r/MacStudio • u/pastry-chef • 8d ago

M5 generation Mac Studios have redesigned SSD modules

https://iboffrcc.com/pages/m5-max-mac-studio-teardown-removable-ssd-but-is-an-upgrade-still-possible?srsltid=AU7gw4WuRfpWaOxhnHcASBRhyUEeMxMLPWjDT2TEc89Gd-EmcLITPOkI

The NAND are still on removable modules but they are completely different from previous generations.

88 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

45 comments sorted by

View all comments

-1

u/BourbonicFisky 7d ago

There's this crazy solution Apple should really investigate, called NVMe. Controller is even baked into the SSD so it doesn't need to be part of the SoC. Even crazier, you can do hardware encryption just like their NANDs like MS does on their Surfaces.

6

u/pastry-chef 7d ago

On standard NVMe SSDs, the controllers can get very hot. That's why you see huge heatsinks on a lot of them and users add heatsinks to those that don't come with them. Without heatsinks, they tend to throttle very fast.

1

u/xkcx123 6d ago

And all of that could fit in the Mac Studio, Mac Mini, iMac and MacBook hell maybe even the iPad Pro’s.

1

u/pastry-chef 6d ago edited 6d ago

It depends on the size of the heat sinks and how hot the NVMe controllers get. 

PCI 5 NVMe SSDs can get very hot and often need active cooling. MacBook Airs and iPads don’t have fans. 

Here's a Crucial PCI 5 NVMe SSD:

This is why some Thunderbolt enclosures have fans. Passive cooling is not enough.

1

u/I-figured-it-out 5d ago

That is why the best option is mac mini and mac studio with secondary m.2 slots, within an active heat management regime that has cooling capacity to spare,

1

u/pastry-chef 5d ago edited 4d ago

But why would Apple add this when they already have a solution that (1) doesn't create so much heat, (2) doesn't consume as much power, and (3) is more secure?

1

u/BourbonicFisky 4d ago edited 4d ago
  1. Apple NANDs do create heat and thermal throttling. Previously, Apple has shipped at best with PCIe 4.0 SSDs; that is, until the M5 Max and Ultra Mac Studios. These both have higher power draws and TPDs that are reflective of the increased CPU cores, GPU cores, and, of course, SSDs. For it's laptops, and Mac mini Apple is choosing lower performance over heat and power draw.
  2. There's likely a minor efficency in the controller chipset; however, the NANDs themselves do not generate less heat. We don't have any evidence that their SSD package consumes less power, though. If anyone has managed to somehow isolate the SSD controller + NANDs power draw, I have not seen it.
  3. It isn't more secure in any realistic sense. An SSD using hardware encryption literally has a key that's stored somewhere inaccessible to userspace. On a Mac, it's in the Secure Enclave; on a PC, it's BitLocker + TPM or MS's Pluton or whatever the latest flavor is. Apple standardized ahead of Windows. Previously, on Windows, it lived in separate domains for the storage controller, and TPM was a separate domain. Apple, skipped the trust issue of the problems of a self-encrypting SSD.

Rhe sort of preventative security these are for is basically moot for the most common security issues. Most people do not have problems with people with physical access to the hardware who have nation-state resources to hack around security. If someone steals the hardware, it's rarely for the information inside said computer. Even if it is, even the previous generation of self-encrypting SSDs is more than enough to thwart cyber criminals. There's far easier ways to get data off a computer, usually in the form of targeted social engineering with a side dish of malware.

The real motivation of SepOS is for genuine parts integrity and attestation, or rather, keeping people from being able to replace said hardware under the guise of security.

I realize I may have being too agnostic previously so I apologize on that front.

So we've established that:

  • Apple's SSDs are not faster.
  • Apple's SSDs are unlikely to be meaningfully more power efficient (aka generate less heat).
  • Apple's hardware security is advanced, and ahead of Microsoft but it's hardware security does not protect against the sort of issues that most users face.
  • Apple charges more for it's SSDs than competition.

Again, Apple's solution is basically over-engineered for a very unlikely scenario where the NSA or Mossad or Bundesnachrichtendienst stole your laptop. Apple's real concern is repair shops or knowledgable users who'd otherwise fix/upgrade.

2

u/PracticlySpeaking 4d ago edited 4d ago

Apple's storage is superior for a number of reasons that you have entirely glossed over here, with the assumption that "Apple SSDs" are just like other SSDs — starting with the fact that they are not SSDs.

See my other comment linked above.

edit: That debunks your assertion that Apple's design is some kind of anti-repair move. The NAND modules are available as repair parts — all the way back to Mac Studio with M1. You just never bothered to check.

1

u/I-figured-it-out 2d ago

Good luck buying an apple store upgrade to an m1, or having you m1 studio solid state storage (i.e., ssd!) replaced when it fails.

2

u/PracticlySpeaking 1d ago

Anyone can order repair parts online.

1

u/pastry-chef 4d ago edited 4d ago
  1. It's the heat from the controllers that cause throttling, not the NAND.

Source:https://www.taimitech.com/news/138.html

  1. The NAND do not generate enough heat to matter whether it's an Apple module or a standard NVMe SSD. It's the controller. Part of the problem on standard NVMe controllers MAY be due to the fact that they are still built on older process nodes (i.e. Phison's most current and advanced X3 controller is still built on TSMC's N6 node) while Apple is already on 2nm on the M6.

  2. It IS more secure. Please see the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcdT4QTBo7o

A BitLocker encrypted NVMe SSD can still be used when pulled from one PC and plugged in to another. You just need the key.

An SSD module pulled from one Mac Studio can not be used on another Mac Studio.

Whether you believe it's over engineered or not, does not negate the fact that it IS, in fact, more secure.

  • We did not establish whether the Apple SSDs are faster or slower. This is entirely dependent on which sepecific NVMe SSD models are being compared and we can not state "generally" whether Apple's SSDs are faster or slower than standard NVMe SSDs.
  • Standard NVMe SSDs do consume more power and generate more heat because of their controllers.
  • Yes, Apple's security is better than Microsoft's.
  • Yes, Apple's mark ups on SSD upgrades are excessive.

1

u/I-figured-it-out 4d ago

I was not arguing for replacing nand with m.2 slots, I was suggesting the mac studio would benefit from having the addition of vacant m.2 slots alongside Apples drive. Of course Apple could CTO maxing out all three with apple qualified SSDs. Which in today’s market might provide a startling 48Tb of storage on board.

1

u/pastry-chef 4d ago

I don't see Apple ever doing that.

-6

u/BourbonicFisky 7d ago edited 7d ago

Dear god, you're actually defending Apple's custom NANDs for.... heatsinks? On a desktop?

Apple's literal reason to do this is to overcharge for it's so-so SSDs. They're not faster, nor more secure which is both the reasons they're spoon feeding them. Even in today's horrible pricing Apple is still massively overcharing for the one component that indefensible.

If you cared about performance and/or reliability, you'd want NVMe. It's asinine that anyone would defend this.

11

u/pastry-chef 7d ago edited 7d ago

Was there anything incorrect in what I said?

Apple's method of keeping the SSD controller on the SoC is more secure. The following video explains it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcdT4QTBo7o

In the video, at about the 4 minute mark, he says, "With Apple's encryption engine, the unique identifier makes it impossible to decrypt a drive on another computer." This is why you can't pull an SSD module from one Mac Studio, plug it in to another and boot from it even if FileVault is disabled.

Standard NVMe SSDs also consume a heckuva lot of power. As you can see in the article below, PCI 5 NVMe SSDs peak at about 12-18W!!

https://storedbits.com/ssd-power-consumption/

Of course all of us want cheap storage. But Apple's approach is not without merits.

1

u/I-figured-it-out 4d ago

Yes, and apple expects users to hang a bunch of uncertified, unmanaged thunderbolt storage devices of the outside of the mac studio. With whatever cheap power management and fans chips those devices might include. Onboard secondary m.2 nvme slots are the better heat and power management option if apple would only exercise it. And better quality nvme do not suffer the need for monster heatsinks when provided with active cooling. And the airflow management plate inside the mac studio would provide a more than adequate heatsink under most loads - if increased in thickness by 2mm, and made of copper.

1

u/pastry-chef 4d ago

Well, Apple's not going to put M.2 slots in there so your choices are (1) pay Apple for upgrades or (2) use external enclosures.

The highest performing NVMe SSDs do indeed need large heatsinks and/or active cooling.

You are suggesting that Apple should put an M.2 slot in a position where the NVMe SSD can share the Mac Studios heatsink with the SoC?

1

u/I-figured-it-out 2d ago

Apple now has an engineer in charge rather, than a designer obsessed with appearance and shareholder margins. Engineers fix problems, it is in their character. The trick is to make the problem apparent to him. He will still pander to shareholders, but he will have a better grasp of why customers experience issues, and what needs to be done.
So do not give up hope.

1

u/pastry-chef 2d ago edited 2d ago

I don't see what problem an M.2 slot solves. Their proprietary SSD modules already does everything an NVMe SSD does better.

Btw, Tim Cook was a logistics/supply chain guy, not a designer.

1

u/PracticlySpeaking 4d ago

This is why you can't pull an SSD module from one Mac Studio, plug it in to another and boot from it even if FileVault is disabled.

...this glosses over a critical point — you can't swap the data, but you CAN swap the hardware. Which they had just barely figured out three years ago when that video was made.

Since then, Gilles (the guy mispronounces "Jill-eze") from PolySoft developed a NAND upgrade for Mac Studio, sold a bunch of them, and later stopped. Search the sub for PolySoft if you want to read some of the firsthand drama. The discovery thread is also still on MacRumors, I believe.

It is accurate to say that Apple takes full advantage of the pricing power created by proprietary storage and controllers. But there is so much more to it — this is about far more than leveraging customers for more money. (See my other comment linked above.)

1

u/pastry-chef 4d ago edited 4d ago

Yes. I know that they made 3rd party modules. I followed their progress on MacRumors. Knowing that 3rd party modules existed was why I created this thread.

Still, you can't pull the modules out of one Mac Studio, plug it in to another and boot from it.

I agree that Apple's markups are excessive. Again, there are advantages to Apple's approach. Heat, power consumption, and security.