Why I ditched my 2018 mac Mini and got an iMac instead

[Ploki]

Ok, and I’d wager if you had a garden variety 500Mbs read/write SSD I seriously doubt you’d notice a difference between that and your insanely fast ssd doing the audio work you do.

I have both I have 512GB SSD as a "dump drive" where i keep a spare macOS installation for stuff I don't want on my main and for testing out stuff.

There's a difference, especially with large libraries, and there's a difference in transient detection.

Whether it's worth or not is debatable, but i figured 30% price bump for 6times and 50% less footprint performance is not bad.

Maybe I should say "i can use a single drive with a light heart"

 

[BigBoy2018]

I have both I have 512GB SSD as a "dump drive" where i keep a spare macOS installation for stuff I don't want on my main and for testing out stuff.

There's a difference, especially with large libraries, and there's a difference in transient detection.

Whether it's worth or not is debatable, but i figured 30% price bump for 6times and 50% less footprint performance is not bad.

Maybe I should say "i can use a single drive with a light heart"

Thats cool.
I just have the opinion that SSD read/write speeds are WAY overrated when it comes to almost all real world uses.
Once you’ve gone from hdd to ssd, ANY ssd, thats the HUGE jump. After that, the law of diminishing returns is in full effect.

 

[Ploki]

Thats cool.
I just have the opinion that SSD read/write speeds are WAY overrated when it comes to almost all real world uses.
Once you’ve gone from hdd to ssd, ANY ssd, thats the HUGE jump. After that, the law of diminishing returns is in full effect.

True.
HDD: 100 IOPS
SSD: 90k IOPS (100x more)
NVMe: 400k IOPS (5x more)
(IOPS is imo a better indicator for performance than sequential reads/writes. As 4 HDDs can be configured to be almost as fast as SSD in a sequential R/W scenario, but they will still perform much worse in real life)

 

[BigBoy2018]

True.
HDD: 100 IOPS
SSD: 90k IOPS (100x more)
NVMe: 400k IOPS (5x more)
(IOPS is imo a better indicator for performance than sequential reads/writes. As 4 HDDs can be configured to be almost as fast as SSD in a sequential R/W scenario, but they will still perform much worse in real life)

Either way, I’ve got a 2012 macbook pro with an 850 evo 2.5 inch ssd and then use a 2017 macbook pro at work. The difference between he two laptops in things like boot times, copying average size files. application launch times, etc. are all negligable.

 

[Ploki]

Either way, I’ve got a 2012 macbook pro with an 850 evo 2.5 inch ssd and then use a 2017 macbook pro at work. The difference between he two laptops in things like boot times, copying average size files. application launch times, etc. are all negligable.

Yeah, I noticed the same.

 

[BigBoy2018]

Yeah, I noticed the same.

And yet apple makes a big selling point of their super fast SSDs and I see some forum members ‘brag’ about their read/write speeds. i wonder if they’ve actually done any real world comparisons like I have.
Then they might realize they’re bragging about a whole lot of nothin’.

 

[pl1984]

And yet apple makes a big selling point of their super fast SSDs and I see some forum members ‘brag’ about their read/write speeds. i wonder if they’ve actually done any real world comparisons like I have.
Then they might realize they’re bragging about a whole lot of nothin’.

They haven't because all you see are Blackmagic benchmarks which, as far as I can tell, only measures sequential speeds.

 

[Ploki]

They haven't because all you see are Blackmagic benchmarks which, as far as I can tell, only measures sequential speeds.

Yeah.
it's only useful to see if drive is operating as it should, not hampered by faulty cables, enclosures or whatever

 

[BigBoy2018]

They haven't because all you see are Blackmagic benchmarks which, as far as I can tell, only measures sequential speeds.

Yes unfortunately this is a case of limited benchmarking creating a false narrative among a certain number of people.
Thing is, I even read reviews thst mention the 2000+ read write speeds of SSD’s, and few ever point out that it wont really matter for 99%+ of use cases.
So the misinformation perpetuates.
Meanwhile, people somewhat justify apples insane ssd pricing because theyre ‘so fast’. Never once stopping to question whether that ‘speed’ actually translates into any real world benefit for them.

 

[Ploki]

Meanwhile, people somewhat justify apples insane ssd pricing because theyre ‘so fast’. Never once stopping to question whether that ‘speed’ actually translates into any real world benefit for them.

I don't think many people still do. Maybe in 2016, when they really had the fastest SSD available in a laptop.

Now, my external 970 EVO outperforms the built-in 500GB SSD, and 1TB cost me with enclosure less than additional 500GB would cost me from Apple. They're just insane with these prices.
They always were, but now they solder it on the logic board.

2TB upgrade on the mini (from 128GB) costs 1920€, and 2TB on 13" (from 256GB) costs 1750€.
On the 15", it's 1440€ (From 512GB).

That's the cost of a whole computer, for all 3 configs.
For comparison, one EVO 970 2TB costs less than 700€.
They have literally 100% margins on their SSDs, if you consider they but dead NAND chips from Toshiba, probably closer to 200%.

The i9 I had returned was configured with 2TB, and I'm so happy it went back. So I bought the Mini i7 and another 13" for the money I had left over from the drive. I'm so happy I was able to correct that mistake.

 

[Hessel89]

Now, my external 970 EVO outperforms the built-in 500GB SSD

Really? That's interesting, what kind of enclosure do you have?
I've been thinking about getting an OWC 4M2 enclosure myself starting with just one Samsung 970 EVO but having future expandability for 3 more m.2 SSDs.

 

[Ploki]

Really? That's interesting, what kind of enclosure do you have?
I've been thinking about getting an OWC 4M2 enclosure myself starting with just one Samsung 970 EVO but having future expandability for 3 more m.2 SSDs.

Leidian from aliexpress.
built in has roughly 2600/1800 r/w, and the external pushes 2500/2000.
gotta check with latency and other parameters but i don't think there'll be much of a difference

OWC 4M2 is limited by x1 PCIe lane per slot, so a single drive will top out at 700mb/s.

 

[thera]

I think that we all be using these enclosures from this time on even with iMacs. I cannot imagine buy 2TB for that price or remove screen at new iMac... however iMac is old so modular MM solution is best now

 

[ADGrant]

Quick story:

I bought the 2018 mac mini back in November. I was initially interested in the idea of a small, powerful, desktop computer.
So I bought mac mini 6-core 3.0. $1100
Then I got the LG 4K display for $630.
...
The advantages of the iMac vs. the mac mini I can configured: a bigger, better monitor, and less mess and wires all over my desk. A MUCH bigger SSD and MUCH more ram for the same price.

The advantage of the mac mini setup I had configured: Slightly higher geekbench scores.*
.

The real advantage of the Mac Mini over an iMac is choice. You bought an LG 4k for $630, larger 4k monitors are available for half that price. For the price of the extended Mac keyboard, you can buy a much better mechanical keyboard with Cherry MX switches (the magic trackpad is hard to beat though). If you want a better GPU, you can buy an eGPU and a video card (which you can later upgrade). If you also own a Macbook, you can use that external keyboard, eGPU and monitor with the MacBook.

If you need to get a Mac Mini repaired, you can stick it in a backpack and take it to the Apple store. I found taking my 27" iMac to the store a major PITA. You can upgrade the RAM yourself on a Mini but that is painful (but not as painful as getting inside an iMac).

 

[Mr Baldman]

Google brought me here. Due to the fact that I’m seeing major audio stuttering on my week old mini.

- 3.2ghz 6 core i7
- 16gb ram
- 1tb ssd

If I have an Ableton live project open and playing (nothing major, 5-6 tracks with a few instruments) and then scroll the macrumors home page in safari the audio stutters to an almost stop.

There is no visible pressure on the CPU, so I’m assuming it’s the graphics.

Wondering if I should have gone for a 5k iMac, given that even audio related apps can be graphics intensive (I’m thinking instrument UIs and DAW redraw)

 

[ADGrant]

Google brought me here. Due to the fact that I’m seeing major audio stuttering on my week old mini.

- 3.2ghz 6 core i7
- 16gb ram
- 1tb ssd

If I have an Ableton live project open and playing (nothing major, 5-6 tracks with a few instruments) and then scroll the macrumors home page in safari the audio stutters to an almost stop.

There is no visible pressure on the CPU, so I’m assuming it’s the graphics.

Wondering if I should have gone for a 5k iMac, given that even audio related apps can be graphics intensive (I’m thinking instrument UIs and DAW redraw)

You don't need a powerful GPU to play audio so the GPU probably has nothing to do with it. Your problem is probably a video or ad on the MacRumors home page.

 

[Mr Baldman]

You don't need a powerful GPU to play audio

agreed. i think it's UI tasks within the audio application, as its redrawing the track data (audio files, MIDI data) as it moves along, playing the track.

I have experimented with different audio buffer sizes and freezing computationally expensive tracks, but the difference is negligible.

I have tried both Chrome & Safari on various websites and it exhibits the same behaviour. Notably worse on sites with images in them.

I shall try the same thing with Logic Pro X.

I do love the Mac Mini, and am not overly keen on the idea of going to an 'all in one' iMac with a 27" screen. This isn't a showstopper issue for me, it's just concerning from a longevity perspective

 

[ADGrant]

agreed. i think it's UI tasks within the audio application, as its redrawing the track data (audio files, MIDI data) as it moves along, playing the track.

I have experimented with different audio buffer sizes and freezing computationally expensive tracks, but the difference is negligible.

I have tried both Chrome & Safari on various websites and it exhibits the same behaviour. Notably worse on sites with images in them.

I shall try the same thing with Logic Pro X.

I do love the Mac Mini, and am not overly keen on the idea of going to an 'all in one' iMac with a 27" screen. This isn't a showstopper issue for me, it's just concerning from a longevity perspective

I doubt it is has anything to do with your choice of Mac, the GPU or the CPU. Drawing track data on a GUI does not require much (if any GPU resources) and you have ample CPU resources. I suspect an iMac would have same issue. Make sure you have auto-play turned off in Safari.

 

[Hessel89]

You don't need a powerful GPU to play audio so the GPU probably has nothing to do with it. Your problem is probably a video or ad on the MacRumors home page.

It's probably your memory. The Mac Mini shares it's RAM with the ''gpu''. I had the same problem in Logic Pro X when I still had 8GB. Your projects must be quite big or you might b using some big sample libraries like the Kontakt ones.

 

[ADGrant]

It's probably your memory. The Mac Mini shares it's RAM with the ''gpu''. I had the same problem in Logic Pro X when I still had 8GB. Your projects must be quite big or you might use some big sample libraries like the Kontakt ones.

That is true, integrated GPUs use the system RAM. OTOH he has 16GB.

 

[Mr Baldman]

so i've figured out what causes it - using a non-standard resolution (3200 x 1800)

if i switch to the 'default for display' under system prefs of 3840 x 2160 everything runs smooth.

thanks for the RAM/GPU info, seems like a good excuse to consider the upgrade to 64GB.

 

[ADGrant]

so i've figured out what causes it - using a non-standard resolution (3200 x 1800)

if i switch to the 'default for display' under system prefs of 3840 x 2160 everything runs smooth.

thanks for the RAM/GPU info, seems like a good excuse to consider the upgrade to 64GB.

I have to admit that possible cause did not occur to me. If you don't run the panel at native resolution, looks like MacOS uses the GPU to scale the image. Not something I have ever done because it isn't so good for image quality either.