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.
Apple wants $600 for 1TB SSD while Samsung's 1TB m.2 sells for $229
- Thread starter Tom80112
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Tell ya what, make a post on the MBP forum and ask people with the 512gb to post their speeds tests. Any test you don't agree with you call flawed. You can't even have a discussion. I'm done officially now in this topic. Keep on dreaming with what you think works.
This discussion is being held in the Mini forum. Therefore let's keep the discussion to the Mini and competitor products which could have been used in that model.
I apologize if it seems like I was being condescending or harsh. I honestly do not know if the mini and MBP have the same SSD performance. I was very close to buying a mini and had done a decent amount of research on it. What I had found in relation to SSD speed does not match what you are finding for a MBP at the 512 size.
But i did two posts earlier?!
I linked two whole threads where people with 512gb drives posted their speeds and NONE of them got over 2gb/s write.
128gb drive minj:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mac-mini-2018-128gb-ssd-speed.2153608/
(600mb/s)
512 gb mbp
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/2018-mbp-ssd-speed-benchmarks.2132686/
1,9gb/s
Inside also 1tb, 2tb
The 512GB in my new Mac Mini averages 1.85 Write and 2.78 Read.
In my PC:
I have a Samsung 512GB 960 Evo Pro which averages 1.97 Write and 3.1 Read.
I also have a 250GB 960 Evo which averages 1.55 Write and 3.08 Read.
They are all decent, but Apple is not offering the best performance out there. Certainly not the best price to performance ratio.
In my PC:
I have a Samsung 512GB 960 Evo Pro which averages 1.97 Write and 3.1 Read.
I also have a 250GB 960 Evo which averages 1.55 Write and 3.08 Read.
They are all decent, but Apple is not offering the best performance out there. Certainly not the best price to performance ratio.
Again, that is total read/write. There is again a reason why Samsung sells the Pro over the EVO.
Please research why the Pro is better than the EVO and that will answer your question.
how do you explain all the posts I linked here?
none of the 512GB apple SSDs broke 2gb/s on write.
I'm quite knowledgeable about this topic and I have no idea what you're referring to.
People here have attempted to engage you in a reasoned discussion and you've been fighting them every step of the way. If you do not wish to take the opportunity to present your case then don't expect anyone to take what you say with anything than a grain of salt.
[doublepost=1544045502][/doublepost]
I have little confidence he's even looking at the references that have been provided to him. He certainly didn't appear to have done so for the reference I provided him. Asking me all kinds of questions when the answers could be found in the reference.
No, because everything I post and link you continue to argue instead of learning about it. I won't continue and that is why I told you to research the EVO vs Pro and the differences and that will tell you why one performs over the other.
Now back to regularly scheduled programming.
If you stop feeding the troll, it goes away eventually.
As interesting as it is and I know how people like to discuss these things, but at what point does it go beyond faster than you can notice or even care about?
Standard SSD does what, 550MB/s read and then you can go up to 3,000MB/s. At what point does that speed stop altering your perception that it's going faster than before? I suspect in day to day use its closer to the 550 than 3000. For the vast majority of people.
In the case of writing it will depend more on use case as to which would be most beneficial.
Standard SSD does what, 550MB/s read and then you can go up to 3,000MB/s. At what point does that speed stop altering your perception that it's going faster than before? I suspect in day to day use its closer to the 550 than 3000. For the vast majority of people.
In the case of writing it will depend more on use case as to which would be most beneficial.
For most folk, that hit nearly a decade ago, when they started dumping their computers and using their smartphones instead.
Most of us do not need to render Toy Story 5, or calculate an ab initio wave function for Iridium 194m2.
I agree with you. I guess the need for more speed would come from using larger files or a larger number of files in whatever work flow. For day-to-day, I think we reached all the speed we will need probably 4 or 5 years ago. At this point, pretty much any machine you buy is overkill for word processing and web browsing. What will drive the need for more speed is gaming, video editing, maybe image editing, 3-D rendering, etc.
I know that it is ridiculous to say this, but I think for the normal person we are at the point where speed increases no longer matter and what we have now, and have had for several years, is all that will be needed. I mean, in all honesty, my 2010 iMac with an SSD would be plenty fast for the vast majority of what I do. In 2010 I would not have been able to say that about the computer I was using in 2002.
Yeah pretty much. I have a windows laptop here that came with an HDD, it's about 5 years old, I replaced the HDD with a pretty basic SSD a couple of years ago and remember thinking, wow, what a difference. But when I start it up even now I don't think to myself that it's noticeably slower than my PC with NVMe. It probably is but again, perception, it's 'fast enough'.
Yeah it is why I just purchased a used 2014 mac mini mid with a 500gb ssd and 8gb ram for lite blogging surfing etc. I won't be getting the 2018 as I don't need that expensive internal ssd. A 125 dollar samsung ssd in the 2014 is fine.
True.
To me the “holy €
&” moment was the 2012 retina. When my 2018 i9 (2tb) was refunded, going back to 2012 wasnt a big deal. Sure, less cpu for logic, buch general usage feel was the same.
True.
To me the “holy €
I have some very powerful amd threadripper machines with 128gb ram and 1tb wd black nvme m.2 booter
and for surfing the net it is no faster then a 2014 mac mini with a 2 tb micron ssd and 4b ram.
for typing here you would not know the difference. Now there is a lot of things I do with the threadripper that the 2018 with the i7 and 64gb ram and an external gpu would not keep up with.
So I have to ask myself
build the threadripper for heavy graphics use a cheap mac mini for typing here
or get a killer 2018 mac mini?
Well I did not buy the 2018 mac mini (soldered ssd = as bad as soldered ram)
I use logic pro, and really dont want to bother with a hackintosh.
After much much thought (and a failed i9 with 2TB SSD) I concluded that the sweet spot for the soldered SSD is 512GB; regarding both speed and upgrade price.
Coming from a 2012 rMBP, I'd say that soldered SSD is somewhat worse than soldered RAM.
I bought a maxed out 2012 with 256GB drive and replaced the drive a few years later when prices came down. Since 16GB was the limit of the chipset anyway, I wasn't going to gain much on RAM in any case.
Now for the Mini, I'd much prefer it if they came with nVME drives.
That way, Apple could've avoided:
- coil whine replacements
- lumpy speeds at sub 512GB sizes
Exactly.
Going from HDD to even a cheap SSD is night-and-day. SSDs have near instant access time which is what make your computer feel snappier. That's what people like.
But you'll probably never hit the maximum speeds (either 500MB/s for SSD or 3,000MB/s for MVNe) in day-to-day use.
Having super-fast speeds is great for copying large files. But that's only if the drive you're copying to is also a super-fast fast drive. Otherwise... you can only copy files at the speed of the slowest drive.
I've ditched all HDDs in my Windows tower. I've got three SSDs now in my system: a boot drive, a data drive, a drive for my video projects. And even my two portable drives are SSD: Samsung T5
The only spinning rust in my house is in my Synology NAS.
But even though my current SSDs are *only* the standard 500MB/s variety... I don't notice it. They're fast enough.
I will probably use MVNe drives in my next Windows build... but mostly to eliminate cable clutter. You can install M.2 drives directly on the motherboard. I like the simplicity of that.
But I'll probably never take advantage of their 3,000MB/s speed.