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

[adamw]

Here you go, Max Tech on YouTube just analyzed the SSD read/write speed of the 14" MacBook M2 Pro 512GB model compared to the 14" MacBook M1 Pro 512GB model. The video below has an interesting tear down of the machine and SSD layout also. Seems to be a similar reason as the Mac Mini M2 Pro 512GB SSD drive issue, except on the 14" MacBook Pro M2 Pro 512GB machine Apple only used 1 512GB SSD nand chip to get 3000 MB/s slower SSD speed, while on the Mac Mini M2 Pro 512GB model Apple used 2 256GB SSD nand chips to get the slower 3000 MB/s speed than the larger SSD configurations (1TB+) which get 6000 MB/s SSD read/write speed on both the Mac Mini M2 Pro and the 14" MacBook Pro M2 Pro models. Not great for a new M2 Pro model compared to the previous model 14" M1 MacBook Pro 512GB model.

Here is Max Tech's latest video showing the above:

 

[jtdx99]

I knew this would be the case but Apple should really be more transparent with this, honestly it's a little scummy to not clearly specify.

 

[CarAnalogy]

Apple does some really strange things sometimes.

Almost certainly what happened was something along the lines of their NAND supplier saying "we don't make a lot of 128 flash anymore, we can give you 256 modules for just a few cents more per unit." And Apple said "fantastic. We'll take half as many and charge $200 to install a second one."

 

[gleepskip]

This 'slow' SSD still rips my old SSD a new one.

Im not sure what the fuss is about really. Anyone that would notice/miss/care about that kind of performance difference probably isn't going to be using a lower spec Mac anyway.

Luap: "As long as the customer doesn't notice, it's okay to give them an inferior product."

 

[psymac]

Returned my MMPro2 16GB/512GB today I had picked up yesterday and ordered the MMPro2 16GB/1TB, two weeks delivery. As a proud member of the "Minority Nerd Population" can't justify three year old at least SSD R/W speeds, and as I do a fair amount of VM prefer to have more memory/SSD swap headroom, even if not really needed now.

 

[whodiini]

This is prob how it went down; decent machine 512GB, 16GB memory, $1000, good profit margin. Lets see what the cheapest machine we can sell to bring people into the mac fold and also for PR. $600, 256GB 8GB, we make little profit on that. But That will get them in the door and then they can upgrade when they like it.

 

[628]

Returned my MMPro2 16GB/512GB today I had picked up yesterday and ordered the MMPro2 16GB/1TB, two weeks delivery. As a proud member of the "Minority Nerd Population" can't justify three year old at least SSD R/W speeds, and as I do a fair amount of VM prefer to have more memory/SSD swap headroom, even if not really needed now.

Have we confirmed the M2 Pro Mac Mini will have the faster speeds with the 1TB or is that just a given since that is the case in the MBP? I’m considering doing the same thing but I decided not to return today but maybe in a week after I see more details.

 

[Chancha]

This guy tries to apologize and justify for Apple using slower SSD drive chips in the M2 Mac Mini and Mac Mini M2 Pro models, but I am not buying his reasoning. The "it's just good enough" or "you won't need the faster SSD speed" arguments are getting old, especially for Pros who buy either the Mac Mini M2 Pro 512GB models or 14" or 16" MacBook Pro 512GB SSD models, which are also affected by the slower SSD speed issue:

He still has not explained or is even aware of the fact his 14" and 16" 512GB are somehow faster than the rest of the world so far. Had he known even the 16" is getting the M2 Pro mini's speed I don't know if he will have the same tone.

 

[Chancha]

Have we confirmed the M2 Pro Mac Mini will have the faster speeds with the 1TB or is that just a given since that is the case in the MBP? I’m considering doing the same thing but I decided not to return today but maybe in a week after I see more details.

It is confirmed. All M2 Pro Macs get 4 NANDs at 1TB, getting 6000MB/s+.

 

[1885507]

View attachment 2147770

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

You're hardly pushing it. The swap is just under 2GB with <1GB in cache (that's the tell.).

Nearly a week uptime...

 

[rpmurray]

Apple to customers: "Sucks to be you!".

I suspect that Apple will eventually do this with the 512GB model in a silent "update".

 

[1885507]

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

...

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.

Well done. IIRC, this came up with the iPhone 7, as well.

 

[AlexisV]

So, if it's guaranteed, we should be seeing every single 8-year-old Mac with bricked SSDs.

Is that happening? No. Backblaze reports 1% failure beyond 5 years for SSDs.

The same Backblaze that reports failure rates of 1.3% for platter hard drives?

If you believe that they'd be a lot of data recovery companies finding it impossible to make a profit!

 

[gleepskip]

You're hardly pushing it. The swap is just under 2GB with <1GB in cache (that's the tell.).

Swap is 25% the size of core and I'm not pushing it?

 

[cb3]

Wonder how the mid-tier Mac mini fairs?

8-Core CPU
10-Core GPU
8GB Unified Memory
512GB SSD Storage¹​

 

[jdelcorr]

1TB is almost certainly full speed, the embargo reviewers got that and no one reported anything. We also got a few user reports of 6000MB/s+ on their 1TB.

Btw this also disapprove the theory that the full / binned M2 Pro SoC has anything to do with SSD speed, the base 16" already comes with a full M2 Pro.

Perfect, thank you!
Do you mind providing the link where they tested the 1 TB MacBook Pro?

I am getting mine tomorrow and if I do not get the 6000MB I will not even open the box and return it. Probably just go for the 2 TB as I keep my computers for 8 years and do want the performance.

 

[Ethosik]

Apple should outright say the SSD speed on Macs, this is so anti-consumer. At least say that the base Macs come with slower speeds, and the more expensive versions come with a fast SSD.

This isn’t anything new. I cannot get 7GB/s advertised speeds on my Mac Studio. Only the 8TB config can.

 

[Mac Fly (film)]

It’s so weird to have specs go in reverse. One would think Apple would not do that.

They did it with iPad "Air" gen two also. Gen one had a laminated display.

 

[Chancha]

Perfect, thank you!
Do you mind providing the link where they tested the 1 TB MacBook Pro?

I am getting mine tomorrow and if I do not get the 6000MB I will not even open the box and return it. Probably just go for the 2 TB as I keep my computers for 8 years and do want the performance.

I have seen a few already, but this video of a M2 Max is one I most recently seen that has 1TB and rate around the 5-6000MB/s mark.

 

[Chancha]

Wonder how the mid-tier Mac mini fairs?

8-Core CPU​

10-Core GPU​

8GB Unified Memory​

512GB SSD Storage¹​

This one is double-NAND so it is good. An actual owner of this config posted his speed earlier in this thread, 3000MB/s or so IIRC.

 

[foo2]

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.

What would Apple have informed you of? Larger capacity SSDs have routinely been faster than lower capacity SSDs for going on a decade now; this is not unusual. Is there an expectation that Apple shows benchmark results (which? Who’s?) of every Macintosh configuration? Or should we all wait for reviewers, once the product ships? To me that (latter) bit is perfectly reasonable.

Benchmarks of running applications (ie not BlackMagic, but instead apps people use) shows about the same performance (still waiting for an exception to this..) - why is the SSD speed such an issue for some?

 

[GigaChadDad]

This is fascinating and all, but will any of these new Mac Minis match the powerhouse CineBench scores of my 2012 behemoth?

 

[jakey rolling]

I don’t think it’s realistic to expect Apple to continue purchasing 128 NANDs just so the entry level model has the same write speed as the larger capacity models. The less variety of storage chips, the better as far as keeping a lean inventory is concerned.

No, but it is realistic to expect a premium computer manufacturer to not design its offerings with such an anemic base storage specification that continuing to purchase 128 NANDs would be required in order to maintain a base performance benchmark.

 

[jakey rolling]

They've been pulling crap since way back when they went from 64 128 256 to 64 256 512. They knew most couldn't get by with 64 anymore but could with 128, "forcing" to pay even more for 256

They've been pulling this crap since way back when the base model G4 tower was built with the previous generation G3 motherboard.

 

[foo2]

No, but it is realistic to expect a premium computer manufacturer to not design its offerings with such an anemic base storage specification that continuing to purchase 128 NANDs would be required in order to maintain a base performance benchmark.

What performance benchmark (except BlackMagic) cannot be maintained given the choice of NANDs with the 256GB and 512GB products?