Mac Mini vs. Mac Studio Buyer's Guide: 20+ Differences Compared

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Mac Studio + Display is $3500 with the minimum configuration. To me that's not a middle ground

There is no obligation to pair Studio with only an Apple monitor. PLENTY of fish in that sea. PLENTY!

Whoever actually makes that screen for Apple probably packages the same screen in their own branded case (or will soon). Want something other than 1 size that doesn't cost $6000? Pick ANY size. Want ultra-wide? Those are available too. Want one that comes with the flexibility to rise & fall, rotate, use cheap 3rd party VESA mounts, and can readily switch to any of those options during the life of the monitor? Just about ALL of the others have that kind of flexibility as defaults. Need some jacks that are not Thunderbolt or not only 3 jacks? Plenty of such options.

Need a tangible bootcamp option but want to embrace Silicon? That means you need a a PC too and there are monitors with dual/trio/etc jacks so that one monitor can cover BOTH computers or BOTH + a console, etc. Even split screen option so those who need both or more can run both or more on the same screen at the same time... kind of Parallels like without the annual subscription.

Be a consumer. Flex the most fundamental of consumer muscles: shop around. There's TONS of options.

 

[saulinpa]

In what world is $3500 for a desktop computer lower than middle ground?

Obviously not in your house. For the rest of the world the high ground is the Mac Pro. Many people spending $10,000+ on a desktop - the base Mac Pro needs expanded for most of its prospective buyers.

 

[TobyR]

The flaw is trying to determine entry/medium/high without the context of workflow needs.

As a web/css/front-end guy the mini is *more* than capable for a heavy workflow in my area. It may not in yours.

Needs vary by workflow. Wanting the best for cheapest (mo powah!) is a incorrect assessment and false basis of measure

 

[4jasontv]

There is no obligation to pair Studio with only an Apple monitor. PLENTY of fish in that sea. Whoever actually makes that screen for Apple probably packages the same screen in their own branded case (or will soon). Want something other than 1 size that doesn't cost $6000? Pick ANY size. Want ultra-wide? Those are available too. Want one that comes with the flexibility to rise & fall, rotate, use cheap 3rd party VESA mounts, and can readily switch to any of those options during the life of the monitor? Just about ALL of the others have that kind of flexibility as defaults. Need some jacks that are not Thunderbolt or not only 3 jacks? Plenty of such options. Need a tangible bootcamp options but want to embrace Silicon? That means you need a a PC too and there are monitors with dual/trio/etc jacks so that one monitor can cover BOTH computers or BOTH + a console, etc.

Be a consumer. Flex the most fundamental of consumer muscles: shop around. There's TONS of options.

Also - I think the iMac changed how some people see the cost of the display in the computer's price. I can respect why people would include it, and if they are moving from an iMac many will likely add one on without considering other options. For me, after being burned by a previous iMac I am super excited to see so many headless Macs that allow me to use any monitor I want.

 

[Macintosh TV]

Reality is that the mini is going to meet the needs of 99% of buyers.

 

[macdaddy43]

I disagree:

Mini $699 is super basic.
Studio $1999 is middle ground.
Studio $3999 is high end.
Pro is.... pro.

In what world are we living in that a 'middle ground' DESKTOP computer - not including ANY peripherals (no mouse, no keyboard, no display) is $2,000? That is just absurd to me. The studio is not for consumers and it is not meant to be. But for the people saying that is the middle tier option, there IS a giant hole Apple has created for the consumer space.

If anyone is looking to get anything even slightly more powerful than an M1, they are going to be paying easily $2500 for a base config desktop. That is the hole I am seeing.

Apple really needs to give another option to the Mac Mini. It is basically: M1 chip (albeit very capable, but also in the iPad Air), or $2000 not including the $500/$1000 in peripherals/display.

There is literally a gigantic hole in the Mac Mini offering.

Edit: I forgot to put the price LOL

 

[headlessmike]

The flaw is trying to determine entry/medium/high without the context of workflow needs.

As a web/css/front-end guy the mini is *more* than capable for a heavy workflow in my area. It may not in yours.

Needs vary by workflow. Wanting the best for cheapest (mo powah!) is a incorrect assessment and false basis of measure

This is my opinion too. The M1 mini is hardly a low-end machine for most tasks, it can in fact do a lot of heavy lifting. Not every professional task requires a high-end GPU or copious amounts of RAM.

 

[icanhazmac]

That studio with a display included at $1999 would be middle ground. The additional $1600 for a display that was already included in the previous 27" iMac is anything but.

We can agree to disagree.

First off, yes we can respectfully disagree.

However I doubt that many people who are considering either the Mini or the Studio Max will need or want to pay $1699 for the Studio Display, especially the mini crowd. IMHO the Studio Display leans towards Pro. If we simply throw in say a $400-$600 Dell 4k then the Studio Max comes in at around $2500 which in Apple terms is what I would call middle ground in terms of cost. This is exactly the price point I expect the upcoming 27-32" iMac to come in at though it will have a keyboard and mouse included.

 

[HazardousT]

Obviously not in your house. For the rest of the world the high ground is the Mac Pro. Many people spending $10,000+ on a desktop - the base Mac Pro needs expanded for most of its prospective buyers.

In a day and age when gas prices are at an all time high, inflation is going through the roof, and your dollar is losing more and more value Apple decides to practically double the price of a consumer level product.

the problem I have with this is with Apple you never know what to expect next. We can speculate all we want but we have no idea what comes next or when it will happen.

The Mac Pro is a business related item and definitely not something a home user would ever need but $3500 is not a good starting point for a middle ground product. Some argue that you don't have to buy the display, and that's true, but why would I want to downgrade from the display I currently have which is essentially the same screen being offered in a separate package for an additional $1600?

 

[currocj]

Yup. I did that comparison two days ago (plus the addition of a CalDigit hub) and when I got within a few hundred dollars of the Studio, went ahead and ordered that.

Same here. I ordered the studio M1 max with 32gb/2tb. I figure I will get at least 5 or 6 years out of that beast

 

[cjgrif]

There is literally a gigantic hole in the Mac Mini offering.

I'd just like to be able to get an M1 Pro processor in a desktop.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Also - I think the iMac changed how some people see the cost of the display in the computer's price. I can respect why people would include it, and if they are moving from an iMac many will likely add one on without considering other options. For me, after being burned by a previous iMac I am super excited to see so many headless Macs that allow me to use any monitor I want.

I'm right there with you. Just days ago my most important computer's tech guts went on the fritz. That's iMac 27" It's best monitor, best Mac and best Windows computer "all in one." Guts start failing and I lose ALL of "them."

No matter what iMac "bigger" option Apple could have rolled out at this event, I was committed to NOT buying another iMac. They are great values at the beginning but then it's "throw everything away at the end" including a perfectly good screen that would probably have 5-6+ years left in it if there was some way to keep using it.

So I was 100% ready to lay out big cash for the rumored Mac Mini with M1 MAX. Instead, Apple doesn't show that one (yet?) and I need a new main Mac ASAP. So Studio won my money... and more than I expected to spend for super Mini.

What about Windows? That will be bootcamp the old fashioned way: a separate Mac Mini-like PC.

What about the monitor? Apples monitor looks great but too locked down and inflexible for my purposes in trying to basically replace all 3 things I've lost. So I went ULTRA-WIDE with multiple inputs (full KVM actually) to be the monitor for both Studio and PC, even at the same time (split screen) with TWO more inputs to spare. Built in KVM means one keyboard, mouse, speaker covers both computers too.

As offered, plenty of fish in the sea for monitors. Look around. There's far more options than either Apple 27" or Apple $6K: all sizes, all shapes, all kinds of jack options, flexility like that KVM "hub", etc. Yes, the main thing I look at with my new Mac will be somebody eles's monitor brand.

But so what? Think what would have happened if Apple would have NOT released a new monitor at the event. EVERYONE would be thinking third-party monitor to pair with whatever new Mac they may have purchased (if they did not already have a separate monitor). Just because Apple rolled out one that is much less than $6K doesn't mean its the only possible choice for all of us Mac people. It's just ONE, albeit very nice choice.

I look forward to having a Mac working on a BIG screen again, hopefully as soon as this coming FRIDAY. And when Studio guts are dying or macOS updates are "long in tooth"ing it, I don't have to throw out a perfectly fine screen again.

 

[FasterQuieter]

I would guess a Mac mini with 16GB RAM (as RAM is shared for video) and 512GB storage (to increase read/write speed) is perfect for 99% of users. Even the base model is great. Spending 3 times more or higher on the Studio is not necessary if you don't have that kind of money.

 

[headlessmike]

Why does everyone seem to assume that the Mac Studio has to come with the new Studio Display when talking about pricing? If I bought a new machine I would just keep my current display unless there was something wrong with it. Then the choice is between a mini for $1000+ or a studio for $2000+, which seams reasonable (though I'm sure something that fills that gap will be released at some point). I realize that this is not an option for iMac users, but it's weird directly comparing the $699 price of a lonesome mini with the $3500 price of a Mac Studio + Studio Display.

 

[icanhazmac]

I would guess a Mac mini with 16GB RAM (as RAM is shared for video) and 512GB storage (to increase read/write speed) is perfect for 99% of users. Even the base model is great. Spending 3 times more or higher on the Studio is not necessary if you don't have that kind of money.

You do not need to spend 3x! The Studio Max is 2x the cost of the Mini config you mention and gives you 32 gig RAM, 2 more CPU cores and 3x the GPU cores if you want more than 1 monitor to work on it.

 

[Treq]

In what world are we living in that a 'middle ground' DESKTOP computer - not including ANY peripherals (no mouse, no keyboard, no display) is $2,000? That is just absurd to me. The studio is not for consumers and it is not meant to be. But for the people saying that is the middle tier option, there IS a giant hole Apple has created for the consumer space.

If anyone is looking to get anything even slightly more powerful than an M1, they are going to be paying easily $2500 for a base config desktop. That is the hole I am seeing.

Apple really needs to give another option to the Mac Mini. It is basically: M1 chip (albeit very capable, but also in the iPad Air), or $2000 not including the $500/$1000 in peripherals/display.

There is literally a gigantic hole in the Mac Mini offering.

Edit: I forgot to put the price LOL

A tiny hole if there is one at all. The difference between a maxed out M1 mini and a base Mac Studio is only $200. Not a lot of room for that gaping hole you speak of.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I'd just like to be able to get an M1 Pro processor in a desktop.

For now, that's MBpro 14" in clamshell mode.

If you have patience, it seems pretty logical that exactly that will probably replace Mac Mini Intel once all Apple can convince to choose to pay up for at least base Studio have pretty much done so.

Since Apple has now committed to there being only 1 more Mac to join the M1 party, that Mac Mini Pro may be an M2 Pro. If so, its cores will likely be modestly faster than even the cores in the ULTRA... just not having so many of them for parallel tasks.

 

[SamuelFleming]

First, I agree with others here that the headless mac in three different configurations is really a great thing. It was sad that we were tied so tightly to a display. If Apple can't sell reasonably priced displays we have tons of options for really good displays out there. I'll admit that most don't look quite as good as an Apple display, so I understand there may be an issue there. Maybe Apple will finally make some more displays beyond the currently lineup....

Second, I wonder if Apple thought about the Mac Mini M1 Pro and decided it was a little too confusing next to the studio for now. Maybe they'll amend they CPU branding next time around so the confusion goes away because it does seem like a $1,300-1,500 mini with the pro chip would fit right into the lineup nicely and they already have the chip (and we all suspect the cooling in the mini is more than enough since the MacBook Pro can handle a "pro.")

On the other hand, it may have been they decided not to give the Mini the M1 Pro because then it would be an update to that machine and they didn't want to update at this time. Or maybe there is still a sufficiently tight squeeze on the supply of the M1 Pro and it didn't make sense. Finally, it's possible they are just making space for the studio while it's new and the Mini M1 Pro will come in due time, but not before they've sold a whole bunch of Studios at a better profit.

 

[GenesisST]

The way it seems to me is that if you find the Mac Studio too expensive, you probably don't need it.

 

[SamuelFleming]

A tiny hole if there is one at all. The difference between a maxed out M1 mini and a base Mac Studio is only $200. Not a lot of room for that gaping hole you speak of.

Except that's not a fair comparison. The maxed out Mini has 4x the storage at that price. If you keep the storage level across the two devices it's an $800 difference. I would find it hard to believe you'd seriously be looking at a device with 2TB of storage and compare it to a device with 512GB of storage.

 

[NewUsername]

Reality is that the mini is going to meet the needs of 99% of buyers.

You’re right. Tech forums always live in a slightly different reality.

Sure, the base model Mac mini won’t work for everyone. Some will want more storage space, some will like to get 16GB RAM. But the percentage of desktop users that needs a Mac Studio or a Mac Pro is just minuscule.

 

[nwcs]

The Studio makes sense mostly if your software can take advantage of the GPUs and/or the ML. Right now there aren’t very many software packages that do that.

The intense software processing I do is intended to be cross-platform and the best I’ll probably get is native apple silicon performance which is scheduled for this year.

I wish Apple would do more to make their chip’s power more accessible for cross-platform stuff.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Why does everyone seem to assume that the Mac Studio has to come with the new Studio Display when talking about pricing? If I bought a new machine I would just keep my current display unless there was something wrong with it. Then the choice is between a mini for $1000+ or a studio for $2000+, which seams reasonable (though I'm sure something that fills that gap will be released at some point). I realize that this is not an option for iMac users, but it's weird directly comparing the $699 price of a lonesome mini with the $3500 price of a Mac Studio + Studio Display.

Because you can't blow things as far out of proportion unless you can really stretch the cost comparison. Hard to get riled up when comparing only $1000 difference for an M1 vs. "latest & greatest" M1 MAX machine.

Many people who CAN do what you are saying, WILL do what you are saying. Others will consider that if Apple did not release a new monitor, all buyers of Studio would be weighing the multitude of third-party monitors right now instead of playing this same crying game of $699 vs. $14K (Mini vs. Studio with $6K monitor)... because... in that scenario... the $6K monitor would be the only Apple monitor anyone can possibly consider.

And then people like you and me could post: "Wait... Studio can work with countless OTHER monitors." And we would have this same kind of thread with only more extremist numbers driving the other side of the conversation.

 

[sajlonix]

I dont understand why they didnt use the new circle magnetic charging cable..

 

[BornAgainMac]

So it's either low end or high end? No middle ground at all on this is there?

Isn't the customer base for Macs low end or high end anyways. You have the baseline people that will get the 8 GB model that is on sale that probably don't even need a Mac. Then you have the high end Final Cut Pro types that want to have everything maxed out.