Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

SSD speed vs size

Have already seen base M4 Pro mini with 512GB, and base M4 Pro 16" also with 512GB, both are using 4x128GB to score 4-6000MB/s.
 
Think I've seen enough data to conclude the storage upgrade cost from 256 to 512 on the regular M4 is not worth the extra $200.

External enclosures/drives can get almost the same read/write if you don't mind having something connected to the Mac Mini on a single cable.
 
roflc0pter said:
Think I've seen enough data to conclude the storage upgrade cost from 256 to 512 on the regular M4 is not worth the extra $200.

External enclosures/drives can get almost the same read/write if you don't mind having something connected to the Mac Mini on a single cable.
Click to expand...
Perfect, but your statement 'M4 512 is barely faster than the 256 data posted here. Almost 2x on M4 Pro with 512 though' is not accurate at all, and it might be misleading for some readers.
 
External may match or even exceed internal in sequential speed, but random speed and latency may suffer. It largely depends on what you use the storage for to make the right call.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Allen_Wentz
pantumaka said:
Perfect, but your statement 'M4 512 is barely faster than the 256 data posted here. Almost 2x on M4 Pro with 512 though' is not accurate at all, and it might be misleading for some readers.
Click to expand...
What part isn't accurate if going off Tom's article and most of the 256GB data posted here?
 
So I looked at more results outside of here and this is what I found

M4 256GB w/ 1GB file size = 3000/3000
M4 256GB w/ 5GB file size = 3000/2000

M4 512GB w/ w/ 1GB file size = 3000/4500
M4 512GB w/ w/ 5GB file size = 3000/3400
 
  • Like
Reactions: pantumaka
Chancha said:
External may match or even exceed internal in sequential speed, but random speed and latency may suffer. It largely depends on what you use the storage for to make the right call.
Click to expand...
Indeed, I’m mostly interested in the internal memory performance difference (256 vs 512 in M4) for swap performance. As that is (of few things) always happening on the internal storage (if it’s your boot drive at least)?

But there the random speed should matter most (correct me if I’m wrong) and didn’t see much Amorphous results yet for the M4 512 config (or higher) to compare them.
 
Last edited:
Larsz95 said:
Indeed, I’m mostly interested in the internal memory performance difference (256 vs 512 in M4) for swap performance. As that is (of few things) always happening on the internal storage (if it’s your boot drive at least)?

But there the random speed should matter most (correct me if I’m wrong) and didn’t see much Amorphous results yet for the M4 512 config (or higher) to compare them.
Click to expand...
Screenshot-2024-11-09-at-12-38-22-pm.png

512

256
jwu72njwvrzd1.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Larsz95
I don't really know what I'm doing but, if this is of any interest to anyone, this is what I get on my 14" MacBook Pro (M4Pro, 1TB SSD):

APPLE SSD AP1024Z : Apple M4 Pro.png

No idea if that's good or bad. 😀

So I ran it again to see if it was the same:

APPLE SSD AP1024Z : Apple M4 Pro 2.png
 
Last edited:
Anyone found a 5GB comparison between 256 and 512? Wondering if the random speed difference is larger at more sustained loads.

Mainly to compare what swap performance would be, the QD1 difference seems negligible but QD64 more significant. Then again real world impact would probably not be significant enough to warrant the upgrade price (and if hitting swap you’re already seeing performance degrade significantly)🤔
 
So, is it there a consensus about AmorphousDiskMark being the most appropriate and standardized way to measure an SSD speed?

I’ve always used the Mac App Store Blackmagic tool, the UI is pretty, but I can change if the other tool is more accurate.
 
Populus said:
So, is it there a consensus about AmorphousDiskMark being the most appropriate and standardized way to measure an SSD speed?

I’ve always used the Mac App Store Blackmagic tool, the UI is pretty, but I can change if the other tool is more accurate.
Click to expand...
If picky, AmorphousDiskMark is considered just middle of the park but for the purpose of general sharing and comparison it is more than adequate. The added bonus is how it is virtually the same as CrystalDiskMark, so that you have a sea of data from the PC side to add against what's only on the Mac platform.

If you are inclined, use ATTO Disk Benchmark which gives even more control for your tests, shows you graphs, can export logs, and more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Populus
In summary...

If you want your storage to be faster than ~3000-3400 MB/s, then you'll have to get the M4 Pro, which is significantly faster.

Possibly because M4 Pro models use 4 NAND chips and non-Pro M4 uses 2 NAND chips?

I'd like to see a 2TB storage size test with both the M4 and M4 Pro, personally.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back