Anyone else feel that Apple nailed it with the new Apple Silicon machines?

[theorist9]

I've heard the reason Apple hasn't changed the form factor of the Mini is that a decent percentage of its sales are to server farms, which have invested quite a bit in racks custom-designed for that form factor (e.g., https://www.cultofmac.com/587718/youtube-video-inside-macstadium-mac-mini/)

Given this, what are the implications of the Mini's redesign for Mini server farms? Clearly the increased efficiency and performance are a big deal, but what about reduction in connectivity, i..e., going from 4 TB ports to 2, and the loss of the 10 Gb Ethernet option? Do server farms typically not need/make use of the added ports and the higher Gb speed?

The importance of the loss of the 32/64 GB RAM options should vary by use case (i.e., by the needs of the customer leasing those Minis).

 

[Sarbun96]

I think it's as expected tbh. Part of me wanted to see a 2-in-1 out of this world Mac though! But still, better to play it safe. It's already a huge undertaking best to bite off in small increments. It'll be great as we know all about the current designs, now with a single difference we'll really see what difference the M1 makes vs. Intel, whereas if it was a new design, some of the gains might have been due to that new design etc.

 

[Cassandle]

For what they were introducing, this is outstanding. For the the MB Air, they didn't just nail it, they knocked it out of the stadium - and it was a domed stadium!

Look, I get that if you render 3d animation for Disney while editing your 8K indie film using 100 megapixel RAW files from your 100K image library in your 256 track music studio, that 16GB is nowhere near enough memory for you. So how, exactly, did you do that on the MacBook Air last week? You didn't. This machine isn't for you (or me, but the rest of my household will love it). Double the battery life and triple the performance while removing the fan and maintaining the price point of an already successful design is just outstanding. There is nothing to fault here unless you were holding out for a Mr. Fusion powered laptop that runs on garbage - forever.

For the MB Pro, "Pro" doesn't just mean 3D animators and Video editors. Some professionals do things like spreadsheets and presentations. In fact, and this is true, MORE professionals use spreadsheets and presentations than edit video and render in 3D. A LOT more. Again, if you are a high end content creator, they didn't make this machine for you. You have complex needs, and Apple is building a foundation first. That way, when the "pro enough" machine comes out for you, you will be able to make a presentation to pitch your 8K 3D rendered Opus to the studio and include a spreadsheet that shows how it makes financial sense for them to back you. It would be a bummer if it rendered video, but couldn't do the basics, right? Let them get the platform out and improve it up to the high end.

This was a really good start. Sure, I wish there was a 16" MB Pro with Pie in the Sky performance and week long battery life. But at least have the good sense to realize that isn't a remotely realistic expectation.

This post nails it.

People comparing the new M1 Mini with the 6 core Intel i5 model are missing the point. It's not a replacement, hence why the i5 is still available.

Same for the MBP. The 8th gen, 2 port model has been replaced. If you want more ports, more RAM then the high-end Intel models are for you.

It's funny seeing people say, "only 16GB in these devices, no thanks". If you think that way you're someone who has a specific workflow that means you know that you need more RAM. i.e. not the type of person who would ever have bought an i3 Mini or a MBA...

I use a MBP from 2011. It's maxed out at 8GB of RAM. I've never had a memory shortage. But then I'm not a photo or video editor, nor do I do 3d modelling. But I will be more representative of what most Mac users use their Macs for than people who do those things for a living.

 

[rambo47]

The quoted CPU performance improvements are shocking. Yeah, yeah, yeah, wait for the real world benchmarks. But if they're in line with Apple's published improvements it will be awesome. I am very impressed with the upgrade. I expected the limited upgrade potential, especially with first generation products.

I'm also surprised, pleasantly, that Apple released three products with their new silicon all at once. I expected one or *maybe* two products. Clearly Apple has given this a lot of thought. This is a plan that's been in the making for years. Like they did with the change to Intel from PowerPC. Like they did with OSX. We know Apple doesn't do anything on the fly (except maybe the Newton) so we know they have long term plans for this new direction with silicon. I'm excited to see where they take it.

 

[theorist9]

It isn't 2000 anymore.

Single threaded performance isn't really that important anymore.

It is like releasing the greatest buggy whip.

On the contrary, since most apps continue to be mostly or entirely single-threaded, single-threaded performance typically has far more real-world relevance than multi-threaded performance.

For instance, most calculations in Mathematica are single-thread. Some that I run take hours, so I run them overnight. The only thing that will reduce my waiting time is faster single-threaded performance. If I'm waiting for my computer to do an internal search, my wait time for the search to complete is determined by my machine's single-threaded performance. AutoCad is predominantly single-threaded. Likewise, nearly all of Office (with the exception of a subset of functions in Excel) is single-threaded. So if I need to do complex operations in Word or Excel, my wait time is due to single-threaded performance.

Sure, you could argue that you are typically running more than one thread at a time. But nearly every computer sold today, outside the low-end, has at least 6-8 cores, and most people aren't running more than that number of foreground processes (by which I mean processes they are actively waiting to complete) simultaneously.

So unless you are using specialized multi-threaded software (most commonly found in photo and video editing), it's the single-threaded performance that you will notice during actual use.

 

[RobbieTT]

I've heard the reason Apple hasn't changed the form factor of the Mini is that a decent percentage of its sales are to server farms, which have invested quite a bit in racks custom-designed for that form factor...

Not just server farms - my Mac minis live in a 1U rack mount in my home network rack. The days of the slot being used for an optical drive are long gone but I am grateful for the ease at which I will be able to swap an old Mac mini server to the new M1 mini.

Quite literally another drop-in replacement:

 

[Joelist]

This was well thought out. Essentially the MacBook Air and the MBP 13 are as of now the most powerful laptops in the Apple lineup.

 

[Ethosik]

no matter how ARM handles memory it doesn't change the fact that some projects just need more memory. Doing 3D work is one of those fields. You can easily fill up 16gigs of memory with high poly counts, sub polygon displacement and big rendering resolutions. These things just gobble up memory. It's just a lot of data that need to be processed.

On top of that memory is now shared between the CPU and GPU which makes things even worse
I've easily had GPU renders taking 12 gigs of GPU memory which means the system now has to work with the 4 gigs left.

And we haven't even covered multitasking and other memory hungry apps like Photoshop or music.
No matter how you cut it 16GB of RAM is not enough in 2020. 10 years ago would be fine. But now no. It's not enough.

People mistake filling memory and memory requirements. I have two systems, Adobe After Effects project is only a 30 second clip with a lot of effects. One system has 16GB of RAM and the other system has 128 GB of RAM. Guess what, the 128GB (well 110 which I reserved for Adobe) is completely filled up. But in no way does that mean I am required to use 128 GB of RAM. The project is just as good on my 16GB system.

 

[phobos]

You are not wrong. But you have to understand that these are entry-level machines. They are not meant to do high-complexity pro workouts. You wouldn't do this kind f work on an MacBook Air, would you? So why do you expect the new MacBook Air to do it?
The machines announced yesterday will still be great for home and office users and for people who do some creative or professional work but won't need too much RAM.

I don’t actually mind the MacBook Air. I think it’s one of the best rounded products announced yesterday. But the MacBook Pro and the Mini are quite compromised.
The 13” MacBook Pro did come in 32GB of RAM. Now it’s half that.
And then there’s the Mac Mini. I would easily expect the Mini to be a cheap workhorse. A render client like in previous years or a cheap workstation for help in the studio. But with the limited RAM, lack of thunderbolt ports, support of eGPUs and lack of 10gig Ethernet it’s a hard sell.

You don’t always have to get the most expensive machine to do your work. Sometimes a cheap option can perfectly accommodate a project’s requirements. The Mac Mini would be a perfect fit for that. Like in previous years. But now even a simple task like moving big files around the office cannot be achieved with the Mini. Something that could easily be done with the previous gen.

Don’t want to complain but I see that Apple‘s trend the last couple of years goes like this:
If you’re a pro you either spend big money or you need to seriously compromise.
I can see investing 7k or more for 1 or two machines but not everything in a studio environment needs to be that expensive.

 

[rambo47]

Everyone needs to remember these are first generation products. One monitor on the Mini? Yeah, for now. Not enough ports? Yeah, but Apple will add them in future updates. Like they always do. RAM limitations? Yeah, but only for now. Imagine Apple adding multiple processors to some of these devices. We don't know yet what's possible.

And if these are deal breakers for anybody the Intel versions are still available. I think that if anybody is shocked by any of the limitations of these new products they haven't been paying attention for the last couple of decades. For first gen products, I think Apple knocked it out of the park.

 

[Ethosik]

Although impressive performance/battery wise, I don't like how the Macbook Air and the Macbook Pro is identical cpu/gpu now.

Its identical CPU but the MBP has active cooling so it can sustain longer workloads better. And this is just the entry level MBP, when they release the M2 chip, you will be able to get the more powerful MBP 13". Like core i3 vs i5 vs i7, it will be M1 vs M2 vs M3 instead.

 

[theorist9]

None of the voting options applies to me, as I think they should have started with the lower-end stuff like they did, but definitely not given us what was shown here, unless all they released was the new Air.

The Macbook Pro and Mac Mini now only have 16 GB of RAM as their highest option. The Intel Minis could support four times as much! The Mac Mini lost its 10 gigabit Ethernet option. Half the Thunderbolt ports on the Mini. And all of the M1 Macs can no longer use an external GPU via Thunderbolt.

The lack of these features is only acceptable on the Air. It already could only be configured with 16 GB of RAM. It already had only two Thunderbolt ports. There was no option for built-in 10 gigabet Ethernet. And I highly doubt anyone was using an eGPU with an Air, unless it's just a stupid test to see if it even works.

But with the 13" Macbook Pro and the Mini, it's a completely different story. More RAM is definitely used by people. Having an eGPU to plug in to when at home and/or at work (for the MBP) and always (for the Mini) was what even allowed some people to go with the smaller MBP or the Mini in the first place. And yes, the GPU on the M1 Macs is much more powerful than the integrated graphics on the models they replaced. But the Intel HD 630 graphics would be very hard not to beat. And the M1's GPU, even if it is just as many times faster than the Intel HD 630 it is replacing in those models as Apple is claiming, is nowhere close to the performance of even an entry-level dedicated GPU in an eGPU enclosure.

Apple nailed it with the Air. Much more powerful (especially for the base model, which until yesterday, was still was equipped with only a dual-core Intel CPU). Completely silent fanless design. Instant wake from sleep. These are all very good things for the Air. When anyone in my family asks me what laptop to buy for light work, the new M1 Macbook Air is going to be at the top of the list if it is in their budget. But for people who need the extra oomph of a Macbook Pro or Mac Mini, I don't think the M1-equipped versions are all that compelling. Not with what they had to give up in order to get that chip.

Well, yes and no. IF this meant the only AS versions of the Mini and smaller MBP Apple WILL offer are limited in this way, then yes, they are nerfing the lineup. But it's pretty clear Apple will be offering a higher-end small MBP (the 14") in the future. Don't know about the Mini, but hope that's true for it as well. Given this, Apple had a decision to make: Offer only the Air, or also offer a lower-end* small MBP and Mini FOR NOW, for those consumers who could benefit from such machines. I think offering all three, rather than just one, was the better decision (more consumer choice), ASSUMING they will later (when they are able) add higher-capability versions of these to the lineup.

[*lower-end in terms of RAM options and connectivity, not CPU/GPU]

 

[phobos]

Look, I get that if you render 3d animation for Disney while editing your 8K indie film using 100 megapixel RAW files from your 100K image library in your 256 track music studio, that 16GB is nowhere near enough memory for you. So how, exactly, did you do that on the MacBook Air last week? You didn't. This machine isn't for you (or me, but the rest of my household will love it).
For the MB Pro, "Pro" doesn't just mean 3D animators and Video editors. Some professionals do things like spreadsheets and presentations. In fact, and this is true, MORE professionals use spreadsheets and presentations than edit video and render in 3D. A LOT more. Again, if you are a high end content creator, they didn't make this machine for you. You have complex needs, and Apple is building a foundation first. That way, when the "pro enough" machine comes out for you, you will be able to make a presentation to pitch your 8K 3D rendered Opus to the studio and include a spreadsheet that shows how it makes financial sense for them to back you.

Considering the fact they heavily showcased Cinema 4D in the presentation (a 3D software), I would definitely expect the Mini and the MacBook Pro to be able to work on complex projects. They could do it in the previous generation why not now? Especially the Mac Mini is hindered by the limitations of the first gen chip. (Thunderbolt, eGPU, memory, ethernet)

 

[Ethosik]

The ARM Mini only supports a quarter of the memory the Intel Mini does. One quarter. 25%.

FWIW, I have plenty of Intel Macs that'll last a lifetime. E.g. I'm running typing this on a 2011 iMac running Linux Mint. Mac OS will be dead to me once Catalina is no longer supported.

You do realize you can still get the Intel mini right? Again, this is ENTRY LEVEL chips. I bet you the M2 and M3 will offer more RAM. After all, a $6,000 Mac Pro would not work with a max of 16GB.

 

[phobos]

16 is plenty for most people who buy base models. You can still get more RAM with the non-AS, non-base models.

So the solution is to buy an intel version while knowing we’re transitioning to a new CPU architecture. That’s definitely a bad investment.

I don’t think it’s ludicrous to expect feature parity when compared to an old gen product.
We’re getting less features on the Mac Mini and that’s supposedly a good thing?

 

[Macisperfect]

During yesterday's announcement, I got fed up reading all the negative comments about what was being released. I for one felt they had exactly the right approach to this.

They've started with entry level machines, so we shouldn't be comparing to high end specs of the Intel options which are still available to order. We need to compare entry level Intel to entry level AS Macs. From my perspective..

• Entry level machines are typically bought on getting acceptable performance for the right price. They are less likely to be the power users. These new machines push battery life to new levels AND give a performance boost, both of which will appeal to this market.
• Whilst quicker Intel chips remain availablle if performance is your thing, you need to pay more dollar and accept a significant battery life drop.
• As the target market is not the Pro user, any compatibility issues with higher end 'pro' software can be worked on for the next 'x' months as things settle down, ready for the next phase of releases.
• Given the performance bump, the MB Air now becomes a feasible 2nd machine for those who can afford it. You have you max spec machine at home, but have the £999 MB Air as your travel machine that is good enough for being on the road.

If they'd gone the performance route first, I can only imagine the negative comments where people say they have good speed, but no App compatibility.

For me, they did it right. They can learn valuable lessons with the lower end machines so that when they get to the high end stuff, there is less pain to be had.

Thoughts?

I've been waiting for a 1080 camera since 2016. The new iMac 5K already has that tech. It easily could've been introduced in, at least, the Pro line. It makes no sense given present world reliance on zooms that the ONLY 1080 Mac is the 5K iMac. Yes the rest of that stuff is great but I'd rather have an okay processor with a bad ass camera I can use on meetings all through the week.

 

[DeepIn2U]

During yesterday's announcement, I got fed up reading all the negative comments about what was being released. I for one felt they had exactly the right approach to this.

They've started with entry level machines, so we shouldn't be comparing to high end specs of the Intel options which are still available to order. We need to compare entry level Intel to entry level AS Macs. From my perspective..

• Entry level machines are typically bought on getting acceptable performance for the right price. They are less likely to be the power users. These new machines push battery life to new levels AND give a performance boost, both of which will appeal to this market.
• Whilst quicker Intel chips remain availablle if performance is your thing, you need to pay more dollar and accept a significant battery life drop.
• As the target market is not the Pro user, any compatibility issues with higher end 'pro' software can be worked on for the next 'x' months as things settle down, ready for the next phase of releases.
• Given the performance bump, the MB Air now becomes a feasible 2nd machine for those who can afford it. You have you max spec machine at home, but have the £999 MB Air as your travel machine that is good enough for being on the road.

If they'd gone the performance route first, I can only imagine the negative comments where people say they have good speed, but no App compatibility.

For me, they did it right. They can learn valuable lessons with the lower end machines so that when they get to the high end stuff, there is less pain to be had.

Thoughts?

I was thinking similar yet something else as well.

Some machines like the MBA have replaced the Intel lineup and thus only used/refurbished are available to those that are wary of such a transition - 3RD Party software is the real goat for measure of success.

3RD party software is so critical for success of Apple Silicon on Mac's ... I know a few that work in various industries working remotely during this pandemic that are allowed to use their preferred personal machines over a secure connection to their work PC's that may upgrade not realizing that many VPN solutions (software or VPN-in-a-box hardware/software) may not be ready as of yet. Adding to support calls. Other 3rd party solutions like Microsoft's promised Office Suite has yet to debut, I specifically noticed Microsoft was NOT mentioned - giving me a HUGE eyebrow raise, and more caution as to the many 4th party (?) add-ins for Excel that is required by a LOT of people.

So although I'm ecstatic as seeing not 2 but 3 products released by Apple ... I'm cautioned on their claimed performance increases as well specially on their software and 3rd party support.

Big Sur ...

Has anyone installed any large software on their production machine and seen the famous 'just a few minutes' or more critically and annoyingly 'one more minute' and it takes over 15mins to complete?! THIS is THE WORST part of MacOS that Apple and Craig need to fix! it's been there for over a decade and it's sort of embarrasing and nerve racking to say the least.

 

[Mimiron]

No, right now the devices are underperforming compared to high-end Intel CPUs. The new M1 processor sets a decent precedent for the future, I am waiting for something to replace my i7 MBP 15" 2018.

 

[Peperino]

A fast new M1 chip is great. Too bad they put that into the same old chassis, especially on the 13" pro, which has nothing Pro about it if compared to the Air.
Same old ugly bezels, no upgradeable RAM, same lame touchbar, same poor connectivity (only 2 ports).
It seems that Apple rushed to put this out without a proper redesign of the machine.
It could have been great, but just another pathetic release. I will wait for the next 16 that hopefully will be redesigned.
Not to mention that the base still ships with 256SSD in 2020...

 

[drsox]

Their strategy by starting at the low-end is great but they should have made it more clear that this chipset isn't a replacement for their mid/high-end chips.

People seem to not realise that the M1 is their entry-level low-end chipset and the first of a whole family of chipsets that will cover low to ultra-high end.
I see too many posts saying "limited to 16GB ram, 2 thunderbolt ports, 2TB SSD", the Macbooks that got replaced were also limited to that.
They're looking for a high-end machine but those do not have their AS chipset replacement released yet.

Bit obvious isn't it that this is the first - I mean the M1 means what it says.

 

[RobbieTT]

It makes no sense given present world reliance on zooms that the ONLY 1080 Mac is the 5K iMac.

The 2017-onwards iMac Pros also have a 1080p camera.

 

[theorist9]

So the solution is to buy an intel version while knowing we’re transitioning to a new CPU architecture. That’s definitely a bad investment.

I don’t think it’s ludicrous to expect feature parity when compared to an old gen product.
We’re getting less features on the Mac Mini and that’s supposedly a good thing?

As I replied to another poster who raised a similar point:

IF this meant the only AS versions of the Mini and smaller MBP Apple WILL offer are limited in this way, then yes, they are nerfing the lineup. But it's pretty clear Apple will be offering a higher-end small MBP (the 14") in the future. Don't know about the Mini, but hope that's true for it as well. Given this, Apple had a decision to make: Offer only the Air, or also offer a lower-end* small MBP and Mini FOR NOW, for those consumers who could benefit from such machines. I think offering all three, rather than just one, was the better decision (more consumer choice), ASSUMING they will later (when they are able) add higher-capability versions of these to the lineup.

I.e., assuming they make available a higher-end option in the future, it's better to offer the lower-end option now, rather than delaying the lower-end release until the higher-end version is also available. Consumers only gain by this.

[*lower-end in terms of RAM options and connectivity, not CPU/GPU]

 

[gmrza]

I'm hoping that this is just an initial release. There are especially a few concerning points about the Mac Mini, especially the limit of 16GB of RAM and only 2 Thunderbolt ports - both steps backward. Hopefully Apple will update the Mini soon to return to at least a 64GB RAM ceiling and 4 Thunderbolt ports.

 

[moosinuk]

There is an interesting article over on Anandtech regarding the expected performance of the M1, based off the current A14, if anybody fancies a long read. https://www.anandtech.com/show/16226/apple-silicon-m1-a14-deep-dive

There is also an interesting chart showing how the A14 is faster than all the current Intel chips and only just behind the Ryzen 5950, all at 5W versus the Ryzens 49W.

I feel this bodes well for the M1 in general.

 

[leman]

I don’t actually mind the MacBook Air. I think it’s one of the best rounded products announced yesterday. But the MacBook Pro and the Mini are quite compromised.
The 13” MacBook Pro did come in 32GB of RAM. Now it’s half that.

No it didn't. They only replaced the lower-end 13" Pro (the two port version). It never had more than two ports and it never had more than 16GB RAM. The 4-port version is still available, it hasn't been transitioned to Apple silicon.

I definitely agree that having the two-port Pro is a bit silly, if I remember correctly Apple introduced it couple of years ago as a replacement for the higher-end MacBook Air. Frankly, I would just rename it to MacBook and go back to the old good Apple lineup with Air (passively cooled, sub notebook), MacBook (consumer), MacBook Pro (small and large).

And then there’s the Mac Mini. I would easily expect the Mini to be a cheap workhorse. A render client like in previous years or a cheap workstation for help in the studio. But with the limited RAM, lack of thunderbolt ports, support of eGPUs and lack of 10gig Ethernet it’s a hard sell.

It feels to me like that more powerful version of the mini was canned. Again, if I remember correctly, it was introduced a couple of years ago because people were upset about the updates to the Mac Pro, so Apple "gave" them a kind of "poor man's" Mac Pro. I guess that is gone now. Maybe it will be reintroduced later with more powerful hardware. For now Mini is back to it's historical roots as a compact office computer. I do understand disappointment of Mini fans, but I don't see what this has to do with Apple Silicon per se. This is more akin to the 17" MBP being canned — maybe Apple felt that the "large" mini was not selling as well as it could have been.

Don’t want to complain but I see that Apple‘s trend the last couple of years goes like this:
If you’re a pro you either spend big money or you need to seriously compromise.

I don't disagree. But let's wait until the transition finishes, they might just have a yet unannounced product that will bridge the gap. At the same time, Apple is not known to cover the entire range of the customer's needs. They just cater to several "prototypes", if you need more flexibility you are mostly out of luck. It can be frustrating.