So basically Apple wants you to configure a MacBook Pro or Mac Mini with 1 TB SSDs at the buyers expense for optimum performance? The fact is, 512 GBs should be the bare minimum in this day and age. Apple is trippin!
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
Yes I bought the 512GB Mac Mini M2 Pro stock model from Apple today, and it is limited also in its SSD speeds to just 3,000 MB/s read and write, instead of 6,000 MB/s on the 1TB models. Not as bad as the 1,500 MB/s speeds on the 256 GB models, but still a major disappointment! I now have to spend time and gas to take it back to the Apple store which is far from me.
ssshhh. If you use common sense, then people who use it to browse Facebook won’t be able to complain about something that doesn’t affect them.
On my MM2Pro 512SSD 16GB I just picked up today I'm getting about 3000MB/s R/W with 5gb test, and up to 3000/4500 R/W with 1GB test. Worth the extra $200 to go to 1TB and get supposedly up to 6000 R/W?
512GB is single NAND for both M2 mini and M2 MBPs, or just for the 512GB minis?
I actually suspected this and speculated that this would make several of the M1 Macs significantly better value per dollar since you only get "full speed" for 1TB configurations of M2 Macs.
Sucks if you want to upgrade but only need a 256GB or 512GB model.
And what a neat way to force sales of those 1TB+ SSDs! 😫
Let's hope Apple quits this cheap scheme when we get to M3. But it's probably is just going to get worse considering similar feature/spec cutting for other base config Apple products.
I doubt you could tell the difference 99% of the time. Having said that, if I was in your position and could afford the extra $200 with no issues and was going to keep the Mac a long time, I would do it. Just for peace of mind, but I'm weird so don't listen too closely to me
File this under “things for power users to complain about that 98% of buyers will never notice given the responsiveness of the machine”.
Another glorious day in melting down on MR.
Another glorious day in melting down on MR.
His 14” is a BTO with a full M2 Pro unbinned, so it is not the same SKU as the base 14”. It is possible this comes with a different SSD arrangement as the base. Also he is in the UK which also adds supply chain variance in the equation.
But I honestly hope I am wrong, this means there is a lottery going on…
… none?
Seriously, anyone who’s returning their computer is returning it to get a more expensive one, and any articles being posted about it are very niche websites like this.
It was said when the MacBook Air released and it will be said now, anyone who cares *that much* isn’t buying a machine with only 256 GB of storage that’s $599.
The main thing this will affect is moving huge files around and when the Ram gets used up, something that normal people aren’t really doing.
Sorry to hear that, I completely forgot about the M2 Pro Mac Mini. So it's affecting both the 512GB MBP and M2 Pro Mac Mini.
I think the point has sailed right over your head. It costs dramatically more to get the same performance as the M1 mini.
If I were doing massive edits (which I probably wouldn't be doing on a mini), the speed difference would indeed bother me.
For 99% of consumers, the difference will never be noticed.
I doubt you could tell the difference on the charts below...I doubt you could tell the difference 99% of the time. Having said that, if I was in your position and could afford the extra $200 with no issues and was going to keep the Mac a long time, I would do it. Just for peace of mind, but I'm weird so don't listen too closely to me
Tim🍏: "Oh, so 256GB or 512GB in a new Mac is enough since you just hook up your external drives? My SSD upgrades are too expensive? Well, have I got news for you!"
neither, the 512 GB on both is actually two chips.
The 1 TB is four chips.
To those who say the slower SSD speeds are a "nothing burger" or "don't matter" I beg to differ with you.
We pay hard earned money to Apple to give us cutting edge technology! SSD drives on the Mac Mini and Macbook Pro are used often for swap memory, and during file copying to external drives, plus other things.
I want a 6,000 MB/s read/write speed SSD, and not some dumbed down inferior chip just because Apple chose a cheaper nand chip supplier to save a few cents.
The outrage, and the goodwill Apple will lose in the reviews and press reports about this, proves that Apple is being "penny wise and pound foolish" in my opinion.
Let's get back to producing high quality, fast products that improve everyone's productivity. I, and many other loyal Apple customers, do not appreciate these tactics which cost us performance, especially since we are paying extra for the SSD upgrades and Pro speed, because we expect the Mac Mini M2 Pro model to be optimized for speed.
We pay hard earned money to Apple to give us cutting edge technology! SSD drives on the Mac Mini and Macbook Pro are used often for swap memory, and during file copying to external drives, plus other things.
I want a 6,000 MB/s read/write speed SSD, and not some dumbed down inferior chip just because Apple chose a cheaper nand chip supplier to save a few cents.
The outrage, and the goodwill Apple will lose in the reviews and press reports about this, proves that Apple is being "penny wise and pound foolish" in my opinion.
Let's get back to producing high quality, fast products that improve everyone's productivity. I, and many other loyal Apple customers, do not appreciate these tactics which cost us performance, especially since we are paying extra for the SSD upgrades and Pro speed, because we expect the Mac Mini M2 Pro model to be optimized for speed.
Its not enough of a price cut to drop it by 100
And it doesn’t explain why they’ve kept the same price on the MacBook pro( and even increased it in the EU by 13%) while giving slower ssd
Nein , 512 gb also has a single chip , check it out
I was referring to 512GB vs 1TB SSD speeds in the M2 Pro chips. I don't think anyone should buy a 256GB Mac, full stop.
I guess it's a way of widening the distance between each step on the M2 product ladder, pushing more sales of higher configurations.
I just wish Apple was upfront about this, that there was a little "*" or a sentence for the crippled SSD configurations, noting the differences, just like Apple did (?) with the limitations for 128GB versions of iPhones Pro (and iPads Pro?).
They are more different than just bigger or smaller storage options. Consumers should be able to tell.
Does it? Across the entire system doing a task? Or just hypothetically when only looking at disk speed?
What kinds of tasks are perceptibly slower? Are they things normal people do, or are they the domain of Pro users who are looking to edit massive video files or batch process thousands of photos?
What I’m getting at is these things are fast to begin with. Will a person who bought a Mac mini to replace their old Intel one see anything other than a dramatic improvement?
If you’re the kind of person that upgrades your machine every year, and AREN’T making money from that machine, then you’re just a sucker whom these conundrums I find amusing as an IT person.
Memory paging. Every user does it, unless they are barely using their machines.
So the new MacBook Pro’s price increased by hundreds of pounds/dollars for features that should have been included in the first iteration (Wi-Fi 6E, BT 5.3 & HDMI 2.1) and an M2 chip - but have a slower SSD config…. I can understand it for the base line of products - but not for products with the ‘Pro’ nomenclature.