Anyone go from M1 mini to M1 iMac?

[satchmo]

I’ve been generally happy with my M1 Mac mini, except for the dearth of true 5K displays to pair it with.

I’m toying with the idea of trading it in for the M1 24” iMac. While it’s ’only’ 4.5K display, it’s sharp, and (I’m guessing) works right out of the box.
As much as I’d like the upcoming 27” iMac, who knows when that’s arriving, and my guess it’ll be priced out of my budget anyways.
Curious to hear of others who may have gone this route and their experience.

 

[Juicy Box]

I have not, but performance wise, the M1 Mac Mini is the best out of all the non-M1 Pro/Max Macs.

So, if you made the switch, you would technically going to a less powerful machine assuming the specs are the same, but not a dramatic difference and maybe not even noticeable in real life.

Apple does have a nice display though, so might be worth it.

 

[imdog]

I did, the Mac mini was one of the worst devices I ever used, so many issues, especially with Bluetooth.

 

[imdog]

I have not, but performance wise, the M1 Mac Mini is the best out of all the non-M1 Pro/Max Macs.

So, if you made the switch, you would technically going to a less powerful machine assuming the specs are the same, but not a dramatic difference and maybe not even noticeable in real life.

Apple does have a nice display though, so might be worth it.

That is not true, unless you’re just referring to the extra ports. The iMac performs very slightly better than the Mac mini.

Mac Benchmarks - Geekbench

 

[TechRunner]

If I was doing more serious photo/video editing, I probably would for that very reason (screen). But I'm not at this time, so the 2K monitor I have paired with my Mini does what I need. Down the road? A possibility.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Sounds crazy to say, but the iMac screen is just a bit too small for me now.

My litmus test is two browser windows side by side and both having some room/spacing for the content to "breathe" (text not right up against the edges) -- at my preferred settings

In testing that at stores, I didn't like how it felt doing the test above -- too cramped/tight

For me a larger than laptop screen needs to cross a bar where I can really take advantage and have multiple large windows open simultaneously. That's sort of the whole point of going with a desktop/larger screen for how I like to do things.

I'm in Excel a lot and thus I love a large canvas

 

[Juicy Box]

I have not, but performance wise, the M1 Mac Mini is the best out of all the non-M1 Pro/Max Macs.

That is not true, unless you’re just referring to the extra ports. The iMac performs very slightly better than the Mac mini.

Mac Benchmarks - Geekbench

I was going by real world testing done by Max Tech and other reviewers.

The geek bench score is so close anyways (4 points more for the 2-fan iMac), you can't go by just that. I am sure I could find other M1 Mac Mini geek bench scores that are higher.

An user probably wouldn't notice a difference though with their daily use.

 

[Juicy Box]

That is not true, unless you’re just referring to the extra ports. The iMac performs very slightly better than the Mac mini.

Mac Benchmarks - Geekbench

I am sure I could find other M1 Mac Mini geek bench scores that are higher.

I decided to see what I could find, and I was remembering correctly on the Mini vs iMac performance, and not just on real world testing, but also on Geekbench 5. I think the Geekbench 5 results updates daily, so the scores fluctuate, which might explain why the Mini is listed as slightly lower than the iMac today.

On YouTube, there are several comparisons, such as MaxTech has the M1 Geekbench 5 results as the following:
The base Mini 8GB RAM 1753
The base iMac 8GB RAM 1738
2-Fan iMac 16GB RAM 1748

Not a huge difference, but still higher.

Here is a screenshot from a Macworld article comparing all the M1 Macs' (except the 1-fan iMac) Geekbench 5 results:

Macworld had a more significant difference.

All that said, I think the real world tests are of more value than benchmarks, especially with benchmarks that are so close to each other. For example, while the 2-fan iMac had slightly faster Geekbench 5 score than the base iMac, in real world testing at medium to heavy loads, the 2-fan iMac had a 10-25% better performance than base model iMac.... @satchmo something to keep in mind if you decide to get an iMac.

As for the iMac vs Mac Mini, I think real world performance differences would probably be unnoticeable to most, with the exception of the Base M1 iMac which is hampered by only having one fan.

For the OP, if I was to swap my Mac Mini for a M1 iMac for the gorgeous display, I would go for the slightly more expensive ($200) 2-fan model to get a closer match in performance to the M1 Mini.

 

[satchmo]

I decided to see what I could find, and I was remembering correctly on the Mini vs iMac performance, and not just on real world testing, but also on Geekbench 5. I think the Geekbench 5 results updates daily, so the scores fluctuate, which might explain why the Mini is listed as slightly lower than the iMac today.

On YouTube, there are several comparisons, such as MaxTech has the M1 Geekbench 5 results as the following:
The base Mini 8GB RAM 1753
The base iMac 8GB RAM 1738
2-Fan iMac 16GB RAM 1748

Not a huge difference, but still higher.

Here is a screenshot from a Macworld article comparing all the M1 Macs' (except the 1-fan iMac) Geekbench 5 results:
View attachment 1954646
Macworld had a more significant difference.

All that said, I think the real world tests are of more value than benchmarks, especially with benchmarks that are so close to each other. For example, while the 2-fan iMac had slightly faster Geekbench 5 score than the base iMac, in real world testing at medium to heavy loads, the 2-fan iMac had a 10-25% better performance than base model iMac.... @satchmo something to keep in mind if you decide to get an iMac.

As for the iMac vs Mac Mini, I think real world performance differences would probably be unnoticeable to most, with the exception of the Base M1 iMac which is hampered by only having one fan.

For the OP, if I was to swap my Mac Mini for a M1 iMac for the gorgeous display, I would go for the slightly more expensive ($200) 2-fan model to get a closer match in performance to the M1 Mini.

Thanks...yeah performance is not the issue...it's more the display.

I have a 27" 1920 x 1200 Dell display. This works out roughly 93 ppi.

Some have said that the 24" iMac's 218 ppi is overkill. And that a larger 27" 4K yielding 163 ppi will be more than sharp enough. And a noticeable improvement from my current 2K setup.

An iMac will run me $1850 (CAD$) less trade in value for my Mac mini of $550. The balance is $1300 plus taxes. That's certainly enough to buy a decent 4K 27" display. Plus I already bought a separate video cam. Maybe I'll hold off on that iMac.

 

[pshufd]

I bought two used iMac 27s and they replaced the M1 mini (16/512) on my desktop. I plan to sell the mini (it's out of my desktop and I just need to reinstall a clean Big Sur. The things that annoyed me about the M1 mini:

• 16 GB RAM limitation. I have 52 GB on my 2 iMacs and just ordered another 16 to get to 64 GB RAM.
• The number of cables coming out of the Mini: Ethernet, Speakers, Microphone, Time Machine, Monitors.

What I like about two iMacs:

1. Cheap. 2014 i7 with 4 GB GPU, 16 GB RAM and 500 GB SSD was $500; 2010 i7 with 8 GB RAM was $100. 16 GB RAM is $51 so easy to get to 32 GB RAM on both systems.
2. I run a Windows 10 Virtual Machine on one of them which I can do in a supported way. You can run Windows 11 ARM beta in a Virtual Machine which will also run x86 software but it's unsupported and you may have to pay for the VM software.
3. The 5k and QHD 27 inch displays.
4. The speakers.
5. Being able to videoconference with the built-in video camera, speakers and microphone.
6. The remote control on the 2010 iMac.
7. Two sets of speakers
8. Support for my Bluetooth devices (I wasn't able to get my old Apple keyboard to pair with the mini). Connections are better with the old iMacs than with the M1 mini as well. I suspect that this is why they are going with plastic for the new minis.
9. Performance is good enough. Combined Geekbench 5 multicore is 6,700 compared to 7,400 for the M1 mini.
10. The heat from the 2010 is actually welcome as I'm in an unheated basement and it is 5 degrees outside. The basement is cool, even during the summer.
11. I have a system to use when I have to apply updates.

These iMacs may just be a stopgap until the 27 inch Apple Silicon actually launches or I may just keep them running if the 27 inch AS iMacs are too powerful and expensive. What I'd like is an M1 or M2 amount of power in a 5k iMac. I do not need or want an M1 Pro or M1 Max iMac 27. I have an M1 Pro MacBook Pro if I need to run anything really heavy and it's way more than I need.

 

[pshufd]

An iMac will run me $1850 (CAD$) less trade in value for my Mac mini of $550. The balance is $1300 plus taxes. That's certainly enough to buy a decent 4K 27" display. Plus I already bought a separate video cam. Maybe I'll hold off on that iMac.

4k 27 inch displays are crazy on prices right now. I bought a Dell U2718Q for $369 in 2019 and the latest model at Amazon is $669 right now. I do not know whether prices are going to return back to normal but I'd guess that they will next year given how Omicron is going.

 

[satchmo]

I bought two used iMac 27s and they replaced the M1 mini (16/512) on my desktop. I plan to sell the mini (it's out of my desktop and I just need to reinstall a clean Big Sur. The things that annoyed me about the M1 mini:

• 16 GB RAM limitation. I have 52 GB on my 2 iMacs and just ordered another 16 to get to 64 GB RAM.
• The number of cables coming out of the Mini: Ethernet, Speakers, Microphone, Time Machine, Monitors.

What I like about two iMacs:

1. Cheap. 2014 i7 with 4 GB GPU, 16 GB RAM and 500 GB SSD was $500; 2010 i7 with 8 GB RAM was $100. 16 GB RAM is $51 so easy to get to 32 GB RAM on both systems.
2. I run a Windows 10 Virtual Machine on one of them which I can do in a supported way. You can run Windows 11 ARM beta in a Virtual Machine which will also run x86 software but it's unsupported and you may have to pay for the VM software.
3. The 5k and QHD 27 inch displays.
4. The speakers.
5. Being able to videoconference with the built-in video camera, speakers and microphone.
6. The remote control on the 2010 iMac.
7. Two sets of speakers
8. Support for my Bluetooth devices (I wasn't able to get my old Apple keyboard to pair with the mini). Connections are better with the old iMacs than with the M1 mini as well. I suspect that this is why they are going with plastic for the new minis.
9. Performance is good enough. Combined Geekbench 5 multicore is 6,700 compared to 7,400 for the M1 mini.
10. The heat from the 2010 is actually welcome as I'm in an unheated basement and it is 5 degrees outside. The basement is cool, even during the summer.
11. I have a system to use when I have to apply updates.

These iMacs may just be a stopgap until the 27 inch Apple Silicon actually launches or I may just keep them running if the 27 inch AS iMacs are too powerful and expensive. What I'd like is an M1 or M2 amount of power in a 5k iMac. I do not need or want an M1 Pro or M1 Max iMac 27. I have an M1 Pro MacBook Pro if I need to run anything really heavy and it's way more than I need.

No question, the current 27” iMacs are still great machines. I suspect they will be in high demand in the refurbished site, if the new 27” is too expensive.
And as you said, the new model with a basic M1 or M2 option is perfectly fine to keep the costs down.

 

[NeonIbis]

I’ve been generally happy with my M1 Mac mini, except for the dearth of true 5K displays to pair it with.

I’m toying with the idea of trading it in for the M1 24” iMac. While it’s ’only’ 4.5K display, it’s sharp, and (I’m guessing) works right out of the box.
As much as I’d like the upcoming 27” iMac, who knows when that’s arriving, and my guess it’ll be priced out of my budget anyways.
Curious to hear of others who may have gone this route and their experience.

I haven't gone from Mac Mini to iMac, but I bought the iMac after trying to work with a Macbook air + external monitor. I lasted exactly one day. Performance wasn't the issue (just using Word, web, etc.), but the 'full HD' monitor looked *horrible* being used to Apple screens (it felt like going back to an old 72dpi monitor, especially the text in Word), plus I would have had to get an external web cam to have the camera on the main screen (as with a Mini). I looked into higher res screens and came home with an iMac. The 24" M1 iMac screen is beautiful and the next best available monitor doesn't cost much less than the whole computer. Plus no need for cables, webcam etc. I also have a 27" 2020 iMac at work and I don't really notice the difference in screen size (but the 24" is prettier).

 

[Bodhitree]

Yeah, that was why i decided for the iMac as well @NeonIbis.

By the time you add a good camera, good speakers, and decent microphone to the Mac Mini on top of the obvious problems finding a good screen, keyboard and mouse, and you have quite a bit of cost and a lot of clutter on your desk. The iMac has good quality components across the board, and the screen is gorgeous.

I’ve been very happy with it, and have had very few problems.

 

[andreyush]

imac - you get a nice display, not overkill. There is nothing such as overkill, if you can get the best one get the best one why wouldn't you. Decent speakers, same specs, decent camera, accessories, clean setup. But the display is the biggest difference and for that price is too good.

 

[imdog]

I decided to see what I could find, and I was remembering correctly on the Mini vs iMac performance, and not just on real world testing, but also on Geekbench 5. I think the Geekbench 5 results updates daily, so the scores fluctuate, which might explain why the Mini is listed as slightly lower than the iMac today.

On YouTube, there are several comparisons, such as MaxTech has the M1 Geekbench 5 results as the following:
The base Mini 8GB RAM 1753
The base iMac 8GB RAM 1738
2-Fan iMac 16GB RAM 1748

Not a huge difference, but still higher.

Here is a screenshot from a Macworld article comparing all the M1 Macs' (except the 1-fan iMac) Geekbench 5 results:
View attachment 1954646
Macworld had a more significant difference.

All that said, I think the real world tests are of more value than benchmarks, especially with benchmarks that are so close to each other. For example, while the 2-fan iMac had slightly faster Geekbench 5 score than the base iMac, in real world testing at medium to heavy loads, the 2-fan iMac had a 10-25% better performance than base model iMac.... @satchmo something to keep in mind if you decide to get an iMac.

As for the iMac vs Mac Mini, I think real world performance differences would probably be unnoticeable to most, with the exception of the Base M1 iMac which is hampered by only having one fan.

For the OP, if I was to swap my Mac Mini for a M1 iMac for the gorgeous display, I would go for the slightly more expensive ($200) 2-fan model to get a closer match in performance to the M1 Mini.

Yea it outperforms the base model iMac, but so does the higher end iMac with the second fan. It seems there is a minuscule difference and I don't think performance should be the deciding factor in whether to go with the Mac mini or the iMac

 

[Juicy Box]

I don't think performance should be the deciding factor in whether to go with the Mac mini or the iMac

I think it depends on the user. The OP stated that performance wasn't really a factor for them.

It seems there is a minuscule difference

I wouldn't say that, as it totally depends on what one is doing with the device.

Under heavy load, the $200 more expensive 2-fan iMac was getting 25% higher performance than the 1-fan iMac in the Max Tech real world tests. For medium loads, it was about 10%. Not at all minuscule for the medium to heavy loads.

For only $200, that is a significant upgrade.