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

[CWallace]

I thought the Mac Studio beats the Mac Pro in benchmarks? Probably only get the Mac Pro if you want it intel based and/or need expandability.

In certain benchmarks it does, but we need to remember we are comparing Apple silicon to Intel and AMD.

Once the Mac Pro goes to Apple silicon, it should be fairly faster since it will start with something similar to M1 Ultra and then have an upgrade with twice as many CPU cores and GPU cores.

 

[gkrpg]

You may then consider 24” M1 iMac with 8 CPU, 8GPU, 512 GB storage, 16GB ram @ $1899. Then, there is a $100 gap for twice the RAM, more CPU and GPU cores. For the studio, few more hundred dollars to spend for 3rd party monitor, keyboard and mouse/trackpad would justify the price gap between iMac and the studio, which seems very minimal considering the extras that comes with the studio.

 

[chaines]

Man, if the M1 macMini could support two Apple Thunderbolt displays, it would be an instant buy! I am considering the Mac Studio, even though its more expensive, it may be a great long term solution. Should last someone at least 10 years.

 

[sudo-sandwich]

The specs state that it should work with 1 6K and 1 4K display but I've heard the same complaint on various YouTube reviews. Does it work well with just one screen, especially 4K?

Idk, but my M1 mini has been driving 2 2K displays natively, and with DisplayLink I've added a third 1080p display. Kinda disappointing that it can't just drive 3 natively, but it works fine anyway.

 

[el-John-o]

Ugh.

This is right where I’m at. I was really hoping for an M1 Pro Mac Mini.

My needs have changed and I no longer need a powerful laptop.

I have a 2016 MacBook Pro that I am going to continue using, but I want to switch to a faster desktop for photo and video editing; both of which it’s starting to struggle with with some workflows.

On paper the M1 should be fine. It’s faster than what I’m currently using. But an M1 Pro would be even more fine!

The studio is faster than I need and more expensive than I want to spend and the Mini is just a tad under what I had hoped for.

 

[sudo-sandwich]

All the specs are just numbers to me. I have an M1 Mac Mini and with all these new things on the Studio, I struggle to understand how much better my digital life will get if I invest $2000 to upgrade. Here is what I really want to know:

1) it takes an hour to transcode an 2 Hour HD film from MKV to MP4. How long would it take on a Studio?
2) I have a 32 inch QHD monitor and a 15.4 inch portable screen hooked up right now. It is kind of glitchy sometimes. Will a Studio solve that issue?
3) My bluetooth devices sometimes get sluggish or are not seen by my mini. Would a Studio fix this?
4) How much faster in day to day workload in Photoshop will a Studio be than my current Mini?

Not expecting people to have answers here (especially to 2 and 3, since no one has really been hands on yet) but specs about "Neural Engines" and "Core CPUs" are so abstract to me. I need tangible comparisons to make a spend like this worthy.

1. If you're using the CPU alone, like in Handbrake, roughly 36 minutes. That's 60 minutes * (M1 mini Geekbench multicore score) / (MBP M1 Max multicore score). 18 minutes for the M1 Ultra version based on its leaked scores. Video transcoding is embarrassingly parallel and easy to predict based on benchmark scores.

Can't answer the rest.

 

[JustAnExpat]

The complication comes when defining demanding. We don’t all do video editing or photo work. When do Chrome, Office, and Preview tasks become more demanding?

They don't. I have an MacBook Air, M1, 8GB Ram/ 8 core, and I *CAN NOT* push the thing to it's limit doing Safari, Office (with Excel spreadsheets), Scrivener, and iMovie open. The MacBook Air/ Mac mini/ iMac is good for general purpose work.

 

[4jasontv]

They don't. I have an MacBook Air, M1, 8GB Ram/ 8 core, and I *CAN NOT* push the thing to it's limit doing Safari, Office (with Excel spreadsheets), Scrivener, and iMovie open. The MacBook Air/ Mac mini/ iMac is good for general purpose work.

I simply don't believe that a low spec M1 can handle a few hundred tabs or a dozen or so 10,000+ cell spreadsheets.

 

[JustAnExpat]

Was hoping for a guide taking the rumoured M2 and M2 Pro Mac Mini into consideration. Buy the Mac Studio or wait for M2/Pro Mac Mini.

How can people know what the M2 chip specs are, since it's just a rumor?

 

[chaines]

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

I would say 10 years minimum. I'm still using a 2012 Mac mini, i5, albeit I upgraded the ram to 16GB and upgraded the HD with a fusion drive with 2TB of storage.

 

[JustAnExpat]

I simply don't believe that a low spec M1 can handle a few hundred tabs or a dozen or so 10,000+ cell spreadsheets.

Have you tried it? Apple has a worldwide 15 day return policy for their products.

 

[4jasontv]

Have you tried it? Apple has a worldwide 15 day return policy for their products.

That's a lot to test a product Apple admits isn't as powerful as my PC.

But the Studio looks promising. Unfortunetly, most reviewers don't push productivity apps to their break point.

 

[cpnotebook80]

I have the macbook pro 13" m1 with 8gb ram and I can certainly say that it gets sluggish pretty fast with few major apps i work on and firefox and MS teams are the worse culprits when running in the background. and leads to memory swaps happen depending on what I do. I wish i got the 16gb. 8gb ram is too limiting.

The M1 chip is great for low end low power devices perhaps. The mac mini, which I was holding out for to replace my Mac Pro 5.1 stuck on mojave, i decided to take a chance on the high end ultra chip to see how it all plays out. Will see next friday.

 

[-narcan-]

I simply don't believe that a low spec M1 can handle a few hundred tabs or a dozen or so 10,000+ cell spreadsheets.

Why not ? It’s one of the fastest macs Apple has released. As an example it out performs a trash can Mac Pro in benchmarks. The SSD is also incredibly fast and can typically pickup the slack when memory needs to be swapped.

 

[slainbabyyc]

In certain benchmarks it does, but we need to remember we are comparing Apple silicon to Intel and AMD.

Once the Mac Pro goes to Apple silicon, it should be fairly faster since it will start with something similar to M1 Ultra and then have an upgrade with twice as many CPU cores and GPU cores.

I don't think it's gonna start with something similar to M1 ultra, there would be no point in selling it with Ultra when one could just get the Studio instead. I'm thinking it's gonna be 4 M2 Maxes and 8 M2 Maxes, if it's not an entirely new chipset.

 

[4jasontv]

Why not ? It’s one of the fastest macs Apple has released. As an example it out performs a trash can Mac Pro in benchmarks. The SSD is also incredibly fast and can typically pickup the slack when memory needs to be swapped.

Because I have a 5950X with 128 GB of ram and 3080 and it slows down. As fast as the M1 is, it's not as fast as that.

 

[Darth Tulhu]

It must be clarified that the M1 Mini + Studio Display kicks the outgoing iMac 27" AND the iMac Pro in the balls.

HARD.

So does the current iMac 24", although a bit less than the Mini.

So the question is, do you need more power than a former iMac Pro?

If so, Apple built the iMac Studio for this exactly.

And then, they went ahead and gave the Mac Studio even more power for those that want/need AND could afford it (to begin with).

So much power that it ALSO can, when properly (and expensively) configured, kick the current Mac Pro in the balls.

I NEVER expected to see this from a Steve Jobs-less Apple.

What a time to be alive!

 

[utazdevl]

You may then consider 24” M1 iMac with 8 CPU, 8GPU, 512 GB storage, 16GB ram @ $1899. Then, there is a $100 gap for twice the RAM, more CPU and GPU cores. For the studio, few more hundred dollars to spend for 3rd party monitor, keyboard and mouse/trackpad would justify the price gap between iMac and the studio, which seems very minimal considering the extras that comes with the studio.

I already have a 32 inch curved QHD and a 27 inch LG 2nd screen, as well as a mouse and keyboard combo I love (the Logitech MX3 line). I work in graphic design, and the 24 in screen is just too small (and you can't turn it vertical to use it as a pallette monitor.

I also don't dig the iMac "all in one" concept, as one issue with the guts and you have to basically completely replace (though I guess it is the same way with a mini, except for screen).

 

[utazdevl]

1. If you're using the CPU alone, like in Handbrake, roughly 36 minutes. That's 60 minutes * (M1 mini Geekbench multicore score) / (MBP M1 Max multicore score). 18 minutes for the M1 Ultra version based on its leaked scores. Video transcoding is embarrassingly parallel and easy to predict based on benchmark scores.

Can't answer the rest.

So, 60 minutes is about what it takes now for me on my M1 Mac Mini. The pro chip will take me to 36 and the ultra to 18 minutes? That might be worth it...

Also, you say "CPU alone." Is that as opposed to an external GPU? Is there another option than CPU alone? If so, what would that be and how do I get 70 of those?

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[-narcan-]

Because I have a 5950X with 128 GB of ram and 3080 and it slows down. As fast as the M1 is, it's not as fast as that.

The Mac mini is faster in single core benchmarks than a 5950X and your 3080 isn’t going to be helping much with spreadsheets / browser tabs.

 

[Craigy]

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

For the type of people who need the power - it's probably about 2 days worth of income for work on that machine. Amazingly affordable for power vs price for people in the creative industries.

 

[kyeblue]

The single biggest difference btw mini and studio is memory. 16G is less than enough for a lot of data scientists. The intel mini is high end because of that too.

 

[sudo-sandwich]

So, 60 minutes is about what it takes now for me on my M1 Mac Mini. The pro chip will take me to 36 and the ultra to 18 minutes? That might be worth it...

Should be. I'd test it before buying

Also, you say "CPU alone." Is that as opposed to an external GPU? Is there another option than CPU alone? If so, what would that be and how do I get 70 of those?

Thanks for the feedback.

Yes, either with the GPU or the video accelerator. Accelerator is better but less flexible.

- GPU: In theory the GPU should be able to help with transcoding since it's such an easily parallelizable task. Software like this claims to use the GPU for transcoding, but I've never tried it myself.
- Accelerator: Most modern CPUs also have onboard video encoders and decoders, which use specialized hardware rather than the actual CPU cores, for certain supported formats like H.264/5. This is way more efficient. The FCPX suite can utilize it like so, and supposedly Handbrake has settings to use it too. Intel's is called Quick Sync, and the M1 has something similar.

As for getting 70 of these, only way is to use multiple computers and have each one transcode a different portion of the video, then combine those portions into one at the end.

 

[Bandaman]

If you define Macs only by their price, then all Macs are "high end" when compared to Windows and Linux.

I choose to define each model by their performance within the overall Mac family, so I disagree with you.

I was talking about the performance, not the price.

 

[themagickite]

The form factor is undeniably similar.
I'd like to see the mini differentiate itself by shrinking in size and power. Usb C powered, small form factor fanless box, hdmi, second usb c. The size of a pack of cards.