beautiful display is built-in and the system can't be swapped out. If you can find any justification to upgrade the RAM or storage, and it doesn't break the bank, then I think it is more than justified.
@Lyndon92 I hope you enjoy your new 16GB / 1TB iMac M3 - I am jealous 🙃
I think @RokinAmerica has this correct in regards to the difference in speed.
It's great to see the benchmarks from the two different storage configurations. Thanks for posting these!
Here is the test of my iMac M3 16GB Ram, 1TB SSD, updated in Sonoma.
Here are my results, we can see a huge difference compared to yours.
I contend that the last line of those benchmarks tells the whole story in perceived feel in most scenarios between the two SSDs.
At the end of the day, the iMac really needs to be configured in a way that makes you happy, since the beautiful display is built-in and the system can't be swapped out. If you can find any justification to upgrade the RAM or storage, and it doesn't break the bank, then I think it is more than justified.
@Lyndon92 I hope you enjoy your new 16GB / 1TB iMac M3 - I am jealous 🙃
Because most of the humans on this planet today are not power users.
Really, most people just do email, maybe check a few news sites on the web. The adventurous do video calls with their relatives or employer.
The people who post on MacRumors are abnormal.
I just received a new Acasis TBU401 Thunderbolt NVMe enclosure and a Lexar 790 4TB NVMe drive and ran AmorphousDiskMark on it. I will be using this as an alternative boot drive and the speeds are pretty good. The enclosure was about $100 (with coupon) and the 4TB drive was $188.
This is always an alternative for those who don't want to pay extra for Apple storage. I would imagine there must be a way to mount this behind an iMac so that it is essentially invisible.
This is always an alternative for those who don't want to pay extra for Apple storage. I would imagine there must be a way to mount this behind an iMac so that it is essentially invisible.