It’s just a guess but I see the Mini being the equivalent to the MBA. It will get the entry CPU and the Mac Studio which is essentially a double decker Mac mini the better CPU, like the M Max and Ultra. I came away thinking the Mini is going to be and stay the budget Mac now that the Mac Studio was released.
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
24GB RAM, coupled with a big (1TB or more) SSD for fast page read/writes, should work for me.
Being a bit more disciplined on the number of windows and tabs open wouldn't hurt either. 😬
Being a bit more disciplined on the number of windows and tabs open wouldn't hurt either. 😬
IIRC Apple is largely using LCDDR5 and if DDR5 is any guide that type of RAM isn't cheap.
The problem with this line of reasoning is you are comparing the M series to the x86 series. Remember the Mx series was derived from the A series which wasn't known for allowing insanely huge amounts of RAM.
There seems to be a physical limit to the RAM each "level" supports:
*M1 (base) - 16 GB RAM limit; M2 (base) - 24 GB RAM limit (which is still weird given RAM is generally 2^x)
*M1 Pro - 32 GB RAM limit
*M1 Max - 64 GB RAM limit
*M1 Ultra - 128 GB RAM limit
Allowing the M1 (base) Macs to have more than 16 GM of RAM or M2 (base) with more than 24 GB would be like the silliness that happened with with the LCII back in the day.
The problem with the LCII was there was a hardware limitation (carried over from the LC) where the computer could only see 10 MB of RAM. The thing was the LCII had replaced the 2 MB on the motherboard with 4 MB so your only options (since RAM had to be installed in pairs in that Mac) was 4, 6, 8, and 12. So you has the totally gonzo situation of having 12 GB of RAM that the computer could only see and use 10 MB of.
As I said before much of the RAM in the x86 is used copying data between the CPU and GPU. Sort of like that fox, a chicken, and corn puzzle but the farmer has the option to get a bigger boat if he wants to make less trips.
By contrast unified memory architecture allows the CPU and GPU to exchange information between one another directly ie akin to there being a bridge over the river.
For the TL;DR crowd: RAM on X86 is boat while RAM on Mx is a bridge.
Last edited:
Yes LPDDR5 is expensive and 12GB modules are likely even more expensive (hence why they are only in the premium Android phones at the moment).
Apple's RAM prices are extreme, but then so are most OEM RAM prices (I've seen what Dell, HPE and Lenovo charge for OEM DIMMs). It is just that folks compare to third-party RAM which is significantly cheaper (unless going for the extreme "Gamer RAM" which has prices that make the OEMs look altruistic) so they claim the OEMs are ripping customers off (and in a way they are, considering the mark-up).
I wonder if the Microsoft Surface forums are full of folks complaining about RAM and SSD prices because those are also soldered in and look to carry significant premiums based on configuration pricing.
Preach it!
My 2018 Mini has 64GB and an older RX580 eGPU. Its far from a seamless experience, but it gets the job done.
When I need to work some AI magic in Topaz Labs, the RX580 takes over.
Cross referencing multiple large files in Affinity Photo, 64GB does it with ease.
Converting videos, hex i7 still packs a punch.
Considering the entire setup at the time cost about $700 less than the base Studio and all the hardware is almost 4 years old, I'm pretty happy with it.
Yes I am aware of the various memory limits of the SOC haha.
Ok, well...taking into account the M2 RAM limit and without seeing M2 Geekbench. Also assuming Apple doesn't give the mini the M1 Pro or Max (even I recognize thats a pipe dream)...
2022 - 2023 M2 Mac mini will have 24 GB RAM limit and for me thats just not enough. I could probably work with 32 gb but if I need to wait for the m3 to get it? 2024??
Today, well, as of the 6th haha, after several years of faithful service, the Mac mini is no longer sufficient for my needs.
Now do I return back to the MacBook Pro or take a look at the Mac studio. My current mini has 64 GB and 10 GB Ethernet (yes we're out there) so the studio fits in nicely. But do I want to be portable? Decisions decisions.
Could happen independent of an M2 release by retiring it in September before Mac OS Ventura comes out - one less OS to support in the future.
U.K. users may be about to get shortchanged with M2 macs because there was a price increase for the M2 MacBook Pro whereas US price remained unchanged - its a consequence of new model allowing apple to reassess exchange rates.
This leads me to believe the M2 mini will supersede all M1 SKUs but there will be a £100 increase in all SKUs in the U.K.
Looking forward to an M2 release for the Mac mini when it comes. I would have liked to buy it for the summer but I'll be keeping my older Intel Mac mini for VMs so no rush.
That is perhaps the most useful explanation I have read so far about why x86 and Mx RAM usage is so different. Thanks for that!
'RAM on X86 is boat while RAM on Mx is a bridge' also explains that while more is still better that unified memory is more efficient than how x86 does memory so comparing the two doesn't make that much sense.
I see your argument, but if you ignore the specifics of how much RAM the current Mini can accept, the bottom line is a maxed-out M1-Mini will wipe the floor with any of its predecessors. 64GB RAM or not.
In my neighbour's garage is a thirty five year old 4.2 litre Jaguar. It was fast in its day. But his daily-driver 2019 Ford Focus ST would absolutely leave it for dead in any performance comparison: 0-60, standing quarter, or round a track, while at the same time delivering about triple the MPG of the Jag, and let's not even talk about CO2 emissions. All from an engine cc of about half that of the Jag (maybe fractionally more).
The point of that analogy, which I realise is very possible to pick holes in because they are different classes of car, is that technology moves on, and you no longer need the same resources (cubic capacity = RAM) to get the same or better performance offered by yesterday's technology.
Last edited:
Well, engine technology has improved somewhat, but a big part of that is because the Jag 4.2 probably weighs significantly more than the Ford and while it looks like a sleek, prancing cat it actually has the aerodynamic efficiency of a brick. Even in the 1980s a lighter car with a smaller engine would have beaten the Jag. So it comes down to what you want to achieve - if you want to drive around in 2 tonnes of steel and walnut burr in 2022 while winning drag races with Ford Focuses you're still going to need a much bigger cc engine.
Likewise, the efficiency of Apple Silicon may have enabled you to get away with 8GB less RAM for general workloads, but if you had any justification for buying 64GB of RAM in 2018 it was because you needed to hold many gigabytes of data (bitmaps, audio samples, big data whatever...) in RAM without swapping and there's no reason for that data to have gotten any smaller in the intervening 4 years.
Yes, Apple Silicon is more efficient at swapping than Intel, but SSD is still an order of magnitude slower than RAM - plus excessive swapping may wear the SSD - so if you're relying on swap to compensate for insufficient RAM you are still getting sub-optimal performance out of your processor and GPU.
...a lot of the initial "8GB on M1 is 16GB on Intel" youtube raves seemed to come from people comparing 8GB M1s with 16GB Intel Macs who never bothered to check whether their test was actually benefitting from the extra RAM on Intel (which means looking at memory pressure and swap rates, not the 'memory used' figure) in the first place.
I did warn that it was an easy analogy to pick apart at the detail level. But the fact is, that old 4.2 litre Jaguar engine delivered about 200bhp, where that power is now achieved by engines half that size and less, while also offering lighter weight, better economy, better efficiency, and a cleaner emissions. That was the point of it. Technology moves on.
True but a lot of SSD writes are due to the programs writing to the disk regardless of how much RAM you have. Take this comparison of browsers where Chrome writing 3.8 x what Safari does as an example:
There is nothing magical about the way Apple is doing memory on AS. macOS is great at memory management, sure. If what you state is true, why is Apple offering 24 GB on the M2? Or 128 on the M1 Ultra?
In compute...absolutely. But those of us with 64 GB in our minis know to stay away from 8 Gb. 16 GB too. 24 GB gets you closer. I could work with 32 GB if I had to (and am looking at the Mac studio for this). Safari will still be safari. Chrome will still be chrome. RAM will be eaten per tab haha.
I don't mind car analogy haha. Lets say Mac mini is your neighbors old Jag and you have a nice, fancy new apple silicon...oops...I mean electrified Jag that may be one of the best cars to ever drive on the road. Its a great car, faster cheaper better than your old one and it works better in every scenario except when there are no EV chargers (memory) when you want to go on road trips. Then what? No matter how good your new car is, the old one can drive from anywhere you want to go.
Last edited:
Obviously I don't know your workflows so I'm not judging. but last time I asked someone why they needed a certain amount of RAM on their Mac (I -think- they said 128GB minimum) I thought they were gonna tell me they were some kind of content producer compiling multiple streams of 8K videos + CGI. But no, it was because commonly their workflows required them to have 200+ tabs open in their browser, which they argued was quite the norm for anyone. I tried to point out as politely as I could that, no, your average consumer does not have workflows which require them to have 200 tabs open at once in a browser...
Having 200+ tabs open?!
How do they even know what they have open?! More over past ~40 tabs the ones on the left side of the bar will be pushed off (in Safari which as shown before does the least amount of writing to the drive):Now tell us what exactly are the first four tabs in either of these screen shots go to ie what specific YouTube videos and MacRumors articles I have open. Better yet tell us exactly what the three YouTube videos whose tabs got pushed off were. You can't and I doubt anyone who has this many tabs open could tell you either, forget about someone who has 200+ tabs open.
Last edited:
To use the 'RAM on X86 is boat while RAM on Mx is a bridge' comparison why are there 4 lane or 6 lane bridges instead of everything being 2 lane bridges? Remember the unified memory also serves as video RAM so more RAM = larger (and more) video real-estate.
I am using 55gb right now on my 2018 Mini, not really doing much of anything. But I have a 32gb Windows 10 VM running in Parallels (which I will be using heavily later today). On the Mac side: Safari (with 4 tabs 😁 ), Mail, Mesages, Atom and MAMP.
[edit]Interesting.... it has now dropped to 48gb. Guess MacOS did some memory management/compression?
[edit]Interesting.... it has now dropped to 48gb. Guess MacOS did some memory management/compression?
Given how VMs that is going to write to your drive as the file's contents will change directly in relationship to how much you use the Windows VM. More over as I noted before some Windows 10 users are reporting SSD write issues on Intel PC which logically carries over to the VM.
Last edited:
Opera GX has been promoted for gamers for its "CPU, RAM and Network limiters" How well does that work on 16 GB?
Wonder if those 200 tabs are also "separated into different windows" as an extra window uses more RAM than a tab (as the RAM does double duty as video RAM)
'If you see every problem as a nail then every solution is a hammer...even if all you have a crowbar (well it can be used as a hammer)'