The new Mac mini is almost certainly coming

[Fomalhaut]

Unless Apple drastically upgrades the limits on the M2 over the M1, it will still be not enough to replace the current high end Intel Mac Mini. I think that there will still be an M1 Pro and maybe a Max in a Mini eventually

How so?

The advantages the Intel Mini has are the ability to configure 64GB RAM (for $1000), run 3 displays instead of 2, have 4 TB3 instead of 2 x TB4 (but same overall bandwidth) , run x86 VMs, and connect eGPUs.

Some of the above may be critical for you, but for most people I suspect they are not.

The M1 Mini is a lot faster, has a much better iGPU, and costs $200 less with the same RAM and SSD. That’s even before upgrading to the 3.2GHz i7 for another $200.

An M2 Mini would be even better, even though I hope we see an M1 Pro /Max Mini next month.

I can’t see why anyone would recommend an Intel Mini over even the humble M1 Mini, unless you have one of the aforementioned requirements.

I’m interested in your assertion that an M2 would not replace the current Intel i7 Mac, unless it was “drastically upgraded”. You must have your reasons; let’s hear ‘em!

 

[Fomalhaut]

The M2 would be okay for the entry level mini but unless it can handle more ram, ports, and displays it is not ready to replace the high end Intel version.

….for some users, but not all as per my answer to @Tagbert.

For a lot of users, even professional developers, the existing M1 Mini is good enough. I used one for over a year, and the only restriction I found was that for my work, 16GB RAM was a bit marginal. I could get by if I did my housekeeping by closing browser tabs and unused apps.

It provided a better user experience than my almost $4000 i9 MBP16 even for video editing. Just a phenomenally good computer for the money.

It has more ports than than the Intel MBP, and when plugged into a TB3 dock has far a better port selection than the Intel Mini, for less than the cost if the Intel Mini.

I understand that some people need x86 compatibility or lots of RAM. You can probably kiss Bootcamp or x86 VMs goodbye on any Apple machine, and if you need the RAM you’ll have to wait for an M1 Pro/Max Mini or just get a Linux/Windows box. I’m pretty confident that those people are a small segment of total Mini owners though.

 

[trickster is meaningless]

M1 is a year and a half old already. It’s on first generation 5nm technology. M2 would be based on A15’s updated 5nm process. If Apple waits until the fall to release M2, they will be a full generation behind.

This is important because Intel has made a soft comeback in performance. Yes Apple is still king with efficiency, but there’s no way they don’t want to also claim the performance throne too. They talk about performance in almost every keynote, and they’re incredibly proud that their A-series chips are the best performers in the industry.

People compare Apple’s chips to Intel all the time. Apple can’t be a generation behind for too long. Especially right after a major transition. It’s bad PR for the brand.

I’m not taking about the Xeon-level machines. Those have always lagged behind. I’m talking about the consumer machines. But even the xeon-level machines will lag further behind if their consumer machines are also behind. It all trickles down.

While I personally think the best plan is to announce M2 after all M1-related products have released, I don’t know if Apple can afford to do this now. I think the pandemic set Apple’s release schedule back by 6 months or more. They need to catch up eventually.

I don't really think the being out of sync with the iPhone process is that much of an issue. This also prevents factory bottlenecks in production chains. Part of me is expecting M2 to be based on the A16 rather than the A15, the previous A#x chips tended to be on the even numbered cycle. This allows them to accelerate to a yearly cycle later if necessary, but they have some breathing room now.

As far as competition with intel (and AMD) goes, I think you're right and it matters far less on the Macbook line as the performance per watt is going to take a lot to beat from what I've seen. Seeing the LTT team be outright impressed is usually a good sign, as they tend to be anti-Apple. I can't see the SoC model scaling for the high end stuff, that will need to separate the CPU and GPU purely for heat dissipation.

Getting towards Xeon and Threadripper levels is where it gets interesting and I'm not expecting to be anywhere near as impressed as I was with the M1, and part of me is also expecting a final Mac Pro with intel to come out at the same time as the software isn't ready at the "prosumer" level, and even further behind at the top end. For example, I use native instruments plugins, which I think are all working through rosetta now, but not natively. Looking at some of the more niche stuff in audio and software, it's just not working yet.

I agree with M2 being released after all the other machine have an apple silicon offering. Maybe the M1XXX Mac Pro will come out very close to the M2 being announced, but I feel like a bit of breathing space wouldn't hurt either. So maybe iMac Pro and Mac Pro announced and WWDC, but the Mac Pro being available from early Autumn. Then maybe an M2 even in November. Given all the other global stuff, I don't imagine anyone being that bothered if its a 2.5 year transition given all the other stuff. It's still hard to get hold of graphics cards that came out a year ago, so it's not like it's just Apple struggling.

The latest NAND news is the cherry on the top at the moment...

 

[now i see it]

My thought here is if apple is planning a Mac Pro mini with 20/40 core and a bunch of thunderbolt 4 ports in it aka trash Mac pro replacement

They aren’t. They killed off the Trash Can and aren’t going to make the same design choice (mistake) twice.
There’s not going to be a “Mac Pro mini” ever.
There will perhaps be a Mac Mini Pro in the future, but that’s just a beefed up mini, not a gimped Mac Pro.

 

[trickster is meaningless]

They aren’t. They killed off the Trash Can and aren’t going to make the same design choice (mistake) twice.
There’s not going to be a “Mac Pro mini” ever.
There will perhaps be a Mac Mini Pro in the future, but that’s just a beefed up mini, not a gimped Mac Pro.

Yeah, I think the rumours of a smaller Mac Pro are realistic, but that isn't getting anywhere near the volume of the trashcan. I can't imagine there are many people who make the leap from a Mac mini to a Mac Pro, they are such wildly different machines. It's like a car vs a helicopter, you know if you actually need a helicopter. You may choose to get a second car, but not many people will think a helicopter is going realistic solution to the school run. I certainly debated two M1 minis, but a Mac Pro doesn't come into it, the same would go if it was being paid for through business.

 

[saulinpa]

….for some users, but not all as per my answer to @Tagbert.

For a lot of users, even professional developers, the existing M1 Mini is good enough. I used one for over a year, and the only restriction I found was that for my work, 16GB RAM was a bit marginal. I could get by if I did my housekeeping by closing browser tabs and unused apps.

It provided a better user experience than my almost $4000 i9 MBP16 even for video editing. Just a phenomenally good computer for the money.

It has more ports than than the Intel MBP, and when plugged into a TB3 dock has far a better port selection than the Intel Mini, for less than the cost if the Intel Mini.

I understand that some people need x86 compatibility or lots of RAM. You can probably kiss Bootcamp or x86 VMs goodbye on any Apple machine, and if you need the RAM you’ll have to wait for an M1 Pro/Max Mini or just get a Linux/Windows box. I’m pretty confident that those people are a small segment of total Mini owners though.

So you are saying those who would get a M2 are those who would be happy with the current M1. You don't think Apple should update anything?

 

[MajorFubar]

M1 is a year and a half old already. It’s on first generation 5nm technology. M2 would be based on A15’s updated 5nm process. If Apple waits until the fall to release M2, they will be a full generation behind.

This is important because Intel has made a soft comeback in performance. Yes Apple is still king with efficiency, but there’s no way they don’t want to also claim the performance throne too. They talk about performance in almost every keynote, and they’re incredibly proud that their A-series chips are the best performers in the industry.

People compare Apple’s chips to Intel all the time. Apple can’t be a generation behind for too long. Especially right after a major transition. It’s bad PR for the brand.

I’m not taking about the Xeon-level machines. Those have always lagged behind. I’m talking about the consumer machines. But even the xeon-level machines will lag further behind if their consumer machines are also behind. It all trickles down.

While I personally think the best plan is to announce M2 after all M1-related products have released, I don’t know if Apple can afford to do this now. I think the pandemic set Apple’s release schedule back by 6 months or more. They need to catch up eventually.

I agree with all this, and the problem has been caused because it's taken them too long to roll out M1 across their whole product lines. In other threads we're rumour-mongering about Apple releasing M2 MBAs at their spring event while at the same time they haven't even yet rolled out M1 across all their products, with intel models still sat around. Whether this was by choice or impacted by the global chip shortages is anyone's guess.

 

[trickster is meaningless]

I agree with all this, and the problem has been caused because it's taken them too long to roll out M1 across their whole product lines. In other threads we're rumour-mongering about Apple releasing M2 MBAs at their spring event while at the same time they haven't even yet rolled out M1 across all their products, with intel models still sat around. Whether this was by choice or impacted by the global chip shortages is anyone's guess.

I don't know if there's ever been a decent source, someone was saying the MacBook Pros taking so long was due to mini led causing the bottleneck. However, that didn't make sense in the context of the Mac mini not launching along side them. If they'd wanted to constrain the mini sales, they could have announced it and set the pre-order start date for later, say January. So it feels like the SoC may (also) be a bottleneck, as the mini sales volumes would be tiny compared to the MBP. The M1 Max still has an 8 week wait (M1 Pro is 4 week), which suggests something is wrong somewhere in the chain. I can't believe this is all "unbelievable demand". Maybe the yields are poor or TSCM don't have the resources, but it hasn't really eased from 6 weeks ago.

M2 coming out now would be a real shame, and it certainly doesn't fill users with confidence. They announced the transition in June 2020, and it was maybe foolhardy to put such a timeframe on it when so much was uncertain and both the silicon shortage and pandemic were still huge unknowns. From a business side the volume of sales for the lower end makes sense, but the middle tier is crucial to the ecosystem as it's where software and content is created to feed the lower tier.

 

[pshufd]

I don't know if there's ever been a decent source, someone was saying the MacBook Pros taking so long was due to mini led causing the bottleneck. However, that didn't make sense in the context of the Mac mini not launching along side them. If they'd wanted to constrain the mini sales, they could have announced it and set the pre-order start date for later, say January. So it feels like the SoC may (also) be a bottleneck, as the mini sales volumes would be tiny compared to the MBP. The M1 Max still has an 8 week wait (M1 Pro is 4 week), which suggests something is wrong somewhere in the chain. I can't believe this is all "unbelievable demand". Maybe the yields are poor or TSCM don't have the resources, but it hasn't really eased from 6 weeks ago.

M2 coming out now would be a real shame, and it certainly doesn't fill users with confidence. They announced the transition in June 2020, and it was maybe foolhardy to put such a timeframe on it when so much was uncertain and both the silicon shortage and pandemic were still huge unknowns. From a business side the volume of sales for the lower end makes sense, but the middle tier is crucial to the ecosystem as it's where software and content is created to feed the lower tier.

We've had three major COVID waves so hard to forecast. We thought we were done with it in Fall 2020 and it came back. Then we got vaccinated and it looked like we were done and then Delta. Then things started getting a lot better and then Omicron. So a lot of problems thrown in the way of Apple's plans with effects all over the world.

I have an M1 mini (which I'm selling), a 2021 MacBook Pro 16 and my son has a 2021 MBP 14 and daughter has a 2020 MacBook Air. We're quite happy with these and I could see using them for the next decade. I don't worry that much about stuff coming out down the road as my Macs typically last about a decade.

 

[Jorbanead]

I don't know if there's ever been a decent source, someone was saying the MacBook Pros taking so long was due to mini led causing the bottleneck. However, that didn't make sense in the context of the Mac mini not launching along side them.

Component shortages and shipping bottlenecks. One major component that was bottlenecked is a component that handles power management. This would effect all macs. And during the holidays, global shipping was severely impacted too. It’s also possible M1 Pro/Max production was lowered in favor of iPhone chips as we have heard reports of long shipping times on the BTO options. So it’s likely that Apple decided to hold off on the Mac mini for other reasons outside of miniLED.

Apple almost never announces a product and delays pre-order sales by several months. The only exception to this is when they announce new product categories (iMac Pro, or Pro Display XDR), or when they announce the 2019 Mac Pro which hadn’t been updated for years.

 

[Tagbert]

How so?

The advantages the Intel Mini has are the ability to configure 64GB RAM (for $1000), run 3 displays instead of 2, have 4 TB3 instead of 2 x TB4 (but same overall bandwidth) , run x86 VMs, and connect eGPUs.

Some of the above may be critical for you, but for most people I suspect they are not.

The M1 Mini is a lot faster, has a much better iGPU, and costs $200 less with the same RAM and SSD. That’s even before upgrading to the 3.2GHz i7 for another $200.

An M2 Mini would be even better, even though I hope we see an M1 Pro /Max Mini next month.

I can’t see why anyone would recommend an Intel Mini over even the humble M1 Mini, unless you have one of the aforementioned requirements.

I’m interested in your assertion that an M2 would not replace the current Intel i7 Mac, unless it was “drastically upgraded”. You must have your reasons; let’s hear ‘em!

Exactly those things you mention, RAM limit, monitors, ports. That is likely the reason that Apple didn't drop that model when they brought out the M1 Mac mini. Now that they have an Apple Silicon chip, M1 Pro, that can meet those needs they can finally replace that model. I doubt that the M2 is enough.

If the M1 Mini meets your needs, you don't need to worry about that Intel Mini and whatever replaces it. I agree in pure CPU GPU performance it wipes the floor with the Intel box, there are just a few areas where it is not checking all the boxes.

 

[trickster is meaningless]

We've had three major COVID waves so hard to forecast. We thought we were done with it in Fall 2020 and it came back. Then we got vaccinated and it looked like we were done and then Delta. Then things started getting a lot better and then Omicron. So a lot of problems thrown in the way of Apple's plans with effects all over the world.

Historically, pandemics last 2-3 years, so while people may have been optimistic, but at the company I work for we started planning for a multiyear disruption in April of 2020. I can't believe Apple didn't go through the same process.

Component shortages and shipping bottlenecks. One major component that was bottlenecked is a component that handles power management. This would effect all macs. And during the holidays, global shipping was severely impacted too. It’s also possible M1 Pro/Max production was lowered in favor of iPhone chips as we have heard reports of long shipping times on the BTO options. So it’s likely that Apple decided to hold off on the Mac mini for other reasons outside of miniLED.

Apple almost never announces a product and delays pre-order sales by several months. The only exception to this is when they announce new product categories (iMac Pro, or Pro Display XDR), or when they announce the 2019 Mac Pro which hadn’t been updated for years.

Thanks, I didn't know about the power management components. I know they don't normally have that kind of release pattern, but given the pandemic it would have been an understandable.

 

[pshufd]

Historically, pandemics last 2-3 years, so while people may have been optimistic, but at the company I work for we started planning for a multiyear disruption in April of 2020. I can't believe Apple didn't go through the same process.

I think that they did but you had supply chains breaking for seemingly random reasons.

Apple's supply chains are very wide and deep and it's impressive that they've accomplished quite a bit with what has been thrown at them. They have executed a lot better than almost all car manufacturers.

 

[Tagbert]

I think that they did but you had supply chains breaking for seemingly random reasons.

Apple's supply chains are very wide and deep and it's impressive that they've accomplished quite a bit with what has been thrown at them. They have executed a lot better than almost all car manufacturers.

Just because you can plan for an event doesn't mean that you can avoid all of the affects, especially when they shift and change rapidly.

 

[Realityck]

Just because you can plan for an event doesn't mean that you can avoid all of the affects, especially when they shift and change rapidly.

Speaking of shift and change, the March 8th event is not even confirmed.

 

[pshufd]

Speaking of shift and change, the March 8th event is not even confirmed.

They confirm a week before the event.

 

[Fomalhaut]

So you are saying those who would get a M2 are those who would be happy with the current M1. You don't think Apple should update anything?

No, that is not the point I was trying to make. Of course Apple should, and will, update the Mini.

I was trying to answer the comment that an M1 or M2 Mini can not replace the current Intel i7 model unless it was "drastically improved". I would say "it depends"...

If you are interested in having a general purpose small desktop computer for typical productivity applications, web-browing, software development, media playback and casual photo/video editing, then the M1 (and any future M2) Mini is a better choice than the older Intel i7 Mini. The newer models are faster in every metric, run cool and quiet, and are cheaper. You can run two high resolution displays and connect to typical peripherals (2 x USB-A, 2 x USB-C/TB3, ethernet, audio). This is great value for a lot of people. I've used an M1 Mini as my primary machine for the last year, adding a CalDigit TS3+ dock, and the total cost was still less than an upgraded Intel 3.2GHz i7 with 16GB/512GB.

However, if you are trying to replace a server, high performance workstation or a VM farm, then the Apple Silicon Mini is clearly lacking. The Intel Mini fills a gap there, being an economical option that doesn't require buyers to go to the much more expensive Mac Pro, or more likely, move to a Windows/Linux machine.

My point was that I expect in terms of total sales, there are a lot more people in the first category than the second, so it makes sense to focus on that group.

However, I certainly *hope* that Apple will release an M1 Pro/Max Mini, and the fact that they haven't stopped selling the 6-core Intel Mac suggests that a replacement for this will be coming that addresses the needs of the second group.

I can't see any technical reasons for not having an M1 Pro/Max Mini, but Apple may worry that this would be good enough for many people who would otherwise reluctantly pay for an entry-level Mac Pro, and put in some deliberate restriction.

This might mean only releasing an M1 Pro version and not the Max. Or, if M2 supports 32GB RAM (which it may or may not), just replacing the Intel Mini with an M2 version. Hopefully they will add at least another 1 TB4 port. Probably they will keep the 2 screen limit, but given these can both be 6K@60Hz, I don't see this as too restrictive. I would not be happy if they just kept the Mini with the lower end M<n> SoCs, but I don't think this will happen.

 

[JippaLippa]

March the 8th cannot come soon enough!

 

[trickster is meaningless]

March the 8th cannot come soon enough!

I have fingers and toes crossed. I'm hoping to be impressed, but I've found the events a little hit or miss in the last 3 or 4 years. I guess the digital events allow for more events, but the content has felt a little flat. I enjoyed the MacBook Pro one, but I was disappointed the mini didn't appear then. Time will tell.

 

[JippaLippa]

I have fingers and toes crossed. I'm hoping to be impressed, but I've found the events a little hit or miss in the last 3 or 4 years. I guess the digital events allow for more events, but the content has felt a little flat. I enjoyed the MacBook Pro one, but I was disappointed the mini didn't appear then. Time will tell.

Fair enough, but remember the mini isn't the flashiest apple computer by any means, therefore an early springs event seems perfect for it.
In the more popular time slots (summer/fall) Apple can show its flashiest computers.

 

[Tagbert]

I have fingers and toes crossed. I'm hoping to be impressed, but I've found the events a little hit or miss in the last 3 or 4 years. I guess the digital events allow for more events, but the content has felt a little flat. I enjoyed the MacBook Pro one, but I was disappointed the mini didn't appear then. Time will tell.

They were allocating all of their M1 Pro/Max chips for the MBPs and could not spare any for a faster Mini. The MBP is where the money is for Apple.

I thought it was a good presentation but If you were frustrated by not having your horse in the race, I can see why it would not be a great experience.

 

[Santabean2000]

The M2 would be okay for the entry level mini but unless it can handle more ram, ports, and displays it is not ready to replace the high end Intel version.

That's why I believe the Intel version will remain... until WWDC.

M2 now: Mini, iMac 24" (4ports) and 13" MBP

 

[Boil]

Apple needs to complete the transition of ALL current Intel Macs to Apple silicon, holding off on the ASi high-end Mac mini (Pro), 27" iMac (Pro), & the (smaller) Mac Pro makes zero sense...

Releasing M2-based Macs (low-end Mac mini, 24" iMac, 14" MacBook) before the Mac line-up has fully transitioned seems confusing...

I am still saying M1 Pro/Max Mac mini (Pro) at late Winter/early Spring event, 27" M1 Pro/Max iMac (Pro) at or before WWDC, (smaller) ASi Mac Pro previewed at WWDC, released before October 2022...

THEN October Mac Event gives us the trifecta of low-end M2-based Macs (Mac mini, 24" iMac, 14" MacBook)...

 

[Lammers]

Apple needs to complete the transition of ALL current Intel Macs to Apple silicon, holding off on the ASi high-end Mac mini (Pro), 27" iMac (Pro), & the (smaller) Mac Pro makes zero sense...

Releasing M2-based Macs (low-end Mac mini, 24" iMac, 14" MacBook) before the Mac line-up has fully transitioned seems confusing...

I am still saying M1 Pro/Max Mac mini (Pro) at late Winter/early Spring event, 27" M1 Pro/Max iMac (Pro) at or before WWDC, (smaller) ASi Mac Pro previewed at WWDC, released before October 2022...

THEN October Mac Event gives us the trifecta of low-end M2-based Macs (Mac mini, 24" iMac, 14" MacBook)...

Agreed. Don’t think it makes any sense to introduce M2 low-end products at the same time as still selling M1 high end products (in Pro/Max variants) that outperform them.

 

[pshufd]

Agreed. Don’t think it makes any sense to introduce M2 low-end products at the same time as still selling M1 high end products (in Pro/Max variants) that outperform them.

Standard practice with Intel for some time several years ago. They released the high-end gamer products up to a year after mainstream parts.