There was a period when they had the fastest SSDs but that hasn't been true for years. Even before Gen 5 drives released. And some of the base models (M2 MBA?) had/have abysmal SSD performance because of their choice to go with a single NAND chip.
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.
Now that Macs have Apple silicon, do you think they are fairly priced?
- Thread starter The Cockney Rebel
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sounds like they're back to the 256GB SSD only using half the bandwidth - one of the other downsides of such a small SSD.
The performance gain from having an on-SOC controller is going to be more subtle and task-dependent than that, and will be wiped out by only using half the bandwidth or falling behind a PCIe generation.
I don't think the location of the controller makes a big difference there. As I understand it, the interface between the M4 SoC and the flash is still serial data at PCIe4-speed (the spare SSD interface is used as PCIe4 on the Mac Pro) - it's just carrying low-level data rather than the higher-level NVMe protocol. You won't get NVMe 5-level performance until a future M-series chip physically supports PCIe v5. Again, the Apple method may be subtly more efficient but won't make u a 2x speed bump.
Thunderbolt/USB4 also seems to be running a generation behind PCIe.
I've not seen benchmarks showing that Apple's SoC approach performs better than what you can get on a PCIe Gen 4x4 NVMe and performance seems more uniform across standard NVMe drives that typically run 1-4 TB. Part of that may be the 256 GB SSDs sold in Macs; something that I hope they remedy in the M5. The upgrade from 512 GB to 1 TB SSD on my Yoga was $50 which is still expensive given that a very good NVMe SSD is about $75/TB.
I don't expect NVMe Gen 5x4 performance on Macs yet but would expect uniform performance across M4 Macs. That is close to 7K MBps read/write regardless of the size of your SSD.
I've only seen the highest-end PC motherboards supporting Thunderbolt 5. The model on PCs is that you put in Gen 5 NVMe SSDs in the slots that they provide. On the AMD build we did recently, it has 2 Gen 5 NVMe SSD slots and 2 Gen 4. No real need for Thunderbolt 5 when they're on the motherboard. You can add a PCIe card for Thunderbolt 5 but it seems to be fairly rare.
Trouble is, nobody knows how many they would sell if the base RAM/SSD specs were slightly better or the upgrade prices slightly more reasonable. The need to get the right balance of volume vs. price is pre-101 economics (getting it right - not so easy).
Conversations with PC users as to how wonderful the M-series chips are tend to come to a shuddering halt when they reach Apple's RAM/SSD prices. Windows is deep into encrudification (unless you're an enterprise customer and get the crud shut-off tool) so why aren't Apple pwning Windows right now?
When I "upgrade" my 3+ year old computer, I would normally expect to bump up the RAM and internal storage, because that's the way it has rolled for the last 45 years (well, maybe 6 months in 1980 has stretched to 3 years in 2025). It's not unreasonable to expect RAM and storage specs to keep pace with processors that can crunch exponentially more data and media formats that use higher resolutions/rates.
At worst that 3-year-old PC system is likely to be 8GB/512GB and even 16GB/1TB was hardly unaffordable on a. ~$1K PC 3 years ago - so if you buy a base Mac with 16GB/256GB where's the upgrade? The RAM bump is just the acceptable minimum, and the storage is a major downgrade (esp. if the first thing I'm going to do is copy all my files over...)
Even coming from a 3+ year old base-model Mac, the only "upgrade" is 8 to 16GB RAM.
Building a reputation for being over-priced is not a good long-term plan. Even things like the polishing cloth, Pro XDR stand and Mac Pro wheels - while being of zero practical consequence for most Mac users - really made Apple a laughing stock.
Computers are not designer handbags (A market that Apple sometimes seems to aspire to) - they are used to do practical things beyond telling people that you can afford Gucci, and some people do care whether they can hold a box of kleenex and a phone charger. You don't want your computer platform to be an "exclusive" luxury that only a few can afford - not if you also want widespread software support and compatibility.
It seems that people were having the same argument over 8 vs 16GB RAM a year or so back. "8GB is enough for many people, why should we pay more?" - yet (as others were predicting) the new Macs came out with 16GB as standard and no consistent price increase - there comes a point where low-balling specs is false economy, or even where the smaller parts are more expensive as demand falls. That's possibly one reason why we've seen cases of base Macs only using 1 256GB flash chip that wastes half the bandwidth rather than 2x128GB. Then there are logistical savings from having to make fewer models & using higher volumes of the same chips. I'm pretty sure that Apple could have made 512GB the base storage on new Macs without raising prices - and still upsold customers to 1TB or 2TB for $200-per-step.
Apple have let their pricing model get broken - they've always gouged for RAM and SSD upgrades (Even in 2017 $3k i7 iMacs with base 8GB RAM and "fusion" drives with a measly 32GB SSD portion were a joke - but at least then 3rd party RAM - and SSD at a push - upgrades were possible). Since then, though, the base RAM specs have only seen a single bump, and their 512/1TB SSD upgrades are still at 2017 prices, when an all-SSD computer was something special). Post M4, they've become far to reliant on RAM and SSD at 4x markup as the only differentiator between their base/better/best models.
The conversation I have with PC users goes like this:
If all of your software runs natively on macOS and you're fine with 16 GB of RAM and you want great battery life and great performance when you need it, get a Mac.
If you do school, office and productivity stuff and you want 32 GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD, then look at Lunar Lake. Lunar Lake has great efficiency but is weak in multicore performance.
If you want RAM and SSD and/or the ability to upgrade it and a discrete GPU because you game or do video editing, then consider AMD HX3**. This if you are not as concerned about efficiency and all of your software isn't native Apple Silicon.
In the Windows world, hardware is segmented as it can do great efficiency and great performance. You tend to get one, the other or a little of both. And this is why Macs are doing great. The RAM situation is a lot better with 16 base. The SSD is still a sticking point. Yes, people are doing the SSD replacements on the Mac mini and Mac Studio and you can use an external drive. But it's kind of a hack relative to the actual cost of the hardware.
The macbook air and to some extent the macbook pro is priced at a competitive price point.
That being said what they have done to the MacPro is just atrocious, the whole point of a macpro was to be able to upgrade drives, memory and actually have a desktop computer. Apple has lost touch with its pro user market and this is why many users are switching to linux or worse going to windows 11.
That being said what they have done to the MacPro is just atrocious, the whole point of a macpro was to be able to upgrade drives, memory and actually have a desktop computer. Apple has lost touch with its pro user market and this is why many users are switching to linux or worse going to windows 11.
Yes good point regarding modding all sorts of things (cars included). My typical approach with all is snipe a used (or Apple refurb) one, make no mods, play with it for a while then snipe something even cooler and sell the previous one.
I did that with G3's Pismo's and tower's, Cube with 22" ADC display, TiBook, 12" MacBook and a small herd of MBP's.
Last edited:
To be blunt, they wanted the Mac Pro market to switch to the Mac Studio, or to go elsewhere. It's not a big enough market for them to be bothered with (I'm not saying I agree, but it seems to be the attitude).
The AS Mac Pro is still being offered as it's their token "Made in the USA" product (although even that's not quite true). They nominally keep it in the lineup because it ticks that box.
Last edited:
Back in 2019 I bought a 27" iMac with the minimum RAM available, but with a 2TB hard drive. This iMac came with a keyboard, mouse, and paid around $1,200 USD for it. What I did then was to buy Crusial RAM sticks, over 128GB if I well remember, for around $200.00. Back then this RAM sticks were both PC and Mac compatible.
Apple kept the price of the iMac (same model) relatively the same for a few years. You can still buy a 24" iMac (base model) for about the same price as my 2019 iMac. It is quite lightweight, thin, and compact all around compared to the older 24" iMac. It means that Apple has saved $ by reducing the amount of materials needed to build one iMac with its "thinner and compactness" construction model. And yes, "it is good for the environment, too" 🤣
If I were to buy a M4 Studio with a 2TB SSD and 128GB RAM I would be paying between $4,000 and $5,000 for the Studio alone, then I would have to buy a 27" 5K screen for perhaps $1,200 for the BenQ, and perhaps $1,800 for an Apple monitor of similar specs as the BenQ one (after deciding which glass texture I prefer/the cheaper or more adjustable stand or not/ Vesa mount or not), a keyboard, mouse of trackpad, a stand with filter, and so on. It would cost somewhere around $7,000 or more.
But to make matters worst is that I would not have any choice but to have Apple install the RAM and SSD, since both aren't user upgradable. The pricing model is not just rigid but setup as follows: It is somewhat like a "bait" deal where the buyer is tempted to pay a little more for a more desirable option. In this case the buyer, who's already immersed in the Apple ecosystem, builds the computer based on his or her needs or wants, regardless if he or she can afford it or not. Just look at all the options offered for the Apple display: a simple stand included with the display that allows to tilt the display, then another that allows for tilting and and lifting or lowering the display, and so on. The 27" 5k BenQ display comes with a stand that is both heigh adjustable and display tilting, plus the glass is not glossy (not textured but non-reflective). The optional extendable arm costs a little over $100.00.
B&H makes simpler to sift through the prices and options for the Mac Studio Max:
Last edited:
Fairly priced, for the tech?
Base models, yes. Especially now 16GB is the entry point for RAM.
The price of more RAM, and especially more storage, no. The minimum storage needs to be 500GB, without increasing price. Lowering RAM price a bit would be nice too.
Obviously that all does depend substantially on longevity. If you are getting 7-8 years from a personal use Mac (without major repairs), then the cost is more reasonable.
Base models, yes. Especially now 16GB is the entry point for RAM.
The price of more RAM, and especially more storage, no. The minimum storage needs to be 500GB, without increasing price. Lowering RAM price a bit would be nice too.
Obviously that all does depend substantially on longevity. If you are getting 7-8 years from a personal use Mac (without major repairs), then the cost is more reasonable.
Yes, that makes sense.
The problem is that new apps, including the OS take a lot of SSD or HD space, and most need as much RAM as possible. In my case, I would want at least 2TB SSD and somewhere around 128GB RAM, just like the 2019 I still use for photo editing, except that the Studio would be a lot faster than my old iMac. I usually upgrade computers after several years of use.
I am still using a 2019 13' MacBook Pro (has the touch bar), and has never let me down, but I don't use it for heavy tasks including photo editing, just mundane stuff such as what I and doing right now in this forum
Last edited:
OK, from a different angle -
Hypothetically, you’re a small business, say 15-20 staff. They all need a new setup. Not all staff are that interested in tech, all know their way around Windows and maybe Mac. Do you get:
1. Base level M4 Mac mini + mid-range 1440p or 1080p Monitor + good keyboard + good mouse
2. Base level MacBook Air
3. Windows based desktop + mid-range 1440p or 1080p Monitor + good keyboard + good mouse
4. Windows based laptop
Everyone gets the same. No mix and match from the four options.
No Linux, sorry. All machines are connected to a 1gig Ethernet or wi-fi 6e network with a fast file server to handle storage
Which option do you think is the best, and is Mac good value in this situation?
Hypothetically, you’re a small business, say 15-20 staff. They all need a new setup. Not all staff are that interested in tech, all know their way around Windows and maybe Mac. Do you get:
1. Base level M4 Mac mini + mid-range 1440p or 1080p Monitor + good keyboard + good mouse
2. Base level MacBook Air
3. Windows based desktop + mid-range 1440p or 1080p Monitor + good keyboard + good mouse
4. Windows based laptop
Everyone gets the same. No mix and match from the four options.
No Linux, sorry. All machines are connected to a 1gig Ethernet or wi-fi 6e network with a fast file server to handle storage
Which option do you think is the best, and is Mac good value in this situation?
3. Windows based desktop + mid-range 1440p or 1080p Monitor + good keyboard + good mouse with the appropriate business software, and an iMac or two for the receptionists.
I don't disagree, by why choose this option over the to Mac options?
In a office deployment, do you think a PC based solution is still better value than an Apple-based option?
Last edited:
If the current environment is Windows, then you won't have any training costs outside of Windows 10 to Windows 11 and you may be able to carry any software licenses over with you. You would be far less likely to have compatibility issues with your software too.
My office offered employees a choice of Windows, Lunux and macOS. But they didn't really have a macOS person in the local IT department. So when someone had an issue, they sent them to me because they knew I was a mac person and I had a lot of spare macOS accessories in my office including a spare MagSafe charger.
It really depends on the software, for all of my professional life Macs were not a serious business computer because the software needed was windows only. That has changed between more mac apps, and more cloud based systems.
Then there's the management, there's more software available to remotely manage PCs over macs.
Personally, I'd see what fits best for each person, I think desktops work the best in office locations, but you may have sales staff that goes to client sites, and they need a laptop. If you have an IS department, then they will be better suited with a high powered laptop or mac where as the clerical people would be fine with a lower end computer.
This happened to me more than once in a work situation. The "Mac tech" is just the person who knows about Macs.
It shows that, no matter how much we talk about good or bad value Macs are at the consumer level, there's still a problem at this small / mid business deployment level. It's far more likely a business will go for a Windows-based solution.
Don't forget large as well, and that's going to be due to the tools that are provided by microsoft. There's vertical integration and tools to manage laptops remotely. What's available from Microsoft alone is staggering, SCCM, Intune, active directory 365 exchange online, etc etc.
Businesses have a wealth of tools and services available that make managing and protecting PCs so much easier then Macs.