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.
The new Mac mini is almost certainly coming
- Thread starter GabrieleR
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mac mini new mac mini
- Sort by reaction score
I agree that there should be an M1 Pro desktop. I was just commenting on one of the reasons you are discounting the Studio is the power consumption.
An M1 Pro would suit me, and I like all the IO in the Studio, so I would like to see that combination. The Studio chassis may be overkill for the Pro, but the Mini is overkill for the M1, so I don't see it as a barrier.
The one thing I most want for the Mini is a 32GB RAM option. But I just can't see it happening. 16 v. 32GB is one of the key marketing differences between the Mini and the Studio.
If the Mini gets a 32GB option it will compete too much with the Studio.
If the Mini gets a 32GB option it will compete too much with the Studio.
This! Apple are masters at pricing.
Apple already lets you select 32GB on the Intel Mini and probably will on the M2 Mini once it gets here. The 32GB upgrade from 8GB is $600. If you had the RAM upgrade on the AS Mini, it would probably come out to $1499 for that and the 512GB storage to match the Studio.
That might be appealing to some but probably not so appealing to someone who really wants the performance of a Studio. For only $600 they get a lot more CPU and GPU cores and faster RAM access.
I think the RAM upgrade is a valuable feature for the Mini but that won't endanger the Studio at all.
Giving the Mini a 32GB option with M2 would probably not cramp Studio sales too much since Apple will want $400 for that upgrade from 16GB so even if Apple holds the line on the base M2 mini price and keeps it at $699, by the time you add the 512GB of storage, 32GB of RAM and 10GbE that the Studio offers as standard, the mini will be $1599.
At that point, the Studio is "only" $400 more, but for that $400 you get a significantly more powerful SoC, immensely more memory bandwidth with that 32GB, two more TB4 ports plus two USB4 ports (so four more ports, total) and better cooling.
And at that point, who honestly would buy a mini (who wasn't putting them in a datacenter)?
M1 Pro 16 GB with 32 GB option would sell well, esp. if it had more ports than the M1 (and M2) version, and if the 32 GB version of the M1 Pro was $400-$500 less than Mac Studio entry level. Remember, for the MacBook Pro, the upgrade from entry level M1 Pro to M1 Max is $500.
The Mac mini also has the advantage of a much smaller size, that can fit under nearly all monitors. The Mac Studio is 3.7” high, which is too tall to fit under many monitors.
As mentioned earlier, I’d buy such an M1 Pro machine, with 16 GB. There is no chance at all I’d consider a Mac Studio at US$2000 since it is extreme overkill for my needs. If such a mid-priced M1 Pro machine doesn’t make an appearance, I’d downgrade to the M2 instead.
The Mac mini also has the advantage of a much smaller size, that can fit under nearly all monitors. The Mac Studio is 3.7” high, which is too tall to fit under many monitors.
As mentioned earlier, I’d buy such an M1 Pro machine, with 16 GB. There is no chance at all I’d consider a Mac Studio at US$2000 since it is extreme overkill for my needs. If such a mid-priced M1 Pro machine doesn’t make an appearance, I’d downgrade to the M2 instead.
Last edited:
Mn Pro Mac mini would fill the low/mid-range headless desktop gap in the Apple line-up...?
- $0.7k+ / Mn Mac mini
- $1.3k+ / Mn Pro Mac Mini
- $2k+ / Mn Max Mac Studio
- $4k+ / Mn Ultra Mac Studio
- $6k+ / Mn Ultra Mac Pro
- $12k+ / Mn Extreme Mac Pro
The flaw with that calculation is the Intel Mini uses DDR4 RAM while the M1 machines use LPDDR5 RAM. I can't find DIMMs with LPDDR5 (search produces DDR5 sticks all over the place) but thanks to a post on another forum I did find out a Dell Memory Upgrade - 32GB - 2RX8 DDR5 UDIMM 4800MHz costs $519.99... all on its own.
IIRC the M1 chip uses LPDDR4 while the M1 pro and up use LPDDR5
The M1 uses LPDDR4X
And @Maximara there are no such things as DIMMs for LPDDR memory, it's always soldered on.
Real world size comparison:
www.macworld.com
It seems the Studio Display may sit quite high.
Mac Studio and Studio Display: Apple's newest devices from every angle
Apple actually makes it fun to unpack a new device.
www.macworld.com
It seems the Studio Display may sit quite high.
I never understood why Apple tried to sell the Studio sitting under the monitor. Way too high, clearly visible on the pictures. On the other hand, looking at the lack of ergonomics of iMacs, they might be unable to understand ergonomics properly (or simply don’t bother) … *sigh*Real world size comparison:
Mac Studio and Studio Display: Apple's newest devices from every angle
Apple actually makes it fun to unpack a new device.
It seems the Studio Display may sit quite high.
I'd say it really depends on the height of your desk and the height of your torso. It's honestly not that high if anything it's on the short side. I have a desk that requires a keyboard tray for proper typing height, I'm short and I still have my monitor 5-6ins off the table and I want to guess the studio is like 4.5" off the table. If you are tall or have a desk that is at the proper height for a keyboard the monitor is sort of low. I think the marketing images make it look taller than it is.
That said there is no reason a monitor this price shouldn't come with height adjustability. Which is one reason why I continue to buy Dell monitors, I can set it anywhere from 1-7.5inches off my desk, which is a larger range than Apple's $400 stand.
Too low can be adjusted for with a riser. Too high cannot be adjusted for. And to make it worse, the adjustable height stand on the Studio Display at the lowest setting is fractionally higher than the non-adjustable. It is bad ergonomics.
Well this is the company who released a Thunderbolt Display using the same case and stand as the iMac, but then mounted the stand so that the display sat an inch or so lower so that when used as a second display with an iMac, it needed to be propped up on a book to be level.
It's difficult to see why Apple would want introduce a top SKU intel Mini replacement with the Mac Studio firmly in place. Right now, the people who can afford $2k must surely be buying one - Apple must surely be waiting for at least WWDC to make sure that initial demand isn't stymied by the arrival of a cheaper option.
Price-wise, is there really enough room for an M1 Pro mini? $1099 gets you M1 with 16Gb RAM and 512Gb SSD, another $400 would upgrade you to the same 32Gb as the M1 Max Studio (if that were possible) and this leaves $500 in the budget to get you from M1 to M1 Max.
In a 14" MacBook Pro $500 gets you from M1 Pro (8c CPU, 14c GPU) to the same M1 Max in the Mac Studio - (10c CPU, 24c GPU).
If Apple did put an M1 Pro in the existing Mini - whether or not the redesign it to fix wifi/bluetooth - it immediately makes the M1 Studio look the better deal. Price wise, we're taking about potentially a $100-200 uplift to upgrade the M1 to M1 Pro - a situation that doesn't exist anywhere in the Apple range.
The closest analogue here is upgrading from M1 MacBook Pro 13" to M1 Pro MacBook Pro 14". But to match up specs between the 13" and 14" you're specifying 16Gb RAM and 512Gb SSD which comes to $1699 in the 13" model, but you can pick up a 14" for $1999.
So let's just say that a Mac mini M1 Pro 16Gb RAM, 512Gb SSD would retail for $1299. This is $200 more than a similarly upgraded base M1 model. Add a 32Gb RAM expansion (if Apple offer it, for $400) and you are at the magic $1699. anyone with a bit more budget should upgrade to the Mac Studio and get a 'cheaper' M1 Max CPU.
What does this do for Apple? I think this would bring the average selling price of the Mac mini up by a serious amount - a nice little earner, with a potential for a dent in Mac Studio base model sales. With the advent of the Studio Display Apple must be thinking that people who buy a decent headless machine will want to add a matching monitor which again brings more profit to Apple coffers.
Portwise, what would an M1 Pro mini get? Let's look at the 14" MacBook Pro - I think 3 Thunderbolt 4 ports, a USB-A, HDMI 2.0, port would be fine. It makes me think that the connectivity in the 14" MBP is limiting for those folks who choose M1 Max since it appears to be capable of driving 4 Thunderbolt ports and 2 USB-C 10Mbps as well as a couple of USB-A.
If Apple choose to offer an M1 SKU in the same case they could follow the same theme - turn one of the TB4 ports into USB-C - and this means Apple don't have to offer different case SKUs with cutouts. It could especially be the case if - as with the Mac Studio - Apple put one TB/USB-C port on the front of a redesigned case. If they want to they could offer 2 USB-A ports (for keyboard and mouse) rather than the one offered on the MacBook Pro 14".
Final question now - could Apple actually just keep using the existing 'classic' case? It would certainly draw more people towards the Studio for aesthetic reasons. There's room at the back for the third Thunderbolt (or USB-C) port if they wanted to maximise profit by not spending the money on an engineering redesign to fix the wifi/bluetooth.
That's what Kuo says
Kuo: 2023 Mac Mini to Retain Same Design as Current Model
Apple's next-generation Mac mini will likely feature the same design as the current model, according to reputable analyst Ming-Chi Kuo. In a...
www.macrumors.com
One other point I guess is Apple getting rid of the top SKU Intel mini before the next macOS comes out in October due to the support implications - Apple could then formally restrict 2027 macOS to Xeon Macs on the Intel side going forward.That's what Kuo says
Kuo: 2023 Mac Mini to Retain Same Design as Current Model
Apple's next-generation Mac mini will likely feature the same design as the current model, according to reputable analyst Ming-Chi Kuo. In a...
I'd be expecting iPad Pros to get the M2 CPU later this year, with M1 replaced across the board in Macs in October. With 2 extra GPUs and a slight IPC improvement I don't think M1 Pro models need to fear being overhauled.
That story suggests that the mini could be replaced with M2 and M2 Pro - I assume it to be a simultaneous update in October which sort of makes sense for that generation I guess.
On the other hand, Apple could go with M1 and M1 Pro for an earlier release and then leave it for a while - they have a Mac Pro to devote engineering resources to and leaving the M1 in the base model would drive more people to the upper SKU.
Yeah, the Mac Studio is the Intel Mac mini replacement because an Intel Mac mini with the i7, 32GB of RAM, 512GB SSD and 10GbE is the same $1999 and the Studio will annihilate the Intel mini.
In theory, yes, as it would still be $400-600 cheaper than the Studio if one just needs more CPU or GPU cores than the M1 and is fine with 16GB of RAM. Same if Apple decided to offer a 32GB BTO option at $400 for the base M2 (which would put one around $1099-1499).
It is when one pairs an M1 Pro with 32GB that the price delta to a Studio is so narrow that, IMO, you're really hobbling yourself if you go that configuration over the Studio.
And yet the Intel Mini sticks around for now - I guess Apple could quietly drop it after any event this year - like said, they'll want to kill it before the next macOS comes out otherwise they'll have to support it for the 2027 macOS.
Any serious amount of build to order decreases the value for money on an M1 Pro Mini up against the Mac Studio. Obviously that could be by design but if Apple introduced such a model they would have to make an effort with it as it would become the model that most people would pick up.
I've said before, Apple have no model with M1 and Pro/Max variants and using both families in the same model seems very unlikely given the two CPUs appear to have vastly different release dates. Let's also not forget that the M1 alone seems to beat all Intel Mini variants for benchmarks on single core, multi-core, and graphics - and this is before Apple even update it with an M2 which is due to have stronger graphics.
The fact that the top SKU intel mini is currently still hanging around seems increasingly anomalous.
One thing that Apple could do is replace the Mini later this year with a Nano - with M2 CPU 4+4 Cores and 10 GPU cores (as noted from the Jon Prosser renders). A redesign to fix the wifi/bluetooth issues and draw in new users and the upper SKU comes with 16Gb RAM and 512Gb SSD. There may be no 32Gb RAM option but that would just upsell people who need it upwards to the Mac Studio.
Such a Nano would continue with 2 Thunderbolt 4 ports and potentially either follow the iMac (with 2 USB-C ports), or the old mini with 2 USB-A ports for keyboard and mouse plus a HDMI 2.0 in addition.
It's the perfect time to retire the Intel Mini - right before the next macOS comes out - and will allow people keeping their powder dry to make their mind up between Nano and Studio.
Perhaps the "pro" branding is wrong here.. a mini with a more reasonable number of expansion ports, memory, and storage is all that's really needed. Don't need to go crazy w/cpu.
It would come with a CPU upgrade too though, the M1 Pro. Whether it is “pro” or not is a matter of debate, but it is definitely much, much faster than M1, both in GPU and CPU. It also has a significantly more robust video encoding engine.