There are people who need more than a base M1 (ie more RAM and a slightly better CPU/GPU) but the Studio is overkill.
For these people nothing desktop exists the form currently.
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.
Apple Not Planning to Launch Larger-Screened iMac
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For these people nothing desktop exists the form currently.
Yeah, iMac always hit the spot for my requirements, working on a laptop is killing my eyes, but it's the only option suitable at the moment. Having something minimal allows me to keep it in the living room so I can work, remote play to the PlayStation etc whilst maintaining a healthy relationship with my other half! If I had to disappear to another room every time I wanted to go on the computer, I would never see her!
I very much disagree. When I looked at it, despite the pointless SD slot, the studio is a perfect mini Mac Pro that hits 128 GB of RAM and 20 cores which will easily work through all my tasks, even 3D modelling.
The Mac Pro is now only needed if you need more than 16 performance cores and more than 128 GB of RAM. Which if you do, you are likely skipping right to a terabyte of RAM and some monster of a CPU. It makes the Mac Pro starting price make more sense too, the normal config I have seen about offices and labs was using 380+ GB RAM and a 16 or 24 core CPU. The base spec I can’t imagine was ever sold in any real quantity.
Today's consumer level computer is better than yesterday's prosumer level computer. Thanks for agreeing that technology keeps improving.
What about today's prosumer level computer?
I see your point. I agree with what you are saying.
However my point is the Studio is more of a Mac Pro Mini than it is a Mac Mini Pro.
There is only one CPU between the M1 in the mini and M1 Max in the base Studio. I can’t imagine a M1 pro headless or iMac would cost much less than a studio and display. It would be a really weird value position. However, giving the mini a M1 pro BTO option would be great for anyone not needing the GPU power of the M1 Max and Ultra.
This is not true, the 14” model is slower in renders than same specs 16” model in benchmarks. So there is thermal throttling
Go to barefeats.com to see it
It's not just the M1 Pro people are after. People also want 32GB RAM (or 64GB RAM).
If both were in a BTO option for the Mac Mini, I do not think anyone would complain. Heck, I would even buy such a fabled not yet existent Mac Mini ASAP. As it is exactly what I need.
Todays prosumer is the Mac Stuido. By all accounts a better machine for anyone doing more than a mini. At least prosumers can now get three identical screens instead of having one built into the machine that can’t be adjusted like the others.
The M1 pro brings that 32 GB RAM to the mini with it. You would just have a headless 14 inch MacBook Pro which by all accounts is a fantastic machine. It certainly has a good edge over the M1 in performance.
Is it? That is the big question everyone is debating. Some like you say it is. Others say something like a BTO Mini with M1 Pro and 32GB/64GB of RAM is the prosumer level and Studio is pro level.
Regardless I think having that in-between as a BTO option would be easy for Apple to do and actually pair well with the new studio screen.
A M1 pro mini and M1 Max Studio would both fit that prosumer and even pro market. The M1 pro has all the CPU grunt of the Max just without the GPU. Though we should consider that extra GPU is to run the 2-3 screens that adore the VESA stands on many a prosumer and pros desk. If you don’t need the GPU for tasks, just consider it is needed to run your 3+ display battleship while you are coding.
As for the M1 Ultra in the Studio, that starts at double the price and might as well be called M1 Studio Pro with how much of a step up it is.
It is more accurate to say the 16” gets to turbo for longer. The 14” can run at its full pelt all day. The M1 Air and 13” pro both share the same CPU but one gets active cooling so it can run at full pelt longer. Apple don’t sell you different GHz SKUs, they sell you different cooling solutions.
A 27" iMac with a bit of BTO to bring it to that "prosumer" level was >3k.
A base Studio with a reasonable screen is the same ball park.
Last headless "prosumer" Mac were the various PowerMacG4 which also were in a similar range if you account for inflation.
Both the old G4s and the Studio allows you to just replace the screen or the computer at a time which is IMO a big plus in the "prosumer" space.
Hahah yeah sure at best it's a $700 increase over the base 27" iMac if the Studio display is paired with the base Mac mini.
Last edited:
Why should there be a Mac Mini Pro if you have the base Mac Studio?
Right now you have:
1.) Mac mini M1, 8 GB RAM and 256 or 512 GB SSD + additional options
2.) Mac Studio starting with M1 Max, 32 GB RAM and 512 GB SSD + additional options
The Mac mini M1 with 16 GB RAM and 512 GB SSD has the same price as the Intel i5 Mac mini with 8 GB RAM and 256 GB SSD:
Which is the better package in this case?
We're talking price points. First of all, no base iMac has ever cost $3099. They've always had the price points of $1799, $2399, and $2799 base. Why are you comparing benchmarks when those are irrelevant when comparing upgrades in technology? That's like saying the iPhone 13 Pro doesn't compare to the iPhone 12 Pro in its price point because the 13 Pro has a higher Geekbench score by a large margin.
The price points are what matters. The M1, if it had gone into an iMac, would have been at the $1799 price, obviously because the M1 24" iMac is at the $1299-1699 price point. The M1 Pro would have been at the $2399 price point. The M1 Max would have been at the $2799 price point. With the M1 Ultra at $3999, that obviously goes to the iMac Pro's price point, performance being completely irrelevant because subsequent generations of technology should always far outperform its past equivalents.
I don’t get it. A 32 alongside a 24 would be just perfect
You are right, but who would buy the M1 Max base (low end) than, if there would be a cheaper laternative in form of a Mac mini with the M1 Pro?
Yes. And when you will decide to upgrade, you will just need to replace your “boxed” mac instead of a full bulky iMac
For some people a headless MBP would be perfect. Sure the highest end MBP is the low end studio without the screen. But the other options of MBP, they exist. All we want is a desktop version of that.
Apple feel the need for prosumer grade notebooks is enough to justify their existence. However Apple currently feel there is no need to have them in a desktop form factor.
My question to you is why do you think Apple believes the M1 Pro (with it's max 32GB RAM) has a place in the MBP but not in a desktop?
I think what's messing up the analysts is that they are thinking in terms of Apple's past products instead of potential new ones. One of Ross Young's predictions was that he thought one of Apple's products for this spring was supposed to be for a monitor but then published a tweet saying he was mistaken in thinking that it was for a display rather than an iMac. So he changed his prediction to an iMac. Turns out he was right the first time and wrong the second time. He's a display analyst, so he knows what parts Apple is using, but not what they're for. He has to guess at that part.
Likewise, Kuo is a supply chain analyst. He and Young have no inside sources at Apple like the leakers. They just talk to the suppliers. So these analysts guess that Apple is producing a 27" iMac or iMac Pro when in reality Apple was just sourcing those panels for a 27" Studio Display and maybe the Pro Display XDR. It probably never occurred to these guys that Apple was separating the display and the base computer.
The Mac mini already got the M1. It was the first one to get it along with the 13" MacBook Pro and MacBook Air. What Apple might do is release the option to configure the Mini with either the M1 base or M1 pro.