And he said he doubts Ventura is the problem (and wouldn't it affect every video editor on Ventura, then?). He was a 256GB apologist that ended up being directly impacted by the slow SSD.
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.
New 256GB Mac Mini and 512GB MacBook Pro Have Slower SSD Speeds Than Previous Models
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For a simple consumer like yourself, what other vendor in Apple’s market does list SSD performance on a per-SSD basis? Is there precedent for this?
Curious how many more years you're going to use a HDD as a yardstick to measure modern day performance against?
Doubts. Wow.
Let’s get a real review, side by side, with facts and data presented, with objective numbers. C’mon.
Who's going to do this? Certainly not Apple. And the review models they're sending out for M2 Minis are all outfitted with the 1TB drive.
People have had the machines yesterday and today. Let’s sit tight for a bit, take a deep breath, and see how the numbers look in a few days. Fair?
I just expect any vendor and in particular Apple to be honest up front, simple as that.
Sounds good. I hope the independent reviewers have the previous generation of hardware at their disposal to run these comparisons. It would be really nice if Apple just published performance numbers for the different drive configurations, even if it wasn't flattering to the low end spec'd models. It would upsell a lot of people.
Have you ever seen their State of the Union / New Product Introduction marketing messages? Do you read the “benchmarks” (take with a huge grain of salt!) numbers they give for their products in the normal matter of course?
Since when did you expect Apple (or anyone) to show their product in anything less than an amazing light?
Have a look at the M2 marketing. Notice how it focuses on comparison with older Intel (yes, people are upgrading from that, I get it, but it’s still not very interesting to compare against 5 year old Intel hardware), and how so much of the comparisons are GPU-heavy, particularly when comparing with the M1, because the non-GPU changes are …minor.
That’s how marketing works. Just like you all are eating up the marketing on the NVME SSDs (Samsung/AData/Etc. Marketing is checking in!), but nobody can point to examples (and honestly, we shouldn’t have to reach at all for examples; it should be obviously and clearly better; the fact that we can’t find clear numbers makes it already a bit of a stretch…)
But then a natural question would be “What apps are faster because of this” and … well…
Even some basic numbers like a large file transfer and Final Cut export. Let people draw from that.But then a natural question would be “What apps are faster because of this” and … well…
A Final Cut export would have a zero percent difference. That’s 100% CPU / GPU constrained.
For large file transfer, it would need to be so contrived as to be absurd. You have to transfer gigs before it becomes noticeable. Do you typically transfer 40GB+ at a time, in one setting, all as write operations against the MacOS SSD?
Then they should show those numbers, good or bad. All people are fussing over is lack of transparency.
The 256GB drives are limited to 1500MB/s and that's a massive contrast to the 6000MB/s the reviewers are getting. The store lets you pick an SSD with capacity being the only difference in the configurator. If they would just mention some specs beyond capacity, it would upsell a lot of people and save a bunch of returns and cancelled orders.
He has the wrong computer. Who would try and edit video on a 256 GB M2 MacBook Air? If he is slowing down it is more likely that it is because of filling up the 256 GB disk and not because of its sequential read write speeds. I mean if he is editing a video he shot of his kids on his iPhone in iMovie that is reasonable but no professional video editing makes sense on that computer (no I didn't watch the video).
Easy Answer: Thunderbolt SSD
Hard Answer: Base model = Price over Performance
Candidly, I've never known anyone who was concerned about performance-alone buying the base model of anything but I digress.
Hard Answer: Base model = Price over Performance
Candidly, I've never known anyone who was concerned about performance-alone buying the base model of anything but I digress.
He did. He was traveling, in a hotel, and had to do a basic video edit for his job. He mentioned he'd done similar edits with ease on his M1 Air, so he assumed the M2 would be just as good.
oh
But what if there’s no performance difference in their apps?
Why do you believe it’s a massive contrast to the 6000MB/s the reviewers are getting? Do you base this on performance differences between 1500MB/s and 6000MB/s within Windows, or is this just reading BlackMagic benchmarks and looking at numbers, and one’s higher than the other, so it must be better?
Does anyone stop to think what the BlackMagic benchmark leaves OUT? We don’t have a clue about the things that really matter on a disk.. i/o load, latency, sustained write cache - there are so many things.
That’s why I keep saying we need the Anandtech/TomsHardware review to iron this out. Superficial clickbait kids who click on BlackMagic and repeat it in a video session (some of whom admit they don’t understand the details…sigh) don’t impress me. I find StorageBench/DiskDestroyer type benchmarks (https://www.anandtech.com/show/1759...hunderbolt-usb-dualmode-portable-ssd-review/4 is one example) interesting, but what’s even more interesting is application performance differences. How will XYZ hardware improve my experience in XYZ application? If it won’t, I don’t care about it and I don’t want to spend more $ for it.
Since you asked, and I know you didn’t, but.. there’s little difference between a good 500MB/s SATA SSD and NVME SSDs; google it and have a look. The main differences are in what you would expect: sequential transfers: copying a huge ISO file from one SSD to another, sometimes a game or application update if the update touches one big file rather than thousands of tiny ones. Otherwise, slim pickings. So you can guess how excited I get when we talk about differences between 1500MB/s and 6000MB/s NVME, particularly in cases where I know the OS vendor put serious thought into how to improve things as best they could for a reasonable ($499!) price.
Apple knows this better than we do. Why were all the early review units outfitted with 1TB drives? That's not even a preconfiguration. That's a BTO model.
And again, it’s been typical for a decade that lower capacity SSDs have lower speed than their higher capacity versions in the same product lineup. I don’t know what Apple did beforehand to avoid this, but it’s hard to get too excited about it if we can’t point to the impact, and thus Apple made the right business decision (if it turns out we can’t; the day is young…)
I don't need a chart to do math. Either you don't understand how swap works or you're a shill.
Wow, dude. He’s literally quoting Apple’s documentation to you to explain to you how it works, and you’re pulling this?
Ok phew glad you finally admitted the 1TB config is bestApple Marketing.
We just want Apple to admit it now.Given they want the most for it, I think we’re firmly in foregone conclusion territory at this point.Ok phew glad you finally admitted the 1TB config is best
Translation: You made a point I hadn't considered! So, instead of actually reading the link(s) you posted explaining how memory in macOS actually works, I'll insult and label you because that worked in middle school.