New 256GB Mac Mini and 512GB MacBook Pro Have Slower SSD Speeds Than Previous Models

[CalMin]

View attachment 2147770

I'm running out of RAM without even trying hard.

Is your machine noticeably slower though? I have an 8GB machine and a 16GB and they never slow down to the point where I notice it. These memory indicators in Activity monitor give you the impression that you're low on RAM, but MacOS will use everything available as much as it can even when just a few apps are open.

 

[icemantx]

Has anyone seen tests of the 2TB M2 Mac Mini Pro in comparison to the prior 2TB M1 Mac Mini or the lower SSD sizes of the M2?

 

[whodiini]

Its pretty clear that at 1500MB/sec , one is better off getting an external SSD. A Hynix P31 500GB is $46, 1TB is $90. A 1000MB/sec enclosure is $25, a 1500 MB/sec enclosure is $70 and a 2500 MB/sec enclosure is $100. So for $200, the cost of 512MB from Apple you can get 1TB and faster speed. The place to consider spending $ is the 16GB memory upgrade, 16GB and for most people, you will not be swapping memory to disk. I run windows via parallels, firefox, outlook, excel, immessage, and that uses about 20 GB.

 

[cassmr]

You didn't look hard enough.

I've been through the whole thread.

Of examples of impact there is:

- Speculation that paging will be half as fast
- Max tech video with examples of the m2 macbook pro (13inch) with 8gb of ram being slower in a bunch of real world stress tests due to the 8gb of ram cause paging which was slower.
- screen shot from the above video.

In a base m2 macbook pro 14" wiht 512gb drive is there any evidence of this being an issue. Not only does it have twice the ram (which you could invent an task to fill) but it also has twice the disk speeds of those older models. Also the charts i saw indicated that m1 pro chips in macbook pros were getting speeds of 3900mbs so 3000ish vs 3900ish, in a single benchmark.

So is there an example of the m2 pro 512gb models actually being impacted in real world use? Because there were no examples in this thread.

 

[gleepskip]

Is your machine noticeably slower though?

Yes, it loses its snappiness occasionally. It's bothered me frequently enough that I want to get a 16GB machine. But Apple have made that decision even more expensive with the M2 release: I need both a RAM and SSD upgrade to prevent any subsystem being slower than my current machine.

 

[mcnallym]

IIRC, this has something to do with single vs. paired NAND silicon, likely lower power consumption yet slower performance.

Truthfully, I doubt anyone would notice a negligible drop in performance but I digress.

This is 100% the issue,

m1 used a larger number of NAND chips for storage. Each NAND Chip has the same performance, simply that when have 2 chips then can write or read from both chips simultaneousy.

think of it like RAID controllers. What is quicker

1 x 4tb Drive or 4 x 1tb drive in RAID 0.

the 256 model 1 chip
the 512 model 2 chips
the 1tb model probably has 4 chips

they all use the same performance NAND chips but just use more of them to provide larger storage space and the system is reading/writing to the multiple chips at the same time Thus having greater performance.

so Apple is not using lower quality nand with the new machines. Each nand chip has the same performance as each nand chip used in the M1 machines, simply that

m1 256 = 2 x 128
m2 256 = 1 x 256

with the m2 storage overall being roughly half the speed then each of the 128gb nand chips on the m1 has the same performance as the 256gb nand used with the m2. So claiming using inferior nand now is simply not understanding how Apple does storage. Nand chips are of the same quality/performance as before just less Nand chips used to provide the storage space So performance for a given storage size drops.

 

[adamw]

This is 100% the issue,

m1 used a larger number of NAND chips for storage. Each NAND Chip has the same performance, simply that when have 2 chips then can write or read from both chips simultaneousy.

think of it like RAID controllers. What is quicker

1 x 4tb Drive or 4 x 1tb drive in RAID 0.

the 256 model 1 chip
the 512 model 2 chips
the 1tb model probably has 4 chips

they all use the same performance NAND chips but just use more of them to provide larger storage space and the system is reading/writing to the multiple chips at the same time Thus having greater performance.

so Apple is not using lower quality nand with the new machines. Each nand chip has the same performance as each nand chip used in the M1 machines, simply that

m1 256 = 2 x 128
m2 256 = 1 x 256

with the m2 storage overall being roughly half the speed then each of the 128gb nand chips on the m1 has the same performance as the 256gb nand used with the m2. So claiming using inferior nand now is simply not understanding how Apple does storage. Nand chips are of the same quality/performance as before just less Nand chips used to provide the storage space So performance for a given storage size drops.

Thanks for explaining that about the chips. I just saw Luke Miani's Mac Mini M2 Pro tear down video, and he found 8 SSD nand memory slots on the motherboard (4 on each side). His 512GB model was identical to mine, so it had a total of 2 256GB chips (one on each side) with 6 slots left unused. So we need a 1TB or larger SSD to get the 6,000 MB/s read/write rates then with 4 256GB chips. I will take back my 512GB Mac Mini M2 Pro, and consider a 1TB model, except that they are build to order, so none available at retail stores off the shelf. I think they are delayed, and come from factory in China build to order.

Here is Luke Miani's good Mac Mini M2 Pro teardown/disassembly video showing the SSD NAND Chip placement on the motherboard of the new Mac Mini M2 Pro:

 

[628]

Thanks for explaining that about the chips. I just saw Luke Miani's Mac Mini M2 Pro tear down video, and he found 8 SSD nand memory slots on the motherboard (4 on each side). His 512GB model was identical to mine, so it had a total of 2 256GB chips (one on each side) with 6 slots left unused. So we need a 1TB or larger SSD to get the 6,000 MB/s read/write rates then with 4 256GB chips. I will take back my 512GB Mac Mini M2 Pro, and consider a 1TB model, except that they are build to order, so none available at retail stores off the shelf. I think they are delayed, and come from factory in China build to order.

I haven't seen any 1TB tests yet for Mac Mini but good to know about the 512gb, but it seems like the 512GB speeds match the M1 Mac Mini 256/512GB speeds though it would have been nice to get the 6000 speeds on the M2 Pro... I think for me I will give myself 13 days to think about it because I avoided the 256gb and got 512gb to get the higher speeds (3000) was not expecting the 6000 though it would have been nice on the base M2 Pro.

 

[soitgrows]

I am just curious who are the users who never run out of ram or are not “power users”. I thought all those moved to the tablets / iPads long ago.

For anyone doing production (music, video, software), the performance complaints from architecture decisions are a legitimate concern for a prospective buyer. I am looking into buying a Mac to replace a Linux box with 16gb ram and a 1TB 5000MB/s+ SSD that I built for around ~$900 CAD with a 16gb ram + 512gb SSD Mac mini. I can buy the M2 one from education store for $1144 CAD or get the refurbished M1 for $1049 CAD. From all the reviews and the discussion in this thread I am leaning towards the M1 refurbished because the SSD on the M2 will cut the performance in half once swapping starts. This is pretty mind scrambling.

 

[doboy]

Not surprised with the mini.

Pulling this on the Pro?

Now, that takes… “courage”.

Sigh

Yeah, Pro is bit surprising.

 

[k1121j]

They have done it a few times.

iPad mini 6’s display is not as good as 5.

They removed MagSafe charging from Macbooks. Removed the useful ports from MBP.

Slower speed with M2 MBA base model.

Apple giveth and taketh away.

When they bump up the specs again, they have reason to boast and raise prices.

You’re right they did the thicker thinner thing with the iPhone a few times. No real mention when it got thicker but it was a feature when it got thinner again.

 

[Opinion Leader / Analyst]

thoughts? I am speechless right now...

 

[whodiini]

You can pump 3000 MB/sec thru PCie x 4 which is what is used typically thru one 256 GB chip. Constricting this to 1500 suggests that Apple is using only 2 PCIe lanes. In an earlier post I mentioned you can buy a 1500 MB/sec enclosure for $70. That enclosure uses only 2 PCIe lanes, not 4. I am very curious if anyone has tested a regular M2 mac mini with 512GB. I bet it is also 1500 MB/sec, and if true, it means that all these people telling everyone to buy the 512GB are dead wrong.

The M2 Pro may use all 4 PCie lanes to get a 3000 MB/sec speed. The regular M2 may not.

 

[NT1440]

I am just curious who are the users who never run out of ram or are not “power users”. I thought all those moved to the tablets / iPads long ago.

For anyone doing production (music, video, software), the performance complaints from architecture decisions are a legitimate concern for a prospective buyer. I am looking into buying a Mac to replace a Linux box with 16gb ram and a 1TB 5000MB/s+ SSD that I built for around ~$900 CAD with a 16gb ram + 512gb SSD Mac mini. I can buy the M2 one from education store for $1144 CAD or get the refurbished M1 for $1049 CAD. From all the reviews and the discussion in this thread I am leaning towards the M1 refurbished because the SSD on the M2 will cut the performance in half once swapping starts. This is pretty mind scrambling.

It sounds like you’re finding financial or timing reasons to not wait a bit until you can afford the actual spec, RAM, that matters for your use case.

Is there a reason that Linux box has to go immediately that your will to cut the SSD in half just to get that particular M2 config? Clearly the storage concerns aren’t a problem now but will come into play when you run out of RAM, and which you will.

Why not wait a bit and get the REAL config you need (Mac or not) instead of gaming out a not quite baked solution for your needs?

Of course, if this is your money earner by all means go ahead and do what makes sense in the now (if it’ll pay off later).

 

[NT1440]

thoughts? I am speechless right now...

View attachment 2147807

View attachment 2147808

My thoughts are given that an SoC is a whole different paradigm that can’t be boiled to artificial individual component tests, why not look for a test of an actual workflow that represents yours and see the speed difference between the 2018 and the M2.

If, hypothetically, the “gimped” M2 still finishes the actual task 2 times faster…then what does the speed test matter in the real world?

People are forgetting (purposely) that media engines and dedicated accelerators are now at play, so you may find that actual results are far and away better regardless of one single component being slower.

 

[icemantx]

thoughts? I am speechless right now...

View attachment 2147807

View attachment 2147808

Which SSD size is that?

 

[soitgrows]

It sounds like you’re finding financial or timing reasons to not wait a bit until you can afford the actual spec, RAM, that matters for your use case.

Is there a reason that Linux box has to go immediately that your will to cut the SSD in half just to get that particular M2 config? Clearly the storage concerns aren’t a problem now but will come into play when you run out of RAM, and which you will.

Why not wait a bit and get the REAL config you need (Mac or not) instead of gaming out a not quite baked solution for your needs?

Of course, if this is your money earner by all means go ahead and do what makes sense in the now (if it’ll pay off later).

A few reasons:
1. Windows is clunky and something I don’t like anymore especially with W11, and macOS sort of fixes my photoshop + other mainstream software uses that allows me to not dual boot Linux with an OS I don’t like. MacOS does the job of both.
2. As a traditional full stack developer, I also want to do some application development particularly as I have an iPhone.
3. Work supplied us with new macs are that locked down tight. Zero software allowed except for what’s allowed in their own “App Store”, thus killing any ability to do learning projects on the side outside of work duties.

I can buy a M2 pro mini with 1TB ssd right now, but I am also generally frugal and just don’t see why when a regular M2 machine should work ok. I could buy a M2 machine and a 4k monitor for less than a M2 pro alone with matching or slightly better specs on paper, but a gimped SSD making this decision unnecessarily complex. I don’t get the “value” here in the “upgrade”; may be it’s amazing for apple investors.

At work we use M1. The only reason seems to be that apple would rather see people spend extra on m2 pro because they gimped the SSD versus an older version, pretty weird to a non-apple user (I only recently got an iPhone, not a long term apple user; guess I am in for a rough ride, oh well).

 

[CosmoCopus]

Timmy wins again!

 

[PsykX]

My Apple stock thanks that decision

I also own AAPL stocks and this decision is sad.
Profit margins are a thing, but reputation is also part of the stock.

 

[SpotOnT]

This is so dumb. When the industry stops manufacturing cheap 128GB modules, that means it is time to increase your base configurations. That Apple still offers a computer with 256GB of storage in 2023 is nuts. That they have to do that by offering even worse performance is sickening.

 

[freedomlinux]

thoughts? I am speechless right now...

It's absurd. An "ok" quality NVMe drive (ex: WD Black SN770) beats that and is $40 for 250GB at retail. I can only imagine what Apple's OEM cost is for flash, compared to their $200 upgrade price.

For less than $200 I could buy a brand-name 2TB NVMe drive (PCIe4.0x4, 6500/5000MBps, ex: a Crucial P5 Plus) that is faster than either the 256GB or 512GB in the M2 Mini.

 

[whatgift]

While I understand the performance arguments, it seems a waste of resources/materials to have 2 chips where only 1 is necessary.

 

[CalMin]

Yes, it loses its snappiness occasionally. It's bothered me frequently enough that I want to get a 16GB machine. But Apple have made that decision even more expensive with the M2 release: I need both a RAM and SSD upgrade to prevent any subsystem being slower than my current machine.

Yikes - loss of snappiness is something I have never experienced on Apple Silicon (other than maybe the Monterey Memory leak on my 16GB machine). Clearly then you need more RAM. What are you using it for? What sort of apps are you running?

Having put the 8GB M2 Air through its paces on generalized computing tasks, I just can't get the thing to slow down no matter how hard I push it. And I'm pretty messy with tons of open apps and documents, a million browser tabs, Apple Music playing off to the side, 300GB photo library, several gigs of email etc..

 

[nerdAFK]

Not surprised. In Apple's eyes, peasants DO NOT deserve faster SSD!

 

[ayuchan]

I will be upgrading from my 2011 intel i5-2500 (to old to be updated to Windows 11), Samsung 840 Evo top at 520mb/s, so the M2 base model is actually a huge improvement for me especially at education price.