Apple's 2024 M4 Mac Mini: What We Know

[Tago]

Love my mac mini. Mounts underneath my desk completely out of site. I want the form factor to stay the same so I can just swap it out.

That's where to put it. Few neath mounting solutions though. A good many are designed for upside down mounting and more are a tad on the rough side.

 

[lkrupp]

If the M4 is Apple’s AI enabler then we can expect everything to move to it sooner rather than later. Goodbye M3

 

[brofkand]

Yup - it's true that the form factor was originally designed to house an optical drive and mechanical HD, but the spare space can be well used for larger coolers and bigger (hence quieter) fans, and it leaves plenty of space for ports on the back.

The front ports & SD reader on the Studio are nice to have (but unless you get the Ultra with extra Thunderbolt the front ports are just USBs sharing the same controller as the rear USB-A ports) - and the extra height is mainly to accommodate a huge cooler for the Ultra model (since the Mx Max has to be capable of running in a 14" laptop I suspect it would be quite happy in a Mini case if Apple chose to make a Mini Max). I do think the Studio is better built, though - with replaceable (if not upgradeable) SSD modules and most of the ports on replaceable carrier boards.

The previously rumoured plastic top (throwback to the original G4 Mini) doesn't really change the "form factor" and would be a good idea if it helped WiFi/Buluetooth reception... but maybe Apple tried it (hence the rumours) and it didn't help.

Apple is reducing the amount of plastic in their products as much as possible - have been for years. They are even taking the Apple Stickers out of boxes to get rid of that small amount of plastic. I don't see them adding more plastic to the Mac mini.

 

[brofkand]

That's where to put it. Few neath mounting solutions though. A good many are designed for upside down mounting and more are a tad on the rough side.

Apple sells a decent one, several on Thingiverse as well if you have access to a 3D printer.

 

[Hopefully Smarter]

M labels are marketing speak.

 

[toke lahti]

Well, the Studio and the Pro already have removable/repairable storage, so there's clearly no technical barrier. As far as anybody can tell, the only reason it's not upgradeable - even with genuine Apple parts - is down to Apple's policy of only selling you like-for-like replacements. (There are conflicting reports of whether upgrades work, but that could be because you have to install exactly the right combination of modules). That said, simply having the possibility of replacing a perishable component like SSD if it fails is a plus for the Studio/Pro.

The other interesting development on the RAM side is that, until recently, LPDDR RAM has only been available as surface-mount chips - so all thin laptops and small-form-factor systems that use LPDDR have been non-upgradeable out of necessity (Apple did have an excuse there). There is now an emerging standard (LPCAMM) for plug-in LPDDR5X modules - so it will be interesting to see what that does for Apple's competition in the future.

As for Apple adopting LPCAMM, the words "over", "freezes" and "hell" spring to mind, not least because they seem committed to mounting the RAM chips directly on the SoC package - however, I do have a lovely mental image of a future Mx chip with plug-in "wings"...

They could easily make an architecture that there is faster RAM in SoC and slower upgradeable RAM with modules.

 

[citysnaps]

From a shareholders perspective keeping base model at 8Gb makes perfect sense. But don’t try to sell it as making it as cheap as possible for the base user.

Well... that's exactly what it is. Many people with modest needs do just fine with 8gb of ram. Why should they pay more for ram they'll never use?

A couple months ago many people on this forum weighed in with their experiences using Macs with 8 gb ram. And were happy with the experience. They saved money - a good thing.

 

[citysnaps]

Yeah, 8 GB is magic, my current laptop has 16 GB, which is not enough for my needs, I need at least 32 GB, my main PC has 64 GB.

But here 8GB is the equivalent of a PC with 32 GB RAM and 256 GB is the equivalent of 4 TB SSD on PC.

It sounds like you made a good decision going with a PC. I'm happy for you.

 

[Spock]

I was thinking more of a second NVME for Time Machine. Or for that matter infrequently used files, or movies. A second internal drive saves one of the very scarce USB ports.

Apple makes money off of storage when people purchase a device, that is the bottom line. They will not add upgradability.

 

[Tago]

About to replace my MacBook Pro with a Mac mini.

Suspect increased focus upon AI both for MacOS and software in the coming years would make M1/M2 and in this case M3 less attractive preowned, thus a M4 would likely increase the lifespan somewhat. 2-3 years from now that likely would be important, and I keep my stuff for some years.

My hopes are that they get rid of USB A entirely as I want to complete the transition to USB C / Thunderbolt. I want to standardise my cables. Period. Would love the unlikely scenario of 16gb base spec at a sober entry price point, and more than 1 SSD chip to take advantage of bandwidth like M1 at least from 512 gb.

Probably a bit controversial, but I can't help thinking that M4 Max would be thermally suitable for a revised Mac Mini chassis, loosing the Mac Studio by allocating Ultra and upwards to the Pro chassis. M4 max mounted out of sight below my desk is enticing. I really don't want any computer/Mac on my desk. As such, I don't feel the need for a memory card reader which tend to become obsolete faster than the rest of the computer within the chassis. I'll rather have another USB C / Thunderbolt slot thank you.

Probably won't happen as Apple hardware steppingstones never were about logical/common sense steps for the user. It is all about strategic distribution of specs making you need a more expensive version which is still lacking som features that makes sense. Don't belive I ever came across a Mac that wasn't missing something it should have had.

The minute you get one, you will be looking for the next. Heaven forbid content users 😁

 

[Michael.S]

I am currently running a M1max in a 16 inch MBPro. Leaving the different form factors aside, would the M4 Pro chip be more powerful in theory than my M1 Max so it would justify the change.
Focus would be mostly AI work (picture generation and other foto editing techniques) and gaming.

 

[theluggage]

My hopes are that they get rid of USB A entirely as I want to complete the transition to USB C / Thunderbolt.

Until the last year or so I'd have been dead against this, but I think now (8 years after Apple tried to prematurely force a switch) USB-C is more established (and multi-port USB-C hubs of various types are finally available) I finally agree with you - especially on a desktop where any USB-C-to-A dongles you need are plug-once-and-forget.

USB-C is still a dumpster fire of invisible incompatibilities between visually identical ports and cables and mind-boggling naming conventions (USB-no-space-4 2.0 anybody?) but at least it's an industry standard dumpster fire.

Only concern is the horizontal USB-C sockets on the Mini which look a bit close together for plugging dongles - the vertical sockets on the Studio are better in that respect.

Probably a bit controversial, but I can't help thinking that M4 Max would be thermally suitable for a revised Mac Mini chassis, loosing the Mac Studio by allocating Ultra and upwards to the Pro chassis.

Personally, I prefer the Studio design, but I think that's extremely plausible - the M4 max has to be thermally suitable for the MacBook Pro so fitting it into a Mini chassis with more space for a quiet cooler shouldn't be rocket surgery.

In that case I think its more likely that the Studio Ultra would become the new Mac Pro in all but name (a worthy replacement for the trashcan) - the actual 2023 Mac Pro is really a niche product for people who need specialist I/O cards or massive internal NVMe storage. Currently, it offers much better PCIe bandwidth than an external TB-to-PCIe enclosure - although that may be eroded by Thunderbolt 5/USB4 2.0 (see above!).

Of course, we're assuming that the M4 is going to follow the same regular/pro/max/ultra/maybe-extreme progression. M3 has already upset that a bit, with the M3 Pro being a completely different die rather than a Max with the end chopped off, and no sign of ultrafusion on the M3 Max - and with the M3 Max being more powerful in relation to the pro than was the case with M1 and M2,

 

[joecomo]

Yes I want that.
Will be throwing out our M3 iMac24 (screen to small) and get a Mac mini with a nice 27 inch display.
Hopefully there will be an update to the studio display (as this is the best looking one).

 

[kuck]

I would love to see a 4TB and 8TB SSD option so I only need to buy one additional external 4TB/8TB for backup.

 

[tenthousandthings]

Well... that's exactly what it is. Many people with modest needs do just fine with 8gb of ram. Why should they pay more for ram they'll never use?

A couple months ago many people on this forum weighed in with their experiences using Macs with 8 gb ram. And were happy with the experience. They saved money - a good thing.

Agree. Now that the transition to Apple Silicon is more or less complete, Apple offers a range of stock configurations that meet the needs of a range of workloads. Those stock configurations are where you get the most for your money. A lot of effort goes into determining what those stock configurations should be, relative to those workloads. I think that’s the key distinction that is often not understood—it’s about objective workloads, not subjective customers.

So customers naturally get out of sorts when Apple doesn’t allow them to save money by making compromises. Dirty words like “upsell” and “tax” are thrown around, but in the end, if you really need double the memory, you could probably also use another core or two. You can build to order however you like, and obviously the stock configurations don’t cover everyone, but Apple isn’t going to go out of its way to help you compromise your workload.

 

[citysnaps]

Agree. Now that the transition to Apple Silicon is more or less complete, Apple offers a range of stock configurations that meet the needs of a range of workloads. Those stock configurations are where you get the most for your money. A lot of effort goes into determining what those stock configurations should be, relative to those workloads. I think that’s the key distinction that is often not understood—it’s about objective workloads, not subjective customers.

So customers naturally get out of sorts when Apple doesn’t allow them to save money by making compromises. Dirty words like “upsell” and “tax” are thrown around, but in the end, if you really need double the memory, you could probably also use another core or two. You can build to order however you like, and obviously the stock configurations don’t cover everyone, but Apple isn’t going to go out of its way to help you compromise your workload.

Whoa! What a breath of fresh air here. Thank you!

 

[spinedoc77]

Gotta say, as much as I harp on Apple, my M2 Mini has been rock solid. I think at this point Apple's main issue is their M chips are so good it's tough to convince consumers to upgrade.

 

[tenthousandthings]

For what it’s worth, I believe we’ll see the M4 Mini and the M4 Pro Mini at WWDC. I think it makes perfect sense, and explains why it didn’t get M3 and M3 Pro. Everything else will wait, the Studio/Pro due to the M4 Ultra, and the iMac and MacBooks because they’re all on M3 already.

I think it would be helpful if Apple were to announce the M4 Max and M4 Ultra at WWDC, ending all the unhelpful and uninformed speculation, but that’s not likely. I do think one of the points they need to make at WWDC is that all these new AI things run extremely well on M3, and while M4 is best, M3 is better, and M2 is still good. None of them are bad. Not even M1.

 

[citysnaps]

Gotta say, as much as I harp on Apple, my M2 Mini has been rock solid. I think at this point Apple's main issue is their M chips are so good it's tough to convince consumers to upgrade.

I'm still using a 2019 Intel MacMini dedicated to running a bunch of security cameras and processing software. And dissipates a ton of heat 24 hours a day - which no doubt represents a decent portion of my electric bill.

I'm so looking forward to an M4 Mini and knocking down the heat and electric bill.

 

[Jack Burton]

I hope the M4 Max GPU is a bit more competitive with nVidia GPU's. NVidia has the pro market locked down tight, and I suffer through windows for that reason only. But the plans for Windows that Microsoft just revealed feels like a complete nightmare. A perfect storm of crap. Lipstick on a pig.

Gonna ride out my 3080ti for as long as I can and see what Apple brings to the table. I hope they skip the M3 in the Mac Studio - the GPU just isn't quite good enough yet. I'll take some performance hits for the joy of Mac OS and less noise/heat, but not too much, esepcially for the price Apple charges.

 

[digitalhome]

Sorry but I don't want to pay a massive premium for 16gb. Put 16gb in the base and I will buy it the day it comes out!

 

[theluggage]

if you really need double the memory, you could probably also use another core or two.

We're already getting another core or two.

In 2018 the Mini came with a 4-core i3, a pretty weak GPU and, even then, 8GB RAM (& yes, that also doubled as VRAM for the integrated GPU).

Since 2023 it's come with 8 rather more powerful cores, 8 much better GPU cores and still the same 8GB RAM. We're not paying $200 extra for those - why should RAM be different?

The M4 Mini is probably going to get at least 1 (again, improved) extra GPU and CPU core - possibly 2 if (as in the past) they don't bother with the binned CPU - and a souped up neural engine.

That's the problem - it's not about a few "special people" that need some vast amount of RAM, it's about Apple's base RAM spec not keeping up with the rest of the Mac's specs, or the fact that even "content consumers" are now working with higher resolution screens, images and videos, script-and-video-laden web "applications" - and now we're talking about running AI models locally because privacy and security.

RAM technology has moved forward too, and all of these higher specs increase the demand for RAM. What's so special about RAM that it shouldn't be expected to progress in step with everything else?

8GB is the new 4GB - yet Apple (and some of their uncritical supporters) are trying to sell it as the new 16GB. "Unified" RAM is more efficient speed wise but it doesn't hold more data. Apple are getting away with it because the processor is all-round faster, and their fast SSD makes swapping less noticeable than on an old Intel machine - but SSD is still an order of magnitude slower than RAM so if if your Mac is swapping frequently it is still being slowed down and potentially increasing wear on the SSD.

 

[Armada2]

I went with one of those Mac-Mini PCs to replace Bootcamp needs when I adopted Silicon (not trusting ARM Windows, which is well known to not be fully compatible). Besides, after you pay the annual Paralells cost for only a few years, it covers one of these.

All I can say is I'm quite happy with it, with Windows 11, etc. It's NUC with a gaming card, 32GB of upgradable RAM and 10TB of fast SSD in 2 slots (also upgradable). Imagine the Apple pricing of that if they offered that much SSD storage inside! How much did it cost? Less than only the 8TB SSD upgrade in a Mac (not counting the Mac or the RAM- just the SSD upgrade alone). 🙁

I thought I would ONLY use it for Windows-exclusive stuff but I was reminded of the great benefit of Power vs. PPW. Computer power translates to SPEED. If you want to get things done fast on a computer, crank the power. If you want to get things done efficiently- but slower- lean into PPW. What's been happening is a number of power-apps I regularly use that run on both have been migrating to PC... where they can do their thing FASTER than my Mac Studio.

And then there's all that want for AAA gaming and the new desire for rich emulation in Appleland... both of which are abundantly available on PC. Mix in the Moonlight app for AppleTV and the games stream from PC through AppleTV to TV and it's great. Launchbox/Bigbox for everything emulation now and any AAA games available immediately.

ASD is not a great option for a TWO computer setup. So knowing I was going this way steered me to a Dell Ultrawide 5K2K monitor... about the same price as an ASD with stand option but much wider screen with built-in hub including FOUR video inputs. Both Mac and PC share this monitor. It can even split screen to give me Mac Left & PC Right at the same time. That's Parallels-like, except with 100% Windows compatibility and NO annual upgrade fee.

It's all great... and I'm no longer an "all Apple guy" after about 20 years that way. In fact, due to the outrageous RAM & SSD pricing, my aging MB might be replaced with a PC laptop instead... where, once again, robust competition will get much more of commodities like RAM & SSD than we can get from the lone "company store" seeking "another quarter of record profit." I've NEVER owned a non-Apple laptop before but recent corp choices have driven me in this direction and now its a real possibility. 5 years ago, I couldn't even consider it but I might soon be more PC than Mac for the first time EVER.

Have you tried Geforce Now via app or stream for AAA gaming? it's a game changer if wanting games on a Mac Mini. I use it on a Mac Mini 2012 or M1 MacBook Pro with fast internet connection.. I would only buy a NUC if I wanted to play the classic games that Geforce does not provide and one day I will.

 

[ninecows]

Well... that's exactly what it is. Many people with modest needs do just fine with 8gb of ram. Why should they pay more for ram they'll never use?

A couple months ago many people on this forum weighed in with their experiences using Macs with 8 gb ram. And were happy with the experience. They saved money - a good thing.

They should pay $5 extra to get more ram so the SSD will last longer. They shouldn’t pay 200 extra. That’s just a money grab from Apples side. They soldered in the RAM and still charge the same for a chip that probably costs less than 50% of what it did when 8Gb became the base level many years ago.

If you claim that this is what’s best for the base user you’re either naive or dishonest.

We can agree that it’s best for AAPL.

 

[ninecows]

Maybe a lot of users will be happy with 4Gb as well? They won’t notice since we can do swapping. Maybe Apple can get a good deal on some old 4Gb chips?