# External SSD for M1 Mac - confused and looking for help



## SomeGuy (Jan 2, 2022)

Looking to add a 2TB external SSD for sample streaming on my Thunderbolt 3 M1 mac. Thinking of building my own Nvme + enclosure, but confused as to what specs are important. For example, what is the difference between these two SSD’s that justify the price difference? Is it a name brand thing? Or is there something deeper?




Also in terms of enclosures, should I be looking for one that is designed for Thunderbolt3, or is USB-C ok? There seems to be a large price difference. For example: 




Thank you very much for any advice you can share. Trying to find a good “bang for the buck” option and must admit I’m getting confused and frustrated trying to figure out what would be best for a sample streaming disk.


----------



## SomeGuy (Jan 20, 2022)

For anyone interested, it looks like your speed is limited not by the SSD, but by the enclosure. USB 3.2 was maxing at almost 1000MB/s, and the increase is only to 1500MB/s with thunderbolt, but you will pay at least 4xs more for TB. But even with USB 3.2 I was transferring large sample libraries in minutes instead of hours. Still don't understand the different SSD types or technologies behind them or if it ultimately matters for mainly sample streaming purposes, as people are concerned about longevity of writing to Nvme, but I'm mainly using it for sample streaming & keeping projects on internal drive. So far so good, but still open to suggestions or information you are willing to share.


----------



## 3CPU (Jan 20, 2022)

I am also considering external storage, for "Backing up Projects" something like this: 

https://www.amazon.com/OWC-250GB-Envoy-Elektron-Portable/dp/B08NJLW4SK/ (OWC 1TB Envoy Pro Elektron USB-C Portable NVMe SSD) 

*For you*, it depends what you want to do with the external storage?, 

PS: You and most people probably know the M1 internal drive is blazing fast.


----------



## rnb_2 (Jan 20, 2022)

The difference in NVMe prices is largely down to name brand - Samsung is a big name in the space, and commands a premium, as do some extreme performance lines from other brands (you shouldn't bother with those for external use, regardless).

I've had good luck keeping an eye out for good prices on Crucial or Intel NVMe drives for external use - most recent drives are more than capable of hitting the Thunderbolt 3 & 4 data cap (~2.8GBps). You should generally be able to get drives for <$100US/TB.

There are a couple considerations when deciding between USB-C enclosures and Thunderbolt:

1) Thunderbolt will provide better performance with just about any current NVMe drive, since even USB 3.2 Gen 2 won't give enough bandwidth for even a relatively slow drive

2) USB-C drives perform a bit worse on Apple Silicon Macs than on Intel Macs, which will accentuate the performance difference vs Thunderbolt

Whether you will notice either of the above in practice is debatable - USB-C provides enough bandwidth, even with the rather slow USB performance on Apple Silicon, to do just about anything you'd want to do with a sample drive. You can find Thunderbolt enclosures for less than $100US - check Newegg for the Orico or WavLink brands, Sabrent on Amazon, or this one at OWC.


----------



## kevinh (Jan 20, 2022)

This guy used the OWC nvme enclosure that rnb_2 suggested. It’s a bit more expensive but if performance is important they are hard to beat. I myself got an OWC tb4 hub and an OWC TB3/4 Drive (1 TB) to use as external boot drive. I thought about getting 2 TB but I already have other drives for samples and didn’t want to wait 21 days for availability.


----------



## glyster (Jan 27, 2022)

Thunderbolt 3 at 40 Gb/s is faster than usb 3.2 at 20Gb/s. The big difference between the SSD are speed and endurance. Speed is pretty clear. Endurance is how much data (TB) can be written to the drive over and over before it gets worn out. For example, a security cam that records 24/7 will wear out a SSD much faster. So higher endurance usually costs more and the big name brands usually has higher quality parts. But for general use like sample library where you mostly read from, you don’t need super high endurance. Samsung has really good reputation when it comes to SSD. But here are some other good brands: crucial, Intel, Kingston, sk hynix, Sandisk, western digital.


----------



## rmak (Dec 19, 2022)

rnb_2 said:


> The difference in NVMe prices is largely down to name brand - Samsung is a big name in the space, and commands a premium, as do some extreme performance lines from other brands (you shouldn't bother with those for external use, regardless).
> 
> I've had good luck keeping an eye out for good prices on Crucial or Intel NVMe drives for external use - most recent drives are more than capable of hitting the Thunderbolt 3 & 4 data cap (~2.8GBps). You should generally be able to get drives for <$100US/TB.
> 
> ...


Can you use a usb C to thunderbolt cable. Would that affect the speed? I have a Samsung ssd in an enclosure that s going to a usb C on a 2016 mbp. I m thinking of upgrading to the m1 MacBook pro

And from what I’m reading, it doesn’t sound like real world applications with sample libraries show that great of a difference of speed between using M1 Pro internal vs external ssds.


----------



## Delboy (Dec 19, 2022)

Just bear in mind even an expensive OWC enclosure can fry its enclosed SSD (it did with us and OWC were not particularly helpful if being honest) although we used ours with an Intel mac .... nothing lasts so make sure you have other backup options or a large NAS but agree thunderbolt is better than usb c but yes it is really expensive but even Apple say always use thunderbolt if you can afford it.


----------



## rmak (Dec 19, 2022)

Delboy said:


> Just bear in mind even an expensive OWC enclosure can fry its enclosed SSD (it did with us and OWC were not particularly helpful if being honest) although we used ours with an Intel mac .... nothing lasts so make sure you have other backup options or a large NAS but agree thunderbolt is better than usb c but yes it is really expensive but even Apple say always use thunderbolt if you can afford it.


Thanks for the info. Right now I’m trying to decide to get a 1 or 2 tb internal ssd on the m1 pro. I already have the Samsung 1tb ssd. I don’t remember which model. I think I paid around $300 for it. Upgrading 1 tb cost about $400 for the m1 pro. With bhphoto, you can get a 2tb 32 gb ram for $3100, a $300 discount (cost is about the same as 1tb 32 gb and 2 tb 16 gb config for the 16”). Or alternatively buy the 1 tb 16 gb ram for 2300 ($400 discount) and hook up my 1 tb Samsung ssd to it. I haven’t build up such a large collection of sample libraries yet. I m leaning towards 16 gb of ram vs 32 because I don’t run huge orchestral templates. Only concern is maybe slate and ash plugins, but the support guy from slate and ash just got back to me and it sounds like 16gb would run fine for 18 instances of landforms at the upper limit on a 2020 13” m1 pro which has less cores than the 10 cores im going for. I don’t know if I would run that many instances of SA, and there s always the option to freeze tracks I guess. I’m a hobbyist.


----------



## rnb_2 (Dec 19, 2022)

rmak said:


> Can you use a usb C to thunderbolt cable. Would that affect the speed? I have a Samsung ssd in an enclosure that s going to a usb C on a 2016 mbp. I m thinking of upgrading to the m1 MacBook pro
> 
> And from what I’m reading, it doesn’t sound like real world applications with sample libraries show that great of a difference of speed between using M1 Pro internal vs external ssds.


A USB-C enclosure plugged into a Thunderbolt port will run at USB-C speeds. That should be a Thunderbolt port on your 2016 MBP - whether you'll notice a difference between USB-C and Thunderbolt enclosures is up for debate. In most cases with samples, probably not. A Thunderbolt enclosure generally won't work with a USB-C cable, and vice-versa, though there are new cables out there that work with both standards. 

I went with a 32GB M1 Pro with the 2TB internal. The RAM was largely for future-proofing, both on the music and photo/video side (I do more of the latter, some of it professionally). I went with the larger internal SSD so that I could get my current photo projects and my most-used samples on the internal with room to spare - I'm currently sitting at about 230GB free, and I'll be offloading 2022's projects to an external in a couple weeks.


----------



## MichiganMan (Dec 19, 2022)

I have the Crucial X6 2TB. It's currently $130 at Amazon. I'm happy with it as a sample library drive, though I haven't tested it hard or anything. Probably getting a 4TB version very soon as the library grows! They're so tiny, light, and convenient that I can't imagine trying to build anything better and save much (any?) money.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 19, 2022)

rmak said:


> (cost is about the same as 1tb 32 gb and 2 tb 16 gb config for the 16”).


If the choice is one of those, I'd *definitely* suggest more RAM. You can add storage externally any time, but the memory is what it is for eternity.

You're spending a lot of money for a computer. It would suck if you got frustrated by it right away. 16GB isn't enough for a studio machine, regardless of whether you're amateur or professional.


----------



## MichiganMan (Dec 20, 2022)

I will pile on to what Nick just said: RAM is priority #1. If you budget is absolutely fixed, go with more RAM and add external storage later as necessary. For example... I actually got 64GB of RAM and 'only' 2TB of internal storage. I simply required the horsepower for business purposes, but the equation was the same. Do I wish I had 8TB internal? Sure, but I'm REALLY glad I've got the massive RAM.


----------



## rmak (Dec 20, 2022)

I found this YouTube video of a guy running projects with the base 16gb. It seems to do find with most projects. He only had one project using bbc symphony and spitfire labs at the end, totaling 58 plugins at around 9:50. There was a project earlier in the clip that had 166 plugins, annd the buffer size was 64 for all the projects. Unless you are running huge orchestral templates, do you really need more than 16? Thanks


----------



## MichiganMan (Dec 20, 2022)

Need? That's always dependent, for sure. And the newer MacBook architecture really helps on the RAM front. So you absolutely can do some amazing things with 'only' 16GB of RAM. It's just my experience over several decades of buying computers that I regret less RAM before I regret less internal storage. What works well at the time of purchase seems a little light a few years down the road. A new MacBook Pro will be an awesome machine no matter what config you get. But I had to choose between either extra RAM or extra internal storage, I would get the RAM. Either way, you will totally dig the new rig - it's an amazing box!


----------



## Astronaut FX (Dec 20, 2022)

One thing to keep in mind, as computers get more powerful, those who make software get more aggressive and adventurous and will inevitably start to create more resource hungry applications. Buying a new computer, and “settling” for an amount of RAM that is “fine except for…” is very likely in not too long of a time, to be inadequate for the shiny new thing (application) that’s just around the corner in the next year or so. 

My philosophy is that RAM should be painful when you buy it, not when you are trying to use it.


----------



## webs (Dec 20, 2022)

MichiganMan said:


> I have the Crucial X6 2TB. It's currently $130 at Amazon. I'm happy with it as a sample library drive, though I haven't tested it hard or anything. Probably getting a 4TB version very soon as the library grows! They're so tiny, light, and convenient that I can't imagine trying to build anything better and save much (any?) money.


I just bought one of *these* and one of *these* for just a few bucks fewer so I can swap it out with a 4tb stick later (but I notice the prices fluctuate quite a bit). Haven't arrived yet, but can report back on how they work after some use. Seems like a lot of good prices overall on Crucial particularly right now and some of the Samsungs as well.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 20, 2022)

rmak said:


> I found this YouTube video of a guy running projects with the base 16gb. It seems to do find with most projects. He only had one project using bbc symphony and spitfire labs at the end, totaling 58 plugins at around 9:50. There was a project earlier in the clip that had 166 plugins, annd the buffer size was 64 for all the projects. Unless you are running huge orchestral templates, do you really need more than 16? Thanks



Plug-ins don't require a lot of RAM, it's sample library head start buffers that do.

You can probably run a fairly sparse arrangement with the computer going to virtual memory (i.e. the computer is forced to use the internal drive as faux RAM), but then why not 8GB? 1GB? Less?


----------

