Mac mini should do unless very high performance is required.
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
does anyone know the difference in power consumption?
stand by and full gaz
stand by and full gaz
I am in the market for an improved Mini M1. Why? The M1 is two years old this year. None of this “in 6 months” rubbish, it is 2 years I’ve been waiting. Actually, it’s more. I have a 2012 Mac Mini and mostly perform photo editing. More recently, OBS streaming, and the 2012 Mini with i7 is very long in the tooth. It’s served me well (10 years!) but I Would like to save time when editing photos now, and also not have loud fans when streaming.
I am tempted by the studio, but disappointed that there’s no way to up the internal storage later on. We’ve regressed—my 2012 Mac Mini has 2 x 1TB SSD inside…
No, not at all, to you, too.
My 2012 Mac Mini has the same issue as the OP, whereby a second display won’t resume from wake, and the entire mac needs to be restarted. A total joke.
If this is the same on the M1, I am out.
So, I now look at the Studio. 32GB and 1TB… not cheap, but should last quite some time. If it has this same display issue, I think that’s unacceptable and will have to rethink things.
I am tempted by the studio, but disappointed that there’s no way to up the internal storage later on. We’ve regressed—my 2012 Mac Mini has 2 x 1TB SSD inside…
No, not at all, to you, too.
My 2012 Mac Mini has the same issue as the OP, whereby a second display won’t resume from wake, and the entire mac needs to be restarted. A total joke.
If this is the same on the M1, I am out.
So, I now look at the Studio. 32GB and 1TB… not cheap, but should last quite some time. If it has this same display issue, I think that’s unacceptable and will have to rethink things.
Last edited:
What happens if they simply discontinue the Intel i5 Mac mini in the following weeks and there won't any replacement at all? So no M1 Pro grad SoC in the Mac mini for at least another year or so.
Maybe Apple wants to finally and forever separate the line between consumer and professional products.
Maybe Apple wants to finally and forever separate the line between consumer and professional products.
Agreed. Best described as an audio amateur, if/when I upgrade my current desktop set-up, I‘ll certainly keep my ageing hp monitors that I got free from work - I just don’t care about having anything ‘better’ - they’re fine.
November the 10th it’s 2 years old. It’s currently barely 16 months old. That’s a little over a year old.
Just curious. Will the white wireless keyboard and mouse that I bought last year from Apple (compatible with Intel Macs) work with the Mac Studio?
The Studio will still hook up to a $150 27" monitor if you don't need the extra resolution or color fidelity the Studio Display provides. Apple isn't forcing you to use their monitor (like an iMac does). Sounds like middle ground.
Thanks for doing the maths!
My point was, the meme that is trolled out by everyone is "there's always something newer in 6 months", but this is not the case. If I buy an M1 right now, I feel I am buying an older computer, and should have upgraded nearly 1.5 years ago.
I think the m1 still holds its own. The problem at the moment is that they’re still introducing the line up. So they aren’t going to confuse that by introducing new versions of already released AS chips, in my opinion.
So you either buy what you need now - if you need it (it’s still going to do a damn good job for a number of years), or you wait until the transition is complete so you know more where you stand regarding their line up and offerings.
It’s not really too much of an issue if you don’t need a computer right away. And if you do need one right away, then it’s not too much of an issue either - the m1 is not suddenly crap, and the max and pro and ultra are brand new.
It would if it were not for the fact that Apple is greedy and effectively hiked the price by $700 compared to the previous 27" iMac. So any potential future savings are already baked in and Apple is taking them to the bank.
Absolutely this.
I'm using a 2014 MBP for Xcode development, large spreadsheets and the usual other stuff. Compile times are a bit slow, 15-30 seconds usually depending on what I'm compiling, but other than that the machine is fine. I will be upgrading in the next couple of years but it's still a much faster experience than my work Windows PCs ever are.
I'm sure there are folk on these forums who need huge CPU for their day jobs, but I'm finding it hard to believe even the "base" Mac mini / Mac Studio products aren't more than good enough for 90% of consumers. Given the price of these things, I'll certainly be assessing whether I need the very best and fastest set-up when I upgrade.
Individual photo editing isn’t that much between the M1, M1 Pro, and M1 Max. But batch processing is improved by the 8 vs 4 performance cores. I edit 24 and 45 MP RAW images on the MBP 14 inch and Mac Mini M1 just now and my Photoshop files can pass 1GB with all the layers.
I don’t know if the Studio is maybe clocked higher, but I am not expecting it to be much faster if at all over my MBP when it arrives. Mostly I am getting it for the built in 10 Gbps Ethernet and to keep my stuff and work stuff more separate.
Any Mac that can't support two 5 or 6K monitors is a lesser Mac in my eyes. But not everyone has 2x LG 5Ks like on my primary workstation. An average consumer could get by with the M1 Mac mini with two 4Ks one via TB and the other via HDMI. That's a decent but rather maxed out solution.
Useful insight, thanks. I agree, files in PS can balloon. I would like to a) edit quickly and move between photos quick;y and b) export the edits quickly, e.g. batches of 10 in LR. Thoughts/experience? The Mac Studio looks nice, for sure. But already the M1 is a boost I am sure. I am on an i7 from 2012!
great article mac rumors... i'm doing just fine with my almost maxed out 2018 mac mini 6 core intel i7 in space grey. however if i had the play time and money i would consider the mac studio plus a new monitor. need more time and money - is my motto
I don’t think it’s that niche at all. There’s still a missing gap without an M1 Pro in there. For me the M1 is a little too weak with its 16GB limitation and 8-core CPU/8-core GPU but the Max would be just overkill with the 24-core GPU. Really hoping for an M1 Pro in a future mini to fill in that gap.
Interesting thread. There's no doubt the Studio is kind of a beast and probably overkill for many. What seems to be true is that the Studio will have more (maybe far more) headroom for tasks that might push the Mini hard. If that's the case and a Mini would have to be replaced sooner than a Studio to keep up with ever increasing software demands, the yearly cost of ownership is less.
As a back of the napkin estimate: I figure the Studio Max will have a six year lifetime as a primary machine and the Mini three years. A baseline $2k Studio amortized over its lifetime is $333/year; two Minis at $1100 (16GB) is $366/year.
This all assumes that a single Mini can even perform the tasks at all, which in my use case is not true (five displays vs two is a big deal when you're running multiple projections as it implies one machine to acquire and manage rather than multiples). In my relatively uninformed opinion the Studio isn't so much an upgrade from the Mini but a budget Pro lite, which is much appreciated.
As a back of the napkin estimate: I figure the Studio Max will have a six year lifetime as a primary machine and the Mini three years. A baseline $2k Studio amortized over its lifetime is $333/year; two Minis at $1100 (16GB) is $366/year.
This all assumes that a single Mini can even perform the tasks at all, which in my use case is not true (five displays vs two is a big deal when you're running multiple projections as it implies one machine to acquire and manage rather than multiples). In my relatively uninformed opinion the Studio isn't so much an upgrade from the Mini but a budget Pro lite, which is much appreciated.
I've got 10 years out my 2012 mini, looking forward to 11...12 ?
inflation, differentiation, quality?
some of the comments here highlight the users on Macrumors, and how they split between consumer and professional.
The consumer thinks anything above $3k is too expensive, where as the pro understands the $10k + market.
From the article -
You should only consider the Mac Studio if you have a professional workflow that can leverage the extreme power of the M1 Max or M1 Ultra, as well as its wider selection of ports. If you need the Mac Studio, you will likely know that you are looking for a highly powerful machine that is capable of supporting an intense workflow.
For some workflows, the ability to upgrade the Mac mini to 16GB of memory, up to 2TB of storage, and 10Gb Ethernet can make it a very capable machine. This may be a good option for professionals or "prosumers" that have specific needs or can't stretch to the Mac Studio. Nevertheless, the Mac Studio has greater potential, making it a better long-term option if you can afford it.
So... you should only consider the Mac Studio if you have a professional workflow if you follow the logic of the first paragraph, but using the logic of the second paragraph if you are a 'prosumer' the Mac Studio has greater potential and it can be a better long term option if you can afford it.
To be honest, that isn't very helpful for me in making a decision since what I wanted was the 27 inch iMac, even if I had to live with just an M1 processor but I could get a decent SSD and a 16 or 32 GB memory options. So I can spend less money (on the Mac Mini), and either have a smaller screen or pay $1600 to get an equivalent sized 27 inch screen but either way I will have a less powerful processor and have to pay to bump up the memory, or I can spend a little less than $3000 dollars (depending on how much memory I decide to get and hard drive size) and get a Studio. I don't want a laptop, and I don't know where the last round of MacBook Pro laptops rate compared to the Studio anyway, performance wise.
You should only consider the Mac Studio if you have a professional workflow that can leverage the extreme power of the M1 Max or M1 Ultra, as well as its wider selection of ports. If you need the Mac Studio, you will likely know that you are looking for a highly powerful machine that is capable of supporting an intense workflow.
For some workflows, the ability to upgrade the Mac mini to 16GB of memory, up to 2TB of storage, and 10Gb Ethernet can make it a very capable machine. This may be a good option for professionals or "prosumers" that have specific needs or can't stretch to the Mac Studio. Nevertheless, the Mac Studio has greater potential, making it a better long-term option if you can afford it.
So... you should only consider the Mac Studio if you have a professional workflow if you follow the logic of the first paragraph, but using the logic of the second paragraph if you are a 'prosumer' the Mac Studio has greater potential and it can be a better long term option if you can afford it.
To be honest, that isn't very helpful for me in making a decision since what I wanted was the 27 inch iMac, even if I had to live with just an M1 processor but I could get a decent SSD and a 16 or 32 GB memory options. So I can spend less money (on the Mac Mini), and either have a smaller screen or pay $1600 to get an equivalent sized 27 inch screen but either way I will have a less powerful processor and have to pay to bump up the memory, or I can spend a little less than $3000 dollars (depending on how much memory I decide to get and hard drive size) and get a Studio. I don't want a laptop, and I don't know where the last round of MacBook Pro laptops rate compared to the Studio anyway, performance wise.
I haven't seen anybody really touch on this, so here's my take.
To me, "a better long term option" (i.e. longevity) is tied to upgradeability. I'm typing this on a Mid 2010 Mac Pro cheese grater running Mojave, and the reason I am is because over the last 10 years I was able to upgrade the SSD (twice), the video card (to an Metal-capable AMD RADEON HD 7950 Sapphire Mac Edition) and the memory (from 8 GB to 24 GB). As my needs increased, the system was able to be upgraded to meet them.
This is no longer the case with the Mac Studio, you're locked in for the life of the hardware. That 32 GB/10 core CPU/24 core GPU cores looks great now - will it still look as great in 10 years when the base 2032 Mac Studio (assuming it's still being made) is an "M6 Max" with, say, 128 GB/128 core CPU/256 core GPU?
To my mind, lack of upgradeability lends itself to keeping the system for a shorter length of time - which makes the cost more of a factor. If I know I'm not keeping a system for a long time, I'm more likely to want to spend less. I would far rather replace my cheese grater with an M1 Pro-based (or M2-based) Mac mini than a $2K+ Mac Studio if price is now a factor.
~
So, why isn't there an M1 Pro-based "Mac mini pro" yet? No one seems to talk about that, either. Is it thermal related? We've seen that Apple didn't try and put an M1 Max into an existing Mac mini chassis; it's clearly too hot and needs a giant heatsink. Remember also that the rumors/renders were of a redesigned glass-top Mac mini that was even smaller than the present M1 model. Meaning even lower thermal tolerance.
Maybe it's a case of the base M1 (and maybe the M2) being the only CPU that can go into the smaller form-factor Mac mini chassis? Maybe Apple feels like they didn't want to make an M1 Pro-based Mac Studio at this time or something. But I have to wonder whether thermal issues are playing a role in this obvious gap in the lineup that many of us are complaining about.