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.
Mac Mini vs. Mac Studio Buyer's Guide: 20+ Differences Compared
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The insults can be holstered, please. It's not that simple in the least. The issue is the Processor is the same now among product categories and the average person has NO IDEA what processor core count or GPU count they need. Mixed with the fact they have to pick variations of soldered on memory or storage at initial purchase makes a buying decision pressure driven. There is no upgrade path should a user require more storage or memory a year or two in the future. This possibly could be a requirement just to install a newer version of the Operating System or fit a new piece of software that they require. Over the last several years we had: MacMini, iMac, iMac Pro, Mac Studio, Mac Pro, MacBook, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro. People have NO idea if or when new versions of these products are going to be available as they sporadically update them now, if not drop them completely. Apple HomePod went missing for 2 years and now it has popped back up being completely incompatible with older models. This has stemmed into the nonsensical line-up of iPhone products over the years too. iPhone 7, 8, 8 Plus, skipped 9, then X, Xs, Xs max, Xr, 11, 11 Pro, 11 Pro Max, SE, 12 mini, 12, 12 Pro, 12 Pro Max, SE gen2, 13 mini, 13, 13 Pro, 13 Pro Max, 14, 14 Plus, 14 Pro, 14 Pro Max.... Not to mention each skew has memory and colour variants that differ and only applicable on certain models. If you think this is normal and easy for consumers to decipher.. all the power to you... Now with the M chips you have the same chip across multiple products with the consumer having absolutely no idea what the difference is other than a pressure driven push to have to buy all their memory and storage upgrades they predict they will need right at purchase. It is a slimy tactic to reap upgrade revenue at initial purchase and take profit away from third parties. Not to mention these new machines will most likely end up with shorter life span and e-waste due to the fact uneducated people will be buying the cheapest machines that are under spec'ed for longer term use. It's a giant cluster of terrible consumer freedom. Job's came back and made it simple. iMac, PowerMac, iBook, PowerBook. You knew one was consumer grade, one was pro grade. The only decision users had to make was what processor they could afford. Long term storage and memory could be upgraded as their needs grew.
Last edited:
The Mac Studio debuted in 2022 as Apple's most powerful custom silicon standalone desktop computer. Now, with the launch of the latest Mac mini models, the Mac Studio faces a formidable competitor that offers "Pro" capabilities at a substantially lower price point.
The Mac Studio starts at $1,999, dwarfing the $599 starting price of the M2 Mac mini and even the $1,299 starting price of the M2 Pro Mac mini, so do you need the highest-end Apple silicon Mac, or is the humble Mac mini sufficient for your needs? Our guide helps to answer the question of how to decide which of these two desktop Macs is best for you.
Comparing the Mac Mini and the Mac Studio
The Mac mini and the Mac Studio share some fundamental features, including a familiar, boxy silver aluminum design, Apple silicon chipsets, and two USB-A ports. That being said, the two machines have much more in contrast than they do in common, including different chip options, memory capacities, ports, and external display support capabilities.
Key Differences
Mac mini
- Height of 1.41 inches (3.58 cm)
- M2 chip or M2 Pro chip
- Up to 12-core CPU
- Up to 19-core GPU
- Media engine with video decode engine, video encode engines, and ProRes encode and decode engine
- Up to 200GB/s memory bandwidth
- Up to 32GB unified memory
- Support for up to two displays (M2) or three displays (M2 Pro)
- HDMI 2.1 port
- Up to four Thunderbolt/USB 4 ports
- Gigabit Ethernet or 10Gb Ethernet port
- Wi-Fi 6E (802.11ax)
- Bluetooth 5.3
- Starts at $699 for M2 model or $1,299 for M2 Pro model
Mac Studio
- Height of 3.7 inches (9.5 cm)
- M1 Max chip or M1 Ultra chip
- Up to 20-core CPU
- Up to 64-core GPU
- Media engine with two video decode engines, up to four video encode engines, and up to four ProRes encode and decode engines
- Up to 800GB/s memory bandwidth
- Up to 128GB unified memory
- Support for up to four Pro Display XDRs and one 4K display
- HDMI 2.0 port
- Six Thunderbolt/USB 4 ports
- SDXC card slot (UHS-II)
- 10Gb Ethernet port
- Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax)
Bluetooth 5.0- Starts at $1,999 for M1 Max model or $3,999 for M1 Ultra model
Desktop Apple Silicon Chips Compared
In single-core tasks, the M2 and M2 Pro Mac mini models perform distinctly better than either of the Mac Studio configurations. In multi-core, the picture is less clear-cut. The M2 Mac mini is less powerful than either of the Mac Studio models, but the M2 Pro Mac mini is more powerful than the M1 Max Mac Studio. The M1 Ultra Mac Studio remains the most powerful in multi-core tasks. In GPU tasks, the chips scale as one would expect, with progressively better performance through the M2, M2 Pro, M1 Max, and M1 Ultra. As such, users who need maximum GPU power should still buy the Mac Studio over the Mac mini.
See the approximate Geekbench 5 scores for each Mac mini and Mac Studio below, including the scores for the now-discontinued M1 Mac mini for reference:
Single-Core Scores
Metal GPU Scores
- M1: ~1,700
- M2: ~2,000
- M2 Pro: ~2,000
- M1 Max: ~1,750
- M1 Ultra: ~1,750
- M1: ~22,500
- M2: ~30,500
- M2 Pro: ~52,700
- M1 Max: ~64,700
- M1 Ultra: ~94,500
Multi-Core Scores
- M1: ~7,500
- M2: ~9,000
- M2 Pro: ~15,000
- M1 Max: ~12,350
- M1 Ultra: ~23,350
Unless you plan on buying the M1 Ultra Mac Studio with a focus on multi-core and GPU performance, the M2 Pro Mac mini should be the best all-round choice in terms of performance for most users.
Memory
If you need more than 32GB of memory, the Mac Studio can provide greater quantities up to 128GB. Likewise, the Mac mini's memory bandwidth maxes out at 200GB/s memory bandwidth. The Mac Studio, on the other hand, offers up to 400GB/s or 800GB/s memory bandwidth. As such, if you need extreme quantities of memory and a large amount of memory bandwidth for professional tasks, only the Mac Studio can meet these requirements. It is still worth noting that the M2 Pro Mac mini's 32GB memory option, along with 200GB/s memory bandwidth, should be more than enough for most users.
Ports and External Display Support
The Mac Studio offers a more versatile selection of ports, with two extra Thunderbolt/USB 4 ports and a SDXC card slot compared to the M2 Pro Mac mini, which could be an important consideration for users with a lot of peripherals.
The Mac mini has an HDMI 2.1 port, meaning that it will be better for a small number of users who work with 8K and high refresh-rate external displays, but otherwise the Mac Studio offers better external display support.
Final Thoughts
To some extent, purchasing decisions should be driven by budget, but it is worth bearing in mind that any savings on the desktop computer itself can be put toward a good external display such as Apple's Studio Display, which starts from $1,599. For example, an M2 Pro Mac mini paired with a Studio Display comes to $2,898, which is just $899 more than a lone base model Mac Studio and $1,101 less than the M1 Ultra Mac Studio with no display.
Buy Mac Mini if...
- You need a high-level of performance and versatility at a comparatively low price
- You need maximum single-core CPU performance
- You need maximum multi-core CPU performance and cannot afford the M1 Ultra Mac Studio
- You need HDMI 2.1 and support for 8K external displays
- You need Wi-Fi 6E (802.11ax) or Bluetooth 5.3
Buy Mac Studio if...
- You need maximum multi-core CPU performance and can afford the M1 Ultra model
- You need maximum GPU performance
- You need amounts of memory over 32GB and high memory bandwidth
- You need more than four Thunderbolt/USB 4 ports
- You need support for more than three external displays
- You need a built-in SDXC card slot (UHS-II)
You should only consider the Mac Studio if you have a professional workflow that can leverage the extreme power of M1 Ultra, as well as its additional ports and memory options. If you need the Mac Studio, you will likely know that you are looking for a highly powerful machine that is capable of supporting specific intense workflows. Most customers should choose the M2 Pro Mac mini over the M1 Max Mac Studio, saving $700 when looking at the base models. There will likely still be substantial savings when it comes to custom configurations.
Article Link: Mac Mini vs. Mac Studio Buyer's Guide
Looking at price point $1999 you can get 32GB RAM, 512GB SSD and either:
Mac Studio M1 Max with 10-core CPU, 24-core GPU, 16-core Neural Engine OR
Mac mini M2 Pro with 12‑core CPU, 19-core GPU, 16‑core Neural Engine
Studio has 10gigabit ethernet, you can add to the mini. It also has SD card slot, plus 2 more front USB-C 10Gbps ports. It can support more monitors as well (4@6k vs 2@6k).
Mini has HDMI 2.1 and WiFi 6E (Studio is 6) and Bluetooth 5.3 (Studio is 5.0) and maxes out at 185 watts.
You oddly verified exactly what I said. For people that do real work or even gaming and not just make TikTok, YouTube videos, these computers are definitely not the best choice for development or 3D render studios. They benchmark nicely with exclusive software like logic and final cut as they are highly optimized for metal. For anything else, a PC performs the same or better. There is no advantage and in most cases poorer performance. Real professionals do not purchase Mac's when they need to get real compute intensive work done. At least not yet.
Apple did not even compare the M2 to intel gen 13 and Nvidia/AMD GPU benchmark results this launch because the results are severely underwhelming for price/performance. And when you have a serious 3D render project that needs to be done by the end of the day, no one cares that it cost 3 dollars more in power if it gets done 5X+ faster. Throwing 2-3090 to do a render vs a single locked in M1 chip is laughable in comparison. The recent benchmarks are showing The M2 Max are finally catching up to 3070 ti / 3080. (this is metal vs direct x though) This a positive thing, but still nearly impossible to justify for price/performance especially when 4090 is now available. This is not to mention when the 5090 cards come out you can buy it and add it to the 4090 for massive render performance advantages and not have to buy a new 5-6g computer that has the performance of a single 2 generation old PC equivalent card.
I am not saying apple won't catch-up eventually, who knows. If you are convincing yourself that these are the best machines out there for home or for work... I fully disagree. These machines are status symbols. If they released MacOS, right now, into the wild for anyone to install, apple's hardware division would be out of business. Don't kid yourself.
And yes, when I get my clients asking me what Mac they should purchase now, they have no idea where to begin. It is about dollars to performance and life cycle. They aren't going to be buying $20,000+ Mac pro's, I can tell you that. I have a printshop clients running 2012 iMacs still with Adobe software and branching to PC's now because they simply can't justify affording Macs that are locked in and not serviceable. Operating system upgrades no longer being allowed to be installed. They really can't afford the lock down and non-serviceable aspect of apple MacMini's or iMacs anymore. They run their machines in a locked mode until upgrading is absolutely required. They can't afford a single day of downtime. They run file servers off raided old MacPro's and adjust storage as required.... Their is no flexibility like this in apple anymore unless you start buying expensive thunderbolt enclosures and planning to upgrading the OS constantly to keep your browser compatible and supported. MacOS Server is gone, so some customers I have migrated to TrueNAS boxes. Apple makes toys for celebrities and YouTubers now it seem. Definitely not the same creative "business" focus from back in the late nineties.
You can say all you want, I have seen apple for over 40 years now. This current business model they have now is completely back to sealed pretty boxes for maximized profits with celebrities and YouTubers being used by marketing to fill in the deficiencies.
I bought a Studio last year. It mostly replaced a late-2014 Mac Mini that I bought in March 2016 (6 years of use) and which is now only my iTunes home video server. The Studio has 32 GB of RAM, since the 2020 M1 Mini was limited to 16 GB. And while I could have waited 10 months (not knowing that at the time), an M2 Pro Mini w/ 32 GB RAM is $300 less than the Studio I bought and which is still available. So I still think that the extra $300 makes the Studio a better buy but I can see how the M2 Pro Mini is attractive at the slightly lower price point. I might actually feel some buyer's remorse if that delta was bigger. I also would not suggest the Studio over the M2 Pro Mini at this point, but anyone on the fence would do well to wait 2-4 months as the M2 Max Studio is likely coming quite soon.
Yeah, me too. The M2 wins for me if one accepts the maximum 32 GB RAM, because M2 has tens of thousands of additional hours of engineering evolving from version 1 M1.
However 2024-2025 most folks using boxes at this level will be better off with >32 GB RAM, which means +$400 more and the M1 Studio's forever-year-older tech. Or wait for M2 Studio.
Last edited:
Agree, but with two exceptions: the PowerMac 8600 and 9600 cases, though lacking a hinge, had an entire side that just….came off. Made working inside so much easier than any Mac that had come before (or the original iMac).
We disagree. Mini to Studio to Mac Pro is a clear desktop product lineup. Sure old tech versus newer tech can be confusing (e.g. highest M2 Pro Mini versus lowest M1 Max Studio), but those confusions will always exist as tech rapidly evolves (a good thing).
Memory management is fine. Apple's chips are not like the previous Intel scenario, or even "soldered" as many seem to think. Apple bakes RAM on to a layer electrically very close to the SoC, yielding huge performance gains. Paging to SSD should aggressively be minimized, because it is even more relatively really really slow than it was in the past.
We all need to read up on Apple's Unified Memory Architecture and ruminate on how that impacts everything.
Last edited:
Yes, we do have a difference of opinion here.
Unified memory is only as good as it is managed. Many have complained about how RAM is exploited with M line of Macs and the challenges found. I have said often enough that 8 gigs should be sufficient but in the real world, many find issues, and even 16 gigs for some is problematic. The amount is fine so that leaves .... management as an issue. It doesn't matter how fast or slow the RAM is if it is not well managed.
Apple does indeed create times of overlap that doesn't show a clear line as you suggest. Often in the past, there still was some distinction between the "classes" of machines. Today we see an overlap of the Mini and Studio that leaves some scratching their heads on what is the best option for them. Look at the intel lineup of Macs from iMac, Mini, and so on where the lines were fairly clear for the most part. It is a bit blurred now and that is what is being recognized by some here, including myself.
I am no chip engineer, but my understanding is they have painted themselves into a corner... it may look good now, but... anything outside this architecture is near impossible to integrate. Things like internal discreet graphics will never be possible and accessing memory to external GPU is not possible. They may have sold themselves on this shared memory pipeline inside an SOC, but flexibility and long term advances better have a long road map plan ahead, because everyone is blowing by them already. People really need to question this new processor long term, there is a reason why Jobs moved to intel and apple started to grow acceptance finally. Moving back to this proprietary territory is extremely risky, and if they have to move back to intel again, people are going to laugh at them, especially when they have no iPhone or iPod to help aid the migration back. I really was excited about the M1. My first thought was, sure it won't be perfect at first, but apple can now bring down costs of their hardware and make affordable devices at the expense of repairability and upgradeability. Apple instead turned it into a chance to maximize efficiency to a single chip production and sell these computers at beyond premium prices. It screams of greed or at least, something very internally wrong at apple now.
Things like this scare me: https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgy...on-lock-right-to-repair?utm_source=reddit.com
Last edited:
Apple's Unified Memory Architecture means RAM communicates with the SoC in a few nanoseconds, but you are thinking in terms of the old way, milliseconds. Read up on Apple's Unified Memory Architecture; today's Apple RAM management is state-of-the-art.
As to "8 gigs should be sufficient" we very seriously disagree. You have a very different concept of modern computing architecture and how real-work performance is best achieved than I do.
Why is it ridiculous?
The Mac Studio has two performance levels and a price range from $2000 to $4000+.
The Mac Mini also has two performance levels and a price that goes from $500 to $2000. The performance gets close to the Studio at the top range.
You could say the same thing about the Honda Civic and the Honda Accord. Are they ridiculous?
Last edited:
Interesting take on the M class of systems by Apple. Perhaps reorienting the cores to include an arbitrator to handle additional hardware will be the way out. If this were to come to pass, Apple would have to create specs for input and out put. Obviously, this is just chat on my part but I do think you are right if they don't make some changes now, they will have real issues later and give AMD and Intel (and perhaps other ARM systems) opportunities to pass them by in a single jump.
Though I appreciate your mention of the speed (which I was aware of already), the issue remains with memory management. Some people have mentioned much the same that one would think 16 gigs to be plenty yet with some browsers open, email and a couple of apps, the memory is not managed well enough for some of the apps to fully function properly or with typical speeds. No matter...we agree on the speed and disagree on the how Apple handles* memory.
Why would "one would think 16 gigs to be plenty...?" Amount of RAM usage in Macs has steadily increased, starting from 128k. And for good computing architectural reasons: performance also has steadily increased. Apple's Unified Memory Architecture is unlikely to reverse the consistent 40-year trend, nor should we want to.
We agree that with time newer systems are requiring more memory. However, we have also seen technology almost always a head of software. This is no different. The OS or even the apps are not fully implementing management of RAM. I go back to the earliest days of DOS, Windows, OS/2, along side of Z80 systems and of course older Macs. There was far better handling of memory and in some instances software tools to help.
If I recall correctly, Opera browser in the past (may still do so) offer means to control how much resources are taken up in a manner that also impacts RAM. It can be done.
One thing to notice - if RAM is going to be required in greater quantity, it is sad that Apple charges ridiculously high prices for serious upgrades.
Given the news on SSD speeds, one could also argue that's another point for the Studio, as it is faster than the Pros, unless you upgrade the SSD quite a bit.
You keep saying that the memory is not well managed. What do you mean by that?
I use a 16GB MBA and regularly have browsers (plural) with dozens of tabs, various administrative apps, a couple of Affinity graphics apps, and Apple Music playing in the background. I have never run into memory problems that impacted function or experience. Sometimes there is swap. Some browser tabs can develop surprisingly high ram usage (looking at you forums.macrumors.com). Those are swapped to disk if memory is needed for other apps and the tab is not active.
What better management would you expect to see?
Rather interesting (to me) given you mention a scenario that is akin to my own and did create challenges for Affinity Photo. I noticed when I flushed the memory with a 3rd party tool, Affinity behaved better. The M1 was a 512/16. I deal with Affinity and a couple of other photo-related apps on a regular basis. When I did the move to the Studio with greater memory, the difference was noticeable. Admittedly I don't really feel much of a speed difference but the RAM challenge was gone.
The problem for me is when I use and open certain apps in progression. Maybe Safari with a few tabs open, then put on some music while reading email and check my VPN setting (on / off depending on what is being browsed) and when going to Affinity, some tools start failing to work or behave sluggishly. Part of that issue remains with Affinity and mostly the challenge of RAM. The Mac simply doesn't flush out RAM in a reasonable manner. Consider - one is actively engaging an app like Affinity and RAM becomes at a premium all the while the system is caching large amounts data from Safari on past pages or presently none engage pages. Management would offer up some of the older cache for the engaged app (Affinity in this case).
Swaps - I have noticed under rather limited apps open swapping going on. Again, memory is not being flushed out within a reasonable time/manner. I believe others noted swaps going on in instances that are surprising.
While I don't doubt your better experience than mine, at best it suggests the problem doesn't impact you. There are bad actor apps out there that are memory hogs that Apple feels is just fine to let them hog the memory (think apps such as Microsoft Teams). One might want to do a generic search "do M1 Macs have memory issues?" and see some returns on the search showing all sorts of discussion on this topic.
Well, you don't have an issue, and I resolved mine (though grudgingly).
So your position is that Apple should magically manage-away the issues that present when users provide less than adequate RAM for their workflows.
My position is that users should buy boxes with adequate RAM for the 3-6 year life cycle of the box, knowing that apps and the OS will be demanding more RAM in coming months, just like they have been for the last 40 years.
Allen - We are in agreement that people should buy "adequate RAM." Some have different opinions what constitutes "adequate" and since 2015, all my systems have had 16 gigs of RAM and with M products it seems to get a similar experience one would need possibly 32 gigs or more.
As for your hand waving comment of "magically"... yes, I think that Apple should address the issue just as I think they should have address some issues people were having with monitors that they didn't have before and is due to the M1 along with the OS. We don't get to decide the swap/paging file size, we don't get to decide how much cache certain apps may take (such as Safari) and there is a lovely line of either don't get to decide or no auto management of value found. Apple could handle some of this but elects not to do so. I have to laugh and think back to early DOS days when people had the option to decide where app would reside or engage memory - 640 and below and then that above (someone can correct me if 640 is off). There were also memory managers such as QEMM, Hurricane, and later DOS itself provided a simple one. More complex systems engage items such as Pharlap extenders allowing not only above the 640 line but many megs and 32bit operations.
In short - yes we should ideally do our homework and try to get the right amount of RAM to allow for the longevity of our purchase and yes, I do believe Apple is capable at a significant level to be able to help resolve this issue and a few other notable issues that came along with the M1 systems and newer MacOS incarnations.