As long as you dont do extensive swapping, I think you wouldnt notice a difference.
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
I can see Apple's perspective as they want to provide a quality product, however they are hampered by inflation, increasing production costs and by mandate must serve the shareholder.
I don't like it myself at all as I don't need a lot of internal storage, but like many will be punished by the move to fewer Nand chips on the base models.
Q-6
Ugh! What do you make of this report, specifically the part in parenthesis? Conflicting data really bothers me. Can someone out there please tear down the 512GB? That is all I ask…
“What is the reason for this “downgrade”? The thing is that Apple uses larger memory chips. So, for example, if the 2020 Mac Mini has two 128 GB NAND chips, then the 2023 model has only one NAND chip (this, by the way, also applies to the model with 512 GB of memory). Accordingly, two chips allow you to perform read and write operations in parallel, but one does not. The 2023 MacBook Pro in the example above only has two memory chips, while its predecessor had four.”
gadgettendency.com
“What is the reason for this “downgrade”? The thing is that Apple uses larger memory chips. So, for example, if the 2020 Mac Mini has two 128 GB NAND chips, then the 2023 model has only one NAND chip (this, by the way, also applies to the model with 512 GB of memory). Accordingly, two chips allow you to perform read and write operations in parallel, but one does not. The 2023 MacBook Pro in the example above only has two memory chips, while its predecessor had four.”
MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, and Mac Mini on the M2 platform received significantly slower SSDs than their predecessors on the SoC M1
The first tests of the new MacBook Air, MacBook Pro and Mac Mini on the Apple M2 platform may disappoint potential buyers of these devices: it turned out that all these versions of Apple computers in their basic versions received slower SSDs than their predecessors on the SoC M1. So, for...
gadgettendency.com
It really comes back to their design-led product strategy where you start with the end in mind, then work backwards from there.
That’s what makes Apple so awesome and so annoying at the same time. Just as they know how to optimise their products to get around pain points and bottlenecks, they also know how to “skimp” on areas where they believe the impact on user experience is minimal. And they are often more right than not.
Notice people here aren’t really complaining that said product is bad (it’s still a steal compared to many a windows mini-PC), they are complaining that it could be better.
That’s what makes Apple so awesome and so annoying at the same time. Just as they know how to optimise their products to get around pain points and bottlenecks, they also know how to “skimp” on areas where they believe the impact on user experience is minimal. And they are often more right than not.
Notice people here aren’t really complaining that said product is bad (it’s still a steal compared to many a windows mini-PC), they are complaining that it could be better.
$499 for the entry M2 mac mini is a really attractive price. The part that isnt attractive is that there are no longer any possible upgrades the user can do. I understand that the memory would be tough to upgrade but it would have been nice to be able to upgrade the drive with an internal NVMe 1.3 or 1.4, like the prior version (2014?) mac mini. Especially considering the speed of the internal SSD. I have an one of these mac minis that I use as a itunes/TV server. It has a fixed 8GB memory, but I was able to add a 1 TB NVMe and a 2 TB SATA to it and make a 3 TB fusion drive. All internal to the mac mini, no external devices needed. It is headless, and the bonus is that I run IP over thunderbolt to download new files to it from my main mac at 10GBit speeds. To replicate that with a modern mac mini would be so much more $$.
Agreed.
My best guess though is that Tim 'Supply Chain Master' Cook has made a bulk, multi-year order for 256GB modules. I can see Apple (finally) moving to a 512GB base as standard in 2024, so the faster speeds will return, as a feature...
Agreed. I cannot remember which review was done but it compared ssd performance of the MBP’s using M2 Pro with PC laptops, in particular the EliteBook 840 G9 which my work has deployed.
The G9, like the G6, G7, and G8 models routinely outperform the Lenovo Thinkpad T series and Carbon models respective of the same generation launch window. These machines have removable NVME drives based on version 4/5 PCIe connectivity and seeing double the read and 1.5x the write speeds on the M series is outstanding!
Apple M2 Mac mini make the following assertion: Mac mini comes with all-flash storage — up to a whopping 8TB SSD for all your photo and video libraries, files and apps. That’s up to four times as much as the previous generation.
???
???
Well, I think I’ve finally confirmed the NAND chip and performance of the 512MB SSD upgrade in the M2 MacMini through an online video tester:
512GB SSD Model Number: AP0512Z
NAND Chips: Single
BM Write Speed: 3,186.2 MB/s
BM Read Speed: 2,850.4 MB/s
See attached screenshots
So it appears the single 512GB NAND is not only twice the capacity but also twice the Performance speed of the 256GB NAND.
512GB SSD Model Number: AP0512Z
NAND Chips: Single
BM Write Speed: 3,186.2 MB/s
BM Read Speed: 2,850.4 MB/s
See attached screenshots
So it appears the single 512GB NAND is not only twice the capacity but also twice the Performance speed of the 256GB NAND.
Attachments
Aren't both important? Sequential reads and write if you are reading loading large files or programs or writing large files, and Random reads and writes if you are doing smaller everyday reading and writing.
We are trying to encourage Apple to innovate and use the best practices for all users (including Pros and Creators), so having fast SSD drives/chip configurations that benefit Pros and regular consumers alike is the ideal model as far as SSD drives/chips are concerned. People are usually willing to pay an extra $10 or $20 or even more for superior all around performance gains.
Since the SSD drive is so important for both storing data and programs, and also serving a swap memory drive, it makes sense that the faster the better is preferred for both Sequential and Random read and write SSD speeds. Swap memory speed and size is often overlooked, as many people do not even realize that memory swapping is happening, when they have lots of Chrome tabs open, and are running many CPU and memory hungry programs at the same time.
It is ridiculous, in my opinion, that the 512GB MacBook Pro M2 Pro and 512GB MacBook Pro M2 Max models have slower SSD sequential read and write speeds than the prior 512GB MacBook Pro M1 and 512GB MacBook Pro M1 Max models released in 2021, not to mention slower than the 1TB or larger versions of the same MacBook Pro M2 Pro and Max models.
You never shortchange a Pro customer in performance, if you know what is good for you, otherwise you experience the backlash, and customer disappointment, like we are now seeing concerning this SSD speed issue. This violates Marketing 101 to keep your customers happy, so you increase customer goodwill, and will receive positive word of mouth recommendations from your customer to others.
The best video that deals with this slower SSD issue from a marketing and customer disappointment issue is this:
Last edited:
No unless you are file transferring files large files all the time from/to SSD, you won't notice. I do understand your thinking because the problem is apple being apple.... I am thinking of upgrading to 1 tb model because of space concerns, not because of the speed i have on this machine. it is fast enough for me
Exactly, I got the standard M2 Mac Mini with 512 GB last Tuesday and have done some 40-120 GB transfers without issues, I'm very pleased.
Inflation has increased prices year over year by 8 to 10 percent (per year). Apple dropped pricing by $100. Assuming they have to keep the same margins the same to keep innovating (yes, that's an assumption), what exactly do you expect them to drop in order to make the price point?
I'm not saying it's good, because it isn't, but I am saying it's not shocking that a $100 cost-reduced entry level Mac has the worst SSD performance; it's kinda expected...
And yes, we can argue "Pro level 14" dropped too!", I get it, but margins, etc. .. something has to give. This isn't the hill I'd die on if I were the Apple hardware PM. There are other areas that will have far more impact.
That’s completely correct. It’s the definition of Apple marketing (and anyone else’s marketing, too..). What’s the ??? for?
You are correct. What people in this thread has focused on is the sequential. Other threads have noted that the recent M1 macs have very poor random speeds compared to the intel macs. I can confirm this - my M1 Studio Max has a sequential speed around 6000 MB/sec but random speeds very low compared to my 2018 Intel Mac mini. It looks like these M2 also have slow random R/W speeds.
Agreed. I’ve seen people endlessly (for DAYS now) breathlessly talk about sequential transfer rates that, honestly, don’t matter. I wish Adam and others would compile a list of typical random IO speeds, as that’s vastly more important in normal machine use.
That’s awesome. Set up looks great. You didn’t upgrade the RAM to 16GB though? Every review pretty much recommends it.
No it's just standard 8GB RAM, works well also for editing.
Yes WD My Cloud EX2 can and it works well - I just think the main issue are all the complaints about M2 performance and I'm happy with the basic M2 Mac mini with 512GB, but I would have been pissed off if I had bought the 256GB version with half SSD speed just to save USD 200, I realize I don't get a 16GB Pro, but Apple could have been up front what you get, or not get..