M1X / M1+ Mac Mini Speculations

[GiantKiwi]

I'm selling my 2013 Mac Pro whilst it still retains some perceived value in preparation for a beefier mac mini. I only bought it at the time because my rMBP died due to the nvidia dGPU power regulation fault that plagues 2013 and 2014 models, so now I have the M1 Air, it's just been gathering figurative dust. The beefier mini is an inevitability, 4 TB3 ports would be nice, but are not critical given the independent thunderbolt controllers on each current port. I am however, honestly not expecting it until November 2021.

 

[chris-7777]

I'm selling my 2013 Mac Pro whilst it still retains some perceived value in preparation for a beefier mac mini. I only bought it at the time because my rMBP died due to the nvidia dGPU power regulation fault that plagues 2013 and 2014 models, so now I have the M1 Air, it's just been gathering figurative dust. The beefier mini is an inevitability, 4 TB3 ports would be nice, but are not critical given the independent thunderbolt controllers on each current port. I am however, honestly not expecting it until November 2021.

So you are using a M1 MBA as an interim until there is a beefier mini?

 

[JohnnyGo]

I'm selling my 2013 Mac Pro whilst it still retains some perceived value in preparation for a beefier mac mini. I only bought it at the time because my rMBP died due to the nvidia dGPU power regulation fault that plagues 2013 and 2014 models, so now I have the M1 Air, it's just been gathering figurative dust. The beefier mini is an inevitability, 4 TB3 ports would be nice, but are not critical given the independent thunderbolt controllers on each current port. I am however, honestly not expecting it until November 2021.

I agree!

A beefier Mac Mini is inevitable.

In terms of number of cores, Apple can start bining chips:
1) produce a 20 core CPU design (16+4) and bin it to have 12-14-16 efficiency cores
2) produce a 32 core GPU design and bin it to have 24-30-36 cores as some workloads (programming/audio) do not need the extra power or users prefer more battery life (14” MBP redesign with smaller battery)

 

[AVonGauss]

Deleted.

 

[GiantKiwi]

So you are using a M1 MBA as an interim until there is a beefier mini?

Yup. M1 MBA is considerably faster than the mac pro on most tasks - the only exceptions are things that are of little consequence anyway (VM's basically).

 

[displayator]

Not sure about that. My guess is that as soon as the M1X is available, the redesign of both the 16/14'' as well as the 27/24'' is the limiting factor. Why should they announce a (redesigned) 24'' and defer a (redesigned) 27'', which both can be powered with an M1X? Why do you assume the Mini skips the M1X?

I think the 24" and 16" can fit with an M1X : basically a beefier M1 with more CPU & GPU cores, support for more IO and possibly more RAM chips on package.

The mini could skip the M1X if apple doesn't want to undercut their 24" with a BYOD alternative.

M1: 2 Thunderbolt, 4+4 CPU core, 8 GPU cores
M1+: 4 thunderbolt, 6+4 CPU core, 10/11/12 GPU cores (baseless speculation, basically an M1X with disabled defective cores) (Mini and 14" / 13")
M1X: 4 thunderbolt, 8+ 4 CPU cores, 12 / 16 GPU cores (more baseless speculation) (16" and 24")

The 27" would need the M1X + an even beefier GPU, which would be in a separate chip, as mentioned in one of the recent rumors, hence possibly a 3rd phase release (And maybe a CPU chip without the GPU cores, and, why not, support for user accessible RAM (Ha! fat chance)).

 

[BobHinden]

I would be very surprised if there was a new MacMini before they finish updating the other machines, like the iMac, MacPro, and faster MacBookPro's. This probably puts it at the earliest a year from now, but more likely 2022. A faster MacMini with a lot more memory, 10G Ethernet, etc. would directly compete with the MacPro.

Note, I have a 16G/1TB MacMini on order, so I am a little biased. I did think about this before ordering, but didn't want to wait another year. I am replacing my iMac (24-inch Mid 2007), I think the Mini will be a very nice upgrade.

 

[displayator]

I would be very surprised if there was a new MacMini before they finish updating the other machines, like the iMac, MacPro, and faster MacBookPro's. This probably puts it at the earliest a year from now, but more likely 2022. A faster MacMini with a lot more memory, 10G Ethernet, etc. would directly compete with the MacPro.

Note, I have a 16G/1TB MacMini on order, so I am a little biased. I did think about this before ordering, but didn't want to wait another year. I am replacing my iMac (24-inch Mid 2007), I think the Mini will be a very nice upgrade.

What about the mystery 10Gbit ethernet logic board that appeared in their inventory system?
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/11/20/apple-m1-mac-mini-10gb-ethernet-parts-list/

Yeah, if I was convinced there would be no update until next year I would have ordered already.

 

[JohnnyGo]

I would not call it an update but a beefier version. They will sell both the M1 Mini and M1X Mini.

 

[Fomalhaut]

I wouldn’t get your hopes up for a consumer iMac with a discrete GPU, it was a necessity with Intel but that dynamic has likely changed with the ARM adoption.

We may need to redefine what is meant by "discrete GPU". It is possible that this is a separate GPU die on the same SoC package as the primary die with CPU cores, cache and custom features. The GPU would be discrete because it's not integrated on the same silicon die and the CPU cores, but still takes advantage of a fast on-SoC interconnect to the shared memory and CPU.

 

[quarkysg]

Apple most definitely have higher performing GPU cores being/already 'forged' in their silicon 'furnace' for the higher end Macs. With Imagination B-Series GPU IPs (https://www.imaginationtech.com/blog/img-b-series-multi-core-revolution/) and Apple signing multi-year licensing with Imagination (https://www.anandtech.com/show/15272/imagination-and-apple-sign-new-agreement), it's looks like some of those Imagination B-Series GPU IPs will end up in Apple's GPU cores.

Higher performing CPU cores seems a given if history is any indication.

Also, as the M1 is so new, almost all of macOS' software (probably even Apple's software) will not be able to take advantage of all the extra acceleration core. For example, the macOS TensorFlow package that utilizes CoreML was just released recently. I believe as more and more software starts taking full advantage of M1's capabilities, I believe we will see another step up in performance for the M1 Macs, which will be another 'jaw-dropping' moment for the industry. Take for example, Cinebench R23; I believe it is fairly optimized for x86 with SSE3, but probably not using the M1 SIMD instructions. If Cinebench were to use the CoreML APIs, I think it will show a nice boost in performance while at the same time reducing CPU power usage.

Exciting times.

 

[Fomalhaut]

I think on linux they can use CHROOT for docker but they have to use some kind of VM for Mac OS, thus being less RAM effective than they can be on Linux. But yeah, maybe 16GB would be a good start.

I am developing this cloud env stuff and I dislike the latency of using remote services (nevermind the rights and roles management rigamarole). Supposedly for the cloud stuff you have a script that provision and deploy everything, but the latency of it going through the full pipeline is productivity killing. It feels more productive to have a limited copy of the env locally that you can test your component against and then deploy it to the cloud environments.

For the future proofing it's half future proofing / half fomo. After reading this thread I expect a 4 thunderbolt port mac mini that supports more RAM to come this year, probably around WWDC. I think such a machine would be useful longer than a 2 port machine.

MacOS already has a built-in VM hypervisor (hyperkit) for Apple Silicon. There another thread on Macrumors on how this was used to run Linux VMs. The VM used to run Docker (on Intel Macs) is quite lightweight IIRC, and I expect this is the same on Apple Silicon. It also (AFAIK) uses on a single VM to run all containers (the VM just provides access to a Linux kernel used by the containers).

While I agree that it's a good idea to a local execution environment for some application testing, I don't find that Cloud deployments add a lot of latency provided the infrastructure has already been created, particularly if the source is already stored in the cloud (e.g. GitHub). Pipelines can take some time to run if they have to tear-down and re-build resources, so I do take your point. On the other hand, the advantage of running the build on cloud instances is that they can be considerably larger machines than your local dev machine and run the deployments faster.

 

[PowerMac G4 MDD]

Allow me to be excused for being a couple months late.

Thus far, we're still waiting to see what the next event brings. We'll likely see the new M1 MacBook Pro (and maybe Air), alongside an M1 iMac — even a new consumer-oriented display. As for the Mac Mini, I'd assume the only update in the near future (as in, from now and through 2021) will be a simple 'refresh' of the I/O... if at all, really. Although the M1 Mac mini's outward appearance not having been changed suggests that it is not in its final form as a whole, it is still worth noting that the Mac mini itself is not of an important line of products. In fact, I think one of the main reasons as to why they bothered adding in the Mac mini alongside the M1 MBA and MBP was for the purpose of testing the M1 waters both easily and relatively cheaply. It will also now be a step or two behind the iMacs and laptops once those are updated this spring, and it means they will have not needed to create two revisions of their more popular machines.

I would like to get an M1 Mac Mini, but I think my tune will change once I see the rest of the M1 lineup emerge. Also, I am not sure I wish to wait a year or longer for the mini to be updated: my current daily is a Mac Pro from 2009, and I'm now itching to replace it; every single new Mac will soon be faster and more power efficient than it is.

 

[robertosh]

I'm also waiting for a more "Pro mini" with 32G RAM (for use in Logic). My hope is that when they announce M1X, they will say at the end in one slide that "We are making it available as a option for Mac mini". I don't think that this change will require more than 1 slide. They are still selling the "higher end" mini with intel processors as today, so It would fit pretty well replacing it.

Probably the redesign will arrive with M2. I'm also curious about the Mac Pro "mini" that is rumoured to arrive at some point. Probably i will wait to everything be on the table to decide what to buy, unless my iMac dies in the path, which is not very improbable

 

[gogogo2]

mac mini is lower end product for apple, so hope too much,

 

[cupcakes2000]

mac mini is lower end product for apple, so hope too much,

My 64gb 6core i7 1tb ssd Mac mini with 10gbe is far from low end. There will be higher spec’d ‘pro’ versions of the Mac mini coming with the new chips, it’s almost obvious.

 

[PaulKemp]

I see some speculation here that the future rumored 14” will be less powerful than the 16”. Is this since the current intel 16” has a gpu?

I see no reason for using the same SoC in both the 14” and 16”, where battery life and bigger screen could be the only differentiator.

I’m I am hoping for a super powerful 14”

 

[Fomalhaut]

My 64gb 6core i7 1tb ssd Mac mini with 10gbe is far from low end. There will be higher spec’d ‘pro’ versions of the Mac mini coming with the new chips, it’s almost obvious.

There will be a new Mini with more powerful Apple Silicon "eventually", but I wouldn't bet on it getting the same upgrade frequency as the laptops & iMac. Historically, the Mini has been upgraded about every 2 years since 2011, with a 4-year gap between 2014-2018. This wasn't only because of Intel chip availability - Apple just doesn't prioritize it because it's the cheapest Mac.

This *may* change now that Apple controls (nearly) all the hardware, but it's by no means a guarantee.

I think it quite possible that we will see the "Pro-mini" (based on the current Mac Pro) before we see a "Mini-pro".

 

[Fomalhaut]

I see some speculation here that the future rumored 14” will be less powerful than the 16”. Is this since the current intel 16” has a gpu?

I see no reason for using the same SoC in both the 14” and 16”, where battery life and bigger screen could be the only differentiator.

I’m I am hoping for a super powerful 14”

With Intel CPUs, the MBP13 was significantly weaker in CPU performance (and had no dGPU) because of power and thermal limitations. This doesn't automatically apply with Apple Silicon, but I would expect Apple to keep the MBP16 as the most powerful flagship laptop.

The larger format has the advantage of greater battery capacity, and so the potential for a larger TDP SoC with more cores whilst maintaining good battery life.

I would love to see an MBP14 with 8+4 (perf/efficiency) cores and 16 GPU cores that would put it close to the current best dGPU in the MBP16 (the AMD 5600M). If this were possible, then the MBP16 might have 12+4 CPU cores and an even more powerful GPU...

It's conceivable that both 14" & 16" could be offered with identical SoC specifications, but the smaller machine would inevitably have worse battery life, and this would be an unusual move for Apple to make in my opinion.

 

[leman]

It's conceivable that both 14" & 16" could be offered with identical SoC specifications, but the smaller machine would inevitably have worse battery life, and this would be an unusual move for Apple to make in my opinion.

My reason to be skeptical about such an arrangement is the fact that 13" Macs have traditionally peaked out at around 30 watts of processor power usage while 15-16" Macs have had around 70-80 Watts to play with. And while you can theoretically use the same SoC at a different thermal limit, the difference is a bit much (especially for Apple SoCs with their relatively low peak frequencies and incredible power efficiency). Finally, there is the matter of the GPU — the 16" model should ideally be significantly faster than the current Intel one, and the 16-core GPU cluster just won't cut it.

 

[PaulKemp]

It's conceivable that both 14" & 16" could be offered with identical SoC specifications, but the smaller machine would inevitably have worse battery life, and this would be an unusual move for Apple to make in my opinion.

My reason to be skeptical about such an arrangement is the fact that 13" Macs have traditionally peaked out at around 30 watts of processor power usage while 15-16" Macs have had around 70-80 Watts to play with. And while you can theoretically use the same SoC at a different thermal limit, the difference is a bit much (especially for Apple SoCs with their relatively low peak frequencies and incredible power efficiency). Finally, there is the matter of the GPU — the 16" model should ideally be significantly faster than the current Intel one, and the 16-core GPU cluster just won't cut it.

Great points form the both of you.