How long before OWC et al start selling a 5"x5" stackable Thunderbolt storage array?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
M4 Pro Mac Mini - form over function?
- Thread starter Peter_M
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I needed a Thunderbolt 4 / USB 4 hub before too because the base Mac mini had fewer ports than the current one. Actually, now with the 5 USB-C ports I could potentially do away with the hub, but I’ll keep using it for the extra ports and because it includes one USB-A port.
Not necessarily OWC but some third party will. I hope it doesn’t block air flow. It will likely be USB 4 though and not true Thunderbolt, meaning it won’t work at full speed on older Macs.
????
Once start dabbling in Apple RAM and/or SSD BTO (build to order )upgrade pricing it becomes very opaque trying to get at "expensive cooling system prices".
the heatsink is likely the largely the same in both the M4 and M4 Pro system. It is just overkill M4 sysem. ( there are likely a physical different in the heatpipe subsysetm merely because the M4 pro chip is physically larger. The materials of the piple don't need to change. ] The fact that the M4 and M4 Pro mini are sharing a chassis costs very likely means that Apple is looking to maximize costs shared costs across the two variants where possible. Same fan, same power supply , same custom plastic ducting system just gets better economies of scale for both sub variants to share the costs between both.
M4 Mini. 24GB RAM 512GB SSD. $999
M4 Pro Mini 24GB RAM 512GB SSD $1,399.
$400 bump to go to next level SOC ( M4 -> M4 Pro) if even out the RAM.
( the SoC chip itself costs more to make. The bigger SoC dies sell in lower volume. So they likely have a 'low volume' tax applied. ),
M4 MBP. 16GB RAM 512GB SSD $1599
M4 MBP. 24GB RAM 512GB SSD $1799
M4 Pro MBP 24GB RAM 512GB SSD. $1999 ( that is $200 but Apple already got another $200 from you to in 16->24 move)
M4 Pro. MPB 48GB RAM 1TB SSD $2799
M4 Max MBP. 36RAM 1TB SSD. $3,199
Can't exactly match RAM, but end up the same $400 different in bumping to the bigger SoC. Extremely likely not an accident or coincidence. The BTO prices are designed to do this ( and generate larger aggregate margins across the Mac product line up).
If want to take a stab at how the cooling system is supposedly relatively expensive compare base. (no BTO updates at all). M4 Pro to base. MBP 14" M4 Pro .
It is $1,399 versus. $1,999. There is a $600 gap there.
Also need to look at the $599 Mini ( where stripping away even more RAM/SDD capacity that Apple slaps a sky high margin on to make their BTO pricing system consistent up and down the line up). If most of the cooling system components are the same as in the $599 box, then it likely is not all that expensive.
More RAM and more SSD capacity only makes things more cloudy/opaque.
I hope you are correct about heat dissipation as it is not just the amount of heat but about the cooling itself - will its internal fan be loud during stress loads. Will the higher end offerings kick in the fan at high speeds earlier etc. I'm looking forward to real world tests and lab tests outside of Apple. I'm hoping all is as you say.
As for form over function - yes this is a compromised device. By having the Mini this small, it is likely more susceptible to being moved when attached cables are handled carelessly. Also, the port on the back in that configuration puts them relatively close to one another making it less convenient to switch cables in and out if all are used. I have no clue if TB cables would generate any heat or "noise" where the hardware inside the cable ends are concerned. To be honest, I can see that the hardware internally doesn't need much room but the layout of ports do as well as a good cooling system. I admit I am still a fan of Mini platform and hope to remain one with this smaller foot print.
Meanwhile, I'll have to see what is in store for the Studio as I am curious if they will release it with M4 or months down the line with a newer breed of chip (M5?).
Quote @deconstruct60
“Apple is looking to maximize costs shared costs across the two variants where possible. Same fan, same power supply , same custom plastic ducting system just gets better economies of scale for both sub variants to share the costs between both…
If most of the cooling system components are the same as in the $599 box, then it likely is not all that expensive.”
As I posted in #220, the M4 uses aluminium whilst the M4 Pro uses all copper in the thermal transfer sub-system.
From Apple's Tech Specs page:
Materials
100% recycled aluminium in the enclosure and thermal module stage*
100% recycled copper in multiple printed circuit boards, multiple thermal module components...**
* Recycled aluminium in the thermal module applies to Mac mini with M4 chip only.
** Recycled copper in the thermal module applies to Mac mini with M4 Pro chip only.
“Apple is looking to maximize costs shared costs across the two variants where possible. Same fan, same power supply , same custom plastic ducting system just gets better economies of scale for both sub variants to share the costs between both…
If most of the cooling system components are the same as in the $599 box, then it likely is not all that expensive.”
As I posted in #220, the M4 uses aluminium whilst the M4 Pro uses all copper in the thermal transfer sub-system.
From Apple's Tech Specs page:
Materials
100% recycled aluminium in the enclosure and thermal module stage*
100% recycled copper in multiple printed circuit boards, multiple thermal module components...**
* Recycled aluminium in the thermal module applies to Mac mini with M4 chip only.
** Recycled copper in the thermal module applies to Mac mini with M4 Pro chip only.
Last edited:
Interesting. I had been wondering about that. It’s the same idea as the heatsinks in the Mac Studio for Max vs Ultra. Max gets Al and Ultra gets Cu.
I love the old mini form factor, but it’s gone and it isn’t returning. Arguing what Apple could have done if they had kept it seems like a pointless exercise at this point. Things change for better or worse, this is the way.
There is also just a 60g difference between their weights, according to the specsheet. I think the fan and ducts are going to be the same, just the heatpipe over the chip being larger, and some layers of composite are copper instead.
I agree that the M4 Pro neural engine may allow for faster whatever, but I don’t see where the M2 Max cannot do whatever, albeit at a slower rate. There will be instances where the M4 pro has overtaken the M2 Max, as viewed by GB6 metrics, but in the wild under typical use conditions, the difference(s) may be negligible than what some see it being. I look forward to reports from users describing their experience with the M4 pro chip.
I am mystified by comments made by others that the M4 chip has made the M2 Max chip obsolete.
It depends what you mean by "obsolete".
Nobody is saying "Throw out your M2 Max Studio now - it is useless!" and there's no suggestion that Apple will drop software support for the M2 Max anytime soon. It will be a very capable machine for years to come.
But if you are talking about buying a new Mac in the near future, you're going to be looking for the best price/performance going forward. The M4 Pro is beating the M2 Ultra in some multi-core benchmarks (including GPU where the Ultra has a higher core count) - compared with the M2 Max it has more, faster CPU cores and a higher performance-to-economy core ratio. Let's just say the M4 Pro is going to give the M2 Max a run for its money, and beat it in many respects - and the M4 Max (already in the MBP, hopefully coming to the Studio soon) is going to uniformly thrash it. You'd need a very good justification for buying a M2 Max Studio today.
...which is where this thread comes in: do you agree with the criticisms of the new Mini being discussed here, and if you do are they bad enough for you to consider sacrificing bangs-per-buck to get a M2 Studio?
I saw a couple of items that show the M4 Pro having better scores than the M2 Ultra. As someone with an M1 Studio Max with only the RAM and drive config upped, it becomes a tempting option. I do photo related work and some minor graphics. For me, either the M4 Pro or wait for the next incarnation of the Studio. Incidentally, as one of those who were in the crowd (pre M1 days), who wanted an intermediate between the Mini and Mac Pro, the Studio Max (for me) checked nearly all the boxes. I am an admitted fanboy of the Studio and its physical dimensions.
Guess those who bought the Ultra because they needed the features and specs won`t be entirely content with present Mini no matter how great the best Mini performance results comes out. As far as I gather, there are a few not insignificant performance aspects preventing that. Like memory bandwidth, GPU cores as you rightfully stated plus double up of media engines....
They will await the improved iteration of what they have now.
Meanwhile, I thought the Mini M2 Pro was up my alley, as only 2 Thunderbolt ports made the base model obsolete at arrival. Could understand why they kept USB A for M1 to ease the transition from Intel, but USB A should have been gone for M2.
Guess the revised cooling determined the form factor, I have trouble picturing shrinked footprint and low noise active cooling by choosing 3/4"-1" height and 6" x 6" - for instance. Which was what I hoped for.
Heh.
I predicted A14X... err... I mean... M1 would bring a new form factor to the Mac mini, but they would keep the USB-A ports. I was right about the USB-A ports, but wrong about the form factor.
I then predicted M2 would get the new form factor, and would finally get rid of the USB-A ports. I was wrong on both counts.
Finally with M4 we get both the new form factor and all USB-C port design, but it took four years. Geez. It's too bad though that they put 4 Thunderbolt controllers in the M4 Mac mini but are only giving us 3 Thunderbolt 4 ports on the Mac mini. How are the two front USB 3.2 Gen 2 being implemented?
If your M1 Studio has enough RAM that your work is not suffering personally I would wait to see the M4 Studio, then decide. My guess is that for folks like you [and me] the M4 Studio Max will again be the ideal box. If you cannot wait the Mac mini Pro with 64 GB RAM is a totally acceptable choice right now.
Two years ago I needed to upgrade and the M2 Studio was delayed, so I bought an M2 MBP because the Mac mini only came with up to 32 GB RAM. Today the Mac mini can be configured with 64 GB RAM, IMO a huge improvement that now makes the mini a very acceptable choice.
Good question, although the USB 3.2 Gen 2 are only 10Gbps??? I would think that would make for a significantly simpler interface than what's needed for a Thunderbolt 4/5 interface.
Something that may not be well understood is that a USB3.x interfaces include a USB 2.0 interface that is handled separately. The USB 2.0 interfaces on a USB 3.x hub will have the 480Mbps aggregate limit of the upstream port.
Yes, the Mac minis are limited to 10 Gbps on those front USB 3.2 ports, which is a disappointment to me, as I was hoping the front ports would be USB 4.
However, I will probably get a USB 4 enclosure, which supports 40 Gbps, to use with one of the rear Thunderbolt 4 / USB 4 ports. People are reporting 3000+ MB/s out of those USB 4 enclosures, which are usually significantly cheaper than Thunderbolt 3 enclosures. The drawback with these though is if you don't have USB 4 support, they will drop down to 10 Gbps USB 3. IOW, on an M series Mac's USB 4 port, you will get 3000 MB/s, but on an Intel Mac's Thunderbolt 3 port, you will get 1000 MB/s with the same drive.
That is the way I am leaning at the moment...wait for the next Studio release. Mine is M1 1 tb drive / 64 gigs RAM. A very respectable tool for photo and graphic work on a smaller scale.
Photo related work covers quite a span of things one may be doing and the software one might use.
What software are you using? If Photoshop, how many layers deep do you normally go and do you do batch file corrections? I'm not trying to throw words around here but those are some things that would take advantage of more power and a healthy amount of RAM.
If you are like me, you do single images at a given time and never end with excessively large files, then 64 gigs is a great number for RAM and at least 1 terabyte drive plus an external drive storage.
If it were me, I would go with the M4 pro. I don't believe in "future proofing" as they say given Apple somewhat gets us into 2-4 year replacement cycles...but the changes going on with AI and more maybe benefit from the better performing Mini. This is just an opinion based on M1 Mini 512/16 and M1 Studio 1Tb/64 gigs RAM. Most of my work is photo restoration and minor retouch which can be a lot of layers but, nothing that generates large files.
Not true. ASM2464 based USB4 enclosures are backward compatible with TB3. So on an Intel Mac's thunderbolt 3 port, you still get upwards of over 3000 MB/s.
The OWC 1M2 with ASM2464 drops down to below 1000 MB/s on Intel Macs.
OWC Express 1M2: Portable USB4 NVMe M.2 SSD Solution
Offers incredible speeds of up to 3151 MB/s, DIY flexibility with NVMe M.2 SSDs, and compatible with USB4, Thunderbolt, and USB-C computers and devices.
The OWC 1M2 with ASM2464 drops down to below 1000 MB/s on Intel Macs.
OWC Express 1M2: Portable USB4 NVMe M.2 SSD Solution
Offers incredible speeds of up to 3151 MB/s, DIY flexibility with NVMe M.2 SSDs, and compatible with USB4, Thunderbolt, and USB-C computers and devices.www.owc.com
View attachment 2446519
Yes, because OWC chose to limit their USB4 enclosure on thunderbolt 3 ports for whatever reason. The chip itself is fully backward compatible with TB3 and all the other vendors support this feature.
Interesting. Unfortunately, a lot (but not all) of the other ASM2464 enclosures are more prone to overheating, due to inadequate heat dissipation in the case design.
I've tried a bunch of different USB4 enclosures over the past year and most of them overheat due to the fact that ASM2464's idle power consumption on Macs (AS or Intel) is abnormally high compared to Wintel machines. It's likely the reason why OWC went with that chunky heatsink design.
There are a few lengthy posts about this on the accessories sub-forum.