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 Unveils New Mac Mini Powered By M1 Chip, Pricing Now Starts at $699
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Remember when a Mac Mini was $500 and you could upgrade the memory and hard drive? Those were the days. This sucks.
Well, my instincts were right! I held off on buying a Mac mini, and I "think" it was a good idea. Bout the 500 ssd and 16 gig version. Now my only question is NOT whether it will be faster than the i3 which they compared it to (see notes on their page), but whether it will be faster than the top i7 mini which they did not use in testing. Even if it is 10 percent faster than that I think I will be happy, since I needed one either way.
Now to questions: I still got a couple 32 bit apps I need to run occasionally, not often. Any news on VMware or Parallels running on Apple Silicon? Also... my main use will be for iMovie. I guess I am good eh?
Now to questions: I still got a couple 32 bit apps I need to run occasionally, not often. Any news on VMware or Parallels running on Apple Silicon? Also... my main use will be for iMovie. I guess I am good eh?
All of this makes sense - I suspected since you had a iMac Pro the M1 wouldn't be close to enough and was more curious about why you didn't go with a souped up Mini (with eGPU if needed), Pro, or just high end latest iMac - which you addressed.
Whats this about the noise of an iMac vs iMac Pro?
I always assumed their thermals/cooling would be (relatively) equal in terms of fan noise?
Parallels was demoed at WWDC.
You do realize that you won‘t be able to run older macOS releases or (most probably neither) Windows virtual machines „within“ Parallels?
like the first intel chips....maxed at 2gis and 32bit architecture. Best to wait for the 2nd or later iteration.
True, although -- and I'm not implying an absolute on your side -- having access to that level of resources (i.e. RAM) could cause a person to be far less efficient. In fact, look back at iOS development (or mobile development in general). Initial software releases crashed frequently, many because developers didn't adjust their methods, etc to utilize far fewer resources. But 'tightening' code, process optimizations, reasonable extractions and limitations, etc were indeed effective.
With that said, 16GB will be undeniably problematic and even unadaptable insufficient for some users. How many? I don't know.
For me, 16GB is currently optimal for my workflow. Will that be the result after 6+ years? Even with further workflow optimizations, I have significant doubts. Of course, that's the biggest concern. Users will probably need to consider replacing systems more frequently -- which goes without saying but I will anyway is something Apple would enjoy but not all consumers.
Ultimately, from my perspective, these models are a satisfactory/good first run, including a substantial (I)GPU performance and general component performance improvements with the unified architecture approach. Nevertheless, I'm very eager to see the next generation.
No, however, not a lot of (sole) devices can completely saturate the 40Gbps bandwidth. Therefore, in most cases chaining wouldn't hinder performance.
You've got a good point. I guess it doesn't scale very well. Would work better if they put 128GB on the SOC die.
Memory might be a problem, we'll see. But with thunderbolt 3 you are fine with external drives.
From what I am reading Parallels runs now on Big Sur but only on Intel Macs so far, or maybe it was via Rosetta 2. No, I didn't realize that about older Mac OS versions. Not sure why that would be the case. I can run up to High Sierra now on VMWare/Parallels, so I was hoping to be able to on Apple Silicon compatible versions. I know Windows is out for now until they deal with virtualization license or whatever for Arm. But I had my hopes up for older Mac OSs that way. Or maybe it's just time to rig up a cheap Hackintosh in the basement again. :-(
Mac mini - Technical Specifications
See all the technical specifications for Mac mini with the M4 or M4 Pro chip.
www.apple.com
Apple said:
They aren't massively expensive. But it would be pretty sad if the 16GB RAM in these new M1 machines are only equal to the 16GB RAM in an Intel model, especially since you appear to be stuck with the 16.
The comparisons Apple is making and the bold statements used in the presentation are all super confusing. I cannot wait to see the numbers when people actually test these machines.
It's what they can include on the SOC package, with the CPU and GPU also in the same chip.
Wondering the same thing, the wording is vague on that page. I currently have 2 lg 4 monitors over display port with usb c adopters
You can buy an external thunderbolt storage, it's blazing fast compared with the old USB storage.
Any predictions on how this mini will perform in real world when compared to the new iMac? I don't think it will come close to the 8-core i7 with the Pro 5700XT but given how optimized Apple software is to run on its silicon, I am starting to wonder if its performance may be closer than expected in real life usage.
It's a 1st gen product.
When the M3 hits, that's when I will upgrade my current 2018 Mini. I have 32 GB RAM and a 6 core Intel chip. Now, the M1 will definitely be faster in CPU and GPU but I see no reason to upgrade just yet with the RAM limitation at 16.
When the M3 hits, that's when I will upgrade my current 2018 Mini. I have 32 GB RAM and a 6 core Intel chip. Now, the M1 will definitely be faster in CPU and GPU but I see no reason to upgrade just yet with the RAM limitation at 16.
Okay? And your point is?
2012 and 2014 Mac mini
2018 Mac mini
EDIT: To clarify (since I've had a couple thumbs down), MY point is that the innards aren't that much different than previous generation models. Just because there's a plate and/or blower, it doesn't mean there's nothing behind it. And my question was sincere, what's the problem, what should it look like?
Last edited:
Looks like I’m going to upgrade as well, just feel bad cause my 2013 MacBook Pro is still going strong.
So a downgrade from 64 GB to 16 GB… that is insanely ungreat in 2020.
There's obviously also a reason for the "price cut". If it were in any way a competitor to Intel Macs, it would cost more, not less. Congratulations, you were just promoted to test bunny!
But maybe this means Apple will start paying attention to their crappy memory handling in Macos, now that they've gone ten years back in time.
There's obviously also a reason for the "price cut". If it were in any way a competitor to Intel Macs, it would cost more, not less. Congratulations, you were just promoted to test bunny!
But maybe this means Apple will start paying attention to their crappy memory handling in Macos, now that they've gone ten years back in time.
The M1 is based on a Unified Memory Architecture, so RAM is not user-upgradeable, at least on these initial ASi Macs.