Mac Mini's - with new apple chips?

Can't see where it says that?

WD Blue are up to 1950, and WD Black 3000
In the Amazon pages, for several of the sizes of SSD. Not all. Just above the write speed.
 
I was literally about order this one - https://www.amazon.co.uk/UGREEN-Enclosure-External-Thunderbolt-Compatible/dp/B08DNR22Q7/

can't tell what the difference is between this and the one that's a lot more expensive... both same company,... roughly similar design.

10GBPS USB 3.2. You can have something similar for even less. Orico on ebay, or most of them on Aliexpress.

TB3 are more expansive but may be worth it for some uses. If you can wait a couple of weeks: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/400...earchweb0_0,searchweb201602_,searchweb201603_
 
It’s a shame that’s the cutdown version. I’m guessing we will need to wait longer for Lightroom Classic to be updated.

Can run it in emulation mode anyway can't you?
 
Can run it in emulation mode anyway can't you?
You can but it would be great if the native app was out. I guess it was to be expected lightroom classic will take longer to sort as it’s more complicated than the cut down version. It’s obvious to most that Adobe want to get rid of classic and are pushing the cutdown CC version.
 
You can but it would be great if the native app was out. I guess it was to be expected lightroom classic will take longer to sort as it’s more complicated than the cut down version. It’s obvious to most that Adobe want to get rid of classic and are pushing the cutdown CC version.

Not really, they're currently adding more colour grading features to classic
 
Any chance you have tried the any of the topaz AI software?
No sorry. Lightroom CC, Affinity Pro, Sigma Optimisation Pro, Smartshooter 4 and Wacom Intuit pro all run well so far. No problems with anything yet.
 
Returning to this thread after acquiring an SSD NVMe

SSD Speed - 3200

1st Caddy purchased, - 950
(caveat emptor - it was marked Thunderbolt 3, but was only compatible, not actual)

2nd Caddy purchased - 1317
Thunderbolt 3

USB3 SSD - 474

Internal SSD - 2532

So, it appears currently, that the internal SSD is twice as fast as the fastest possible (not cheap) external one.

For comparison
Thunderbolt 2 Spinning Rust Drive - 200
USB C Spinning Rust Drive - 100
 
Last edited:
Returning to this thread after acquiring an SSD NVMe

SSD Speed - 3200

1st Caddy purchased, - 950
(caveat emptor - it was marked Thunderbolt 3, but was only compatible, not actual)

2nd Caddy purchased - 1317
Thunderbolt 3

USB3 SSD - 474

Internal SSD - 2532

So, it appears currently, that the internal SSD is twice as fast as the fastest possible (not cheap) external one.

For comparison
Thunderbolt 2 Spinning Rust Drive - 200
USB C Spinning Rust Drive - 100

Which caddy did you purchase and are these speeds with a M1 Mac?
 
16" MBP

OWC Envoy Express. There aren't that many options for Thunderbolt 3 NVMe
 
If I want to get THE best speeds in the simplest manner, would a drive like the Sabrent Rocket XTREM be the way forward? That drive like the Samsung X5 for Thunderbolt 3 and has produced r/w past 2300+ on previous systems.
 
Returning to this thread after acquiring an SSD NVMe

SSD Speed - 3200

1st Caddy purchased, - 950
(caveat emptor - it was marked Thunderbolt 3, but was only compatible, not actual)

2nd Caddy purchased - 1317
Thunderbolt 3

USB3 SSD - 474

Internal SSD - 2532

So, it appears currently, that the internal SSD is twice as fast as the fastest possible (not cheap) external one.

For comparison
Thunderbolt 2 Spinning Rust Drive - 200
USB C Spinning Rust Drive - 100


I have the M1 MBA. Interal speeds are around 2800MB/S read and write.

My Intel NVME drive in a Plugable USB-C caddy is around 700-800MB/s read and write.

My 2015 MacBook Pro is a pitiful 400MB/s read and write
 
Interesting article on the SSDs in M1 machines.

Apple Macs with M1 chip reportedly suffering excessive SSD wear in some cases | TechRadar

TL;DR: either there's something weird going on or M1s *may* start failing in 18 months or so.

MacWorld are a little more alarmist but both articles are essentially taking the same source and spinning up their story.

Your new Mac's speedy SSD might not last as long as it should | Macworld
Having read neither story, I'd guess it's down to swap files wearing the memory.
 
Having read neither story, I'd guess it's down to swap files wearing the memory.

That's the concern. These machines appear to use the swap file a LOT. Meaning the drives may wear out very fast. And as we all know, the drives aren't strictly speaking replaceable.

If they were to wear out just out of warranty, that would be very bad indeed.
 
Having read neither story, I'd guess it's down to swap files wearing the memory.

Macs use swap memory regardless of how much RAM you have. I assume there is some method to the madness but even my iMac when it has plenty of RAM used swap memory. There's many tests online showing Mac Pro with 100GB RAM using swap memory.
 
Last edited:
That's the concern. These machines appear to use the swap file a LOT. Meaning the drives may wear out very fast. And as we all know, the drives aren't strictly speaking replaceable.

If they were to wear out just out of warranty, that would be very bad indeed.

Even the older Intel machines used swap memory quite lot at least from the last couple of osx installations if not before it.
I don't think any one is going around complaining thier SSDs are dying on them prematurely.
In fact my old iMac's SSD took quite a battering and still showed at 90+% life left after 4 years of use.
 
Even the older Intel machines used swap memory quite lot at least from the last couple of osx installations if not before it.
I don't think any one is going around complaining thier SSDs are dying on them prematurely.
In fact my old iMac's SSD took quite a battering and still showed at 90+% life left after 4 years of use.

Exactly - the article is showing that somehow the M1s are burning through their drives much faster than the Intels. If a drive fails after 10 years of usage that's pretty good - but if it fails in <2 (as the limited sample size on MacWorld is suggesting) AND the drive can't be swapped, that's bad.
 
Exactly - the article is showing that somehow the M1s are burning through their drives much faster than the Intels. If a drive fails after 10 years of usage that's pretty good - but if it fails in <2 (as the limited sample size on MacWorld is suggesting) AND the drive can't be swapped, that's bad.

think you are missing my point Intels use swap memory just as much as the M1s do. The swap memory usage and the logic behind it probably not much different between the two architectures.
I don't think M1s will fail any sooner than an equivalent intel would have done (not due to the SSD anyway). Granted my 8GB version has to resort using swap memory a lot more than my intel iMac but like I said my intel iMac had only used less than 10% of its supposed life in writes after 4 years (of heavy use). so I don't think this is a real issue.

Of course no one can actually confirm this only time will tell but I am personally not worried.
 
So I got interested in what my 8GB M1 machine was up to, and it claims to have used 1% of it's SSD TBW lifespan in the last two months, so at the current rate of consumption that means I have around 16 years of wear left. I haven't been kind to it since I got it - just threw everything at it to see if it could replace my desktop - for comparison, I still run a 2012 iMac so if this M1 lasts just 10 years then it'll be fine for me.

What surprised me was the speed of swap on the M1 - this is perhaps what a lot of these "suddenly scared" folk are unconsciously reacting to as I've never, ever used a personal machine where I genuinely can't tell if it's hit swap or not: I've only had a noticeable delay a couple of times which made me think "hmm, maybe I should close an app or two" and at that stage I was 30GB into swap and had lots of RAW files open in multiple different programs.

It doesn't help that the breathlessly-intrepid-home-reporters who are worried about flash wear were not so long ago saying to pick 8GB M1's over 16GB purely because "there was no speed difference: Apple are fleecing you OMFG !". If they'd spent just a small amount of time reading up on swap on *nix systems then the correct news stories would have been about how fast and painless it is going into swap on a system with such a stupendously fast bus/flash memory.

I'd expect that folk on these forums are likely to fall into Power User status as far as the manufacturers are concerned (especially those reworking 50MP+ RAW files), and so we should expect to make the devices work a bit. If I owned a machine that never went into swap then I'd have massively overspent on RAM...

Having said that, I'm holding out for an M1X/M2 (whatever they call the chip) going into an iMac or a Mac Mini++ type device, so it can have 24GB of RAM, as that's about the sweet spot for me on my current Intel iMac with the way I rework panorama images.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top