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

[Prorege1]

Just did a quick test of the standard Mac Mini M2 with 512GB SSD which I received yesterday, it's good value for the money and I'm very happy. Glad I choose 512GB SSD - I would be rather unhappy after reading this post if I had bought the 256GB version .... but would you notice the difference in performance - likely not for standard use, but I certainly don't like Apple isn't informing buyers up front.

 

[rippley5150]

I would have bought a base M2 Air if it wasn't by the slow SSD. And all those saying this doesn't affect "real world performance" watch this video:

Plenty of use cases that match mine where this SSD issue will show up it's uggly head!

Thanks for the video !!

 

[gusping]

Can you specify the source of the information?
Matt Talks Tech posted a video on YT yesterday, comparing 14-inch and 16-inch 2023 MBP with the same configuration:
- M2 Pro with 12c CPU/19c GPU (not the "base" 10c CPU/16c GPU that is only available in the entry-level MBP 14-inch)
- 16GB "RAM"
- 512GB SSD

Both of them where reaching the 6GB/s

That Matt Talks Tech video seems to be an outlier. This reddit posts summarises the SSD speeds and includes sources:

https://www.reddit.com/r/macmini/comments/10kqjwd

 

[Chancha]

Just did a quick test of the standard Mac Mini M2 with 512GB SSD which I received yesterday, it's good value for the money and I'm very happy.

View attachment 2147950

This nails it. I am going to order 16GB 512GB now. Thank you.

 

[Michelinu]

That Matt Talks Tech video seems to be an outlier. This reddit posts summarises the SSD speeds and includes sources:

https://www.reddit.com/r/macmini/comments/10kqjwd

It's not an "outlier". There are 2 versions of the M2 Pro:
- the 10c CPU/16c GPU: stock in the entry-level 14-inch MBP and in the Mac mini
- the 12c CPU/19c GPU: you can choose it only with a custom build with the 512GB storage on the entry-level 14-inch MBP and Mac Mini

The 16-inch MBP comes stock with the M2 Pro 12c CPU/19c GPU.
Are all these benchmark based on the entry-level M2 Pro with the 10c CPU or they did upgrade it to the 12c CPU one?

 

[gusping]

It's not an "outlier". There are 2 versions of the M2 Pro:
- the 10c CPU/16c GPU: stock in the entry-level 14-inch MBP and in the Mac mini
- the 12c CPU/19c GPU: you can choose it only with a custom build with the 512GB storage on the entry-level 14-inch MBP and Mac Mini

The 16-inch MBP comes stock with the M2 Pro 12c CPU/19c GPU.
Are all these benchmark based on the entry-level M2 Pro with the 10c CPU or they did upgrade it to the 12c CPU one?

Matt Talks Test tested both versions of the Mac mini M2 Pro, but without watching the whole video again, I cannot remember which he used for the SSD speed test. For the MBPs he uses the 12c CPU version, so maybe.... the faster 512GB SSD are used in the higher end 12c CPU configurations.

 

[Chancha]

It's not an "outlier". There are 2 versions of the M2 Pro:
- the 10c CPU/16c GPU: stock in the entry-level 14-inch MBP and in the Mac mini
- the 12c CPU/19c GPU: you can choose it only with a custom build with the 512GB storage on the entry-level 14-inch MBP and Mac Mini

The 16-inch MBP comes stock with the M2 Pro 12c CPU/19c GPU.
Are all these benchmark based on the entry-level M2 Pro with the 10c CPU or they did upgrade it to the 12c CPU one?

That "outliner" reviewer's experience has two scenarios:

1) a different SoC config actually alters the SSD NAND arrangement as a matter of BTO SKU
2) there are lotteries going on

Neither of which is good for us, it will further the confusion.

 

[Colpeas]

Apple has finally found a golden formula how to save money in manufacturing and make people buy expensive upgrades that they don’t need.

Take a typical customer:
Would I buy an overpriced storage option that I don’t need? No.
Would I buy buy it if it meant I’d get 4x times read speeds at the same time? Damn sure.

Cook’s apple is boss at making people pay extra for stuff that used to be standard. Their only luck is that there isn’t a matching alternative on the market.

 

[Scarrus]

It does not, literally the entire industry is sitting on too many NANDs that they have been forced to drop prices for a few quarters now.

The real reason is likely Apple doing an inventory min-maxing, by not sourcing 128GB NAND modules at all they save cost by getting 256GB modules in bulk. They made a conscious and unforced decision to therefore let the base models drop in SSD performance by not filling up the available solder joints that are already sitting there on the board.

So basically just an evil greedy move by Apple.

 

[mauriziodececco]

Influencers who received 1TB or larger SSD Mac Mini M2 Pro review models are reporting the normal 6,000+ MB/s SSD disk speed.

Ehm, there is nothing "normal" in 6000MB/s SSD disks; they are the high end. The normal performance (what you get in a Mac Book Air M2 with a big disk, on a Mac Book Pro 13", and on M1 Mac Minis) is around 3000 MB/s. The problem is that small configuration are at 1500 MB/s, that is less than previous generations. 6000MBs was reserved up to now to Mac Studio and 14"/16" Mac Book Pro. I am actually surprised that the Mac Mini M2 Pro 1TB can run at that speed, it seems a very good news.

 

[Chancha]

So basically just an evil greedy move by Apple.

It goes more. Someone else in this thread or the other has a clearer perspective:
The easiest thing Apple could have done is to raise the total amount of SSD provided in the base configs. So, if they are only going to have 256GB modules, to fill out a M2 mini base's 2 NAND space, just give 512GB as base. Same math with the 14" 16", fill out the 4 spaces with 1TB as base. Then everyone is happy. They may even be able to increase the base price a bit.

 

[Zest28]

Ehm, there is nothing "normal" in 6000MB/s SSD disks; they are the high end. The normal performance (what you get in a Mac Book Air M2 with a big disk, on a Mac Book Pro 13", and on M1 Mac Minis) is around 3000 MB/s. The problem is that small configuration are at 1500 MB/s, that is less than previous generations. 6000MBs was reserved up to now to Mac Studio and 14"/16" Mac Book Pro. I am actually surprised that the Mac Mini M2 Pro 1TB can run at that speed, it seems a very good news.

It isn't high-end. $120 Samsung 1TB SSD even do 7000MB/s.

 

[Scarrus]

It goes more. Someone else in this thread or the other has a clearer perspective:
The easiest thing Apple could have done is to raise the total amount of SSD provided in the base configs. So, if they are only going to have 256GB modules, to fill out a M2 mini base's 2 NAND space, just give 512GB as base. Same math with the 14" 16", fill out the 4 spaces with 1TB as base. Then everyone is happy. They may even be able to increase the base price a bit.

I agree, 512/1024 Gb storage should be standard by now.

Same with Ram. Maybe at least 12Gb for the base Air and Mini, if not 16.

 

[gleepskip]

This nails it. I am going to order 16GB 512GB now. Thank you.

Congrats, but this whole thing is stupid. We shouldn't need our entire MR/YT/reddit community to figure out what product to order to maintain performance we had in the previous generation.

And, like I've stated separately, I've wanted to upgrade to 16 GB on my next machine. Now, like you, I have to upgrade RAM and SSD at hyper-inflated prices to get the performance I'm seeking.

 

[unrigestered]

Apple: "it just works"

(for us!)

 

[Michelinu]

Matt Talks Test tested both versions of the Mac mini M2 Pro, but without watching the whole video again, I cannot remember which he used for the SSD speed test. For the MBPs he uses the 12c CPU version, so maybe.... the faster 512GB SSD are used in the higher end 12c CPU configurations.

I watched the intro agains: he bought 3 Mac (Mac Mini, 14-inch MBP and 16-inch MBP) and he asserts that he configured all of them in the same way (M2 Pro 12c CPU/19c GPU, 16GB "RAM", 512GB SSD). He used Blackmagic to compare SSD of these Mac

The only one that does not seem to change is the Mac Mini

That "outliner" reviewer's experience has two scenarios:

1) a different SoC config actually alters the SSD NAND arrangement as a matter of BTO SKU
2) there are lotteries going on

Neither of which is good for us, it will further the confusion.

As far as his experiment proves, choosing the "best" M2 Pro in both MBP did the trick; it looks like the Mac Mini doesn't benefit any SSD improvement. I think that's an SSD arrangement based on SoC config is more probable than different lotteries. Almost (if not all) of the reviews of the 14-inch MBP and Mac mini with 512GB storage are based on standard "pre-built" machines and not custom ones, while nobody talks about the entry-level 16-inch MBP.

Not by change, I think that the M2 Pro marketing has been misleading. Their press release and first benchmarks announced extraordinary improvements in CPU performance, without telling that the scores where referred to the 12c CPU version of the M2 Pro. People that are going to buy an entry-level Mac Mini/14-inch MBP (that here is Italy costs 2.500 euro) will actually not only have much lower CPU performances than announced, but even slower storage.

Waiting for other teardown, it will be useful if somebody who already received an entry-level 16-inch MBP can test his SSD speed

 

[bradman83]

$5500.00 option for M2 Mac Mini. Doesn't seem cheap to me anymore.

View attachment 2147620

Tax, AppleCare, and licenses for Final Cut Pro and Logic are not part of the Mini's official cost. A maxed out Mini with 8TB of internal storage is $4500 (which is still expensive, but not $5500). This is very much an exaggeration.

 

[Marswarrior462]

while I'm with you on this SSD shifty move by Apple ... I have to ask.

As someone who was a child when Jobs was alive, as you've stated, how on Earth can you be using the phrase 'Steve Jobs must be rolling in his grave'? lol.

You'd have to be older in age to understand the market place in his second stint as CEO to really get what he was about, why he fought so hard, made the decisions he did, why he was tough to work under, or for a select few a pleasure to work with vs watching WWDCs or a few interviews. You'd have to know Apple a bit more intimately, no?

I've done my fair bit of research on Steve. He would be furious at the evil entity that Apple has become now

 

[Chancha]

I watched the intro agains: he bought 3 Mac (Mac Mini, 14-inch MBP and 16-inch MBP) and he asserts that he configured all of them in the same way (M2 Pro 12c CPU/19c GPU, 16GB "RAM", 512GB SSD). He used Blackmagic to compare SSD of these Mac
View attachment 2147960The only one that does not seem to change is the Mac Mini



As far as his experiment proves, choosing the "best" M2 Pro in both MBP did the trick; it looks like the Mac Mini doesn't benefit any SSD improvement. I think that's an SSD arrangement based on SoC config is more probable than different lotteries. Almost (if not all) of the reviews of the 14-inch MBP and Mac mini with 512GB storage are based on standard "pre-built" machines and not custom ones, while nobody talks about the entry-level 16-inch MBP.

Not by change, I think that the M2 Pro marketing has been misleading. Their press release and first benchmarks announced extraordinary improvements in CPU performance, without telling that the scores where referred to the 12c CPU version of the M2 Pro. People that are going to buy an entry-level Mac Mini/14-inch MBP (that here is Italy costs 2.500 euro) will actually not only have much lower CPU performances than announced, but even slower storage.

Waiting for other teardown, it will be useful if somebody who already received an entry-level 16-inch MBP can test his SSD speed

But there is one thing I cannot understand how it happens:
He states all 3 machines are 512GB. In order for a 512GB 14" logic board to give 6000MB/s, it has to have 4 NANDs or more. This means this specific 14" he has, is configured with 4*128GB modules (same way as base M1 Pro 14").

But we also assume the entire reason for Apple to get into this shadiness in the first place was to eliminate use of 128GB modules altogether. So why does a SoC config would suddenly bring out 128GB modules, wouldn't it complicate the manufacturing a lot? Something doesn't add up here.

 

[icemantx]

Is it confirmed that only the 12/19 core Mac mini m2 Pro gets the higher speeds (6000 R/W) when configured with 1TB or higher storage?

Or does the 10/16 core Mac mini m2 Pro also get the higher speeds (6000 R/W) when configured with 1TB or higher storage?

I have a BTO 10/16 core Mac Mini m2 Pro with 2TB coming next month. If the SSD is slower on all but the 1TB+ 12/19 core, I may rethink my choice of processor (no one can say Apple does not know how to milk their customers).

 

[currocj]

Seriously, what is the price differential for apple for 2 128GB NANDS vs 1 256GB NAND including the added 4 seconds of robot labor? Is it 87 cents?

This is clearly another way to coerce you into the 512GB upgrade boat or $799 Mac mini, and this is what I did.

 

[Scarrus]

honestly even the slower speeds are still enough for anything but the most demanding tasks. I would probably still get the 256 Gb version and then expand it with external storage.
You can install apps on an external storage if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Michelinu]

But there is one thing I cannot understand how it happens:
He states all 3 machines are 512GB. In order for a 512GB 14" logic board to give 6000MB/s, it has to have 4 NANDs or more. This means this specific 14" he has, is configured with 4*128GB modules (same way as base M1 Pro 14").

But we also assume the entire reason for Apple to get into this shadiness in the first place was to eliminate use of 128GB modules altogether. So why does a SoC config would suddenly bring out 128GB modules, wouldn't it complicate the manufacturing a lot? Something doesn't add up here.

I don't know what's the Apple logic beyond all of this, it's mainly economics. Consider that in order to have a 14-inch MBP with 512GB and the 12c CPU/19c GPU M2 Pro you have to place a custom (pricier) order, it's not a standard configuration. It's possible that they're still using the old 4x 128GB modules only with the customized 14-inch MBP and the entry-level 16-inch MBP.

Only other benchmark/teardown of these units can solve the mystery

 

[Prorege1]

I think it is Apple who needs to be honest what performance you get for your money?

Fortunately I ordered the basic M2 Mac Mini with 512GB SSD which great and "reasonable" in price, I'm just not happy the actual performance is not disclosed in the specs.

 

[currocj]

Apple does some really strange things sometimes.

Strange is not even close. Calculated, greedy, evil are words that come to mind.