Pulled the trigger today on the 16" MBP with Max chip, 96 GB of Ram, and 2 TB SSD. I was able to get 10 years of service with my 2012 iMac, so hoping maxing out specs on its replacement will get me another 10 years. Fingers crossed anyway.
My guess is that the Mini will be on average faster on real world tasks (since they’ll all benefit from faster single CPU and GPU cores, but won’t always be able to use all available cores) but probably not by a game-changing margin. (Also note that the two extra CPU cores on the M2P are efficiency cores, which will have more effect on battery life than speed).Okay so performance and longevity wise, which of the these two same priced systems am I better off with:
- Mac Studio - Apple M1 Max with 10-core CPU, 24-core GPU, 16-core Neural Engine, 32GB, 1TB SSD; or
- Mac Mini - Apple M2 Pro with 12‑core CPU, 19-core GPU, 16‑core Neural Engine, 32GB, 1TB SSD
Are there really games in the top 100 that Apple users want to play that don't already have (or had) macOS support?It is very sad when you realize that there are hundreds of great games on Steam that can be maxed out and run flawlessly on these chips and yet, there is no official support. Really, it is not that difficult. Take the 100 top games on Steam and provide official support for M-chips and Metal, and the Mac will become appealing for those that not only use their computers for productivity.
“Since the Mac Studio's storage controllers are housed within its SoC, swapping out or adding SSDs isn't as easy as it might seem. Tests have showed that even original Apple SSDs cannot be used to swap or expand a Mac Studio's storage unless they are the exact configurations the M1 Max or Ultra is expecting.”My guess is that the Mini will be on average faster on real world tasks (since they’ll all benefit from faster single CPU and GPU cores, but won’t always be able to use all available cores) but probably not by a game-changing margin. (Also note that the two extra CPU cores on the M2P are efficiency cores, which will have more effect on battery life than speed).
The Studio has extra front-facing ports and can support an extra display (OTOH the HDMI port on the Mini is 2.1). Also, I think the Studio is more repairable (the SSD can be replaced, even if Apple don’t allow upgrades, all the breakable ports are on daughterboards etc.)
Rather than juggling two almost identically priced devices, if you know you can use 32 GPU cores I’d consider the Studio with the $200 GPU bump, or if the M1 Max was overkill anyway, the Mini without the cpu bump…
Mostly, I’d wait for the real-world tests and r3views on issues like fan noise.
Apple does not make the actual panels themselves. They are either Samsung, Sony or LG. The only thing Apple does is make the hardware that drives the panel.Apple isn’t going to release OLED screens on their iPads & laptops without completely addressing brightness & burn in. I’m not aware of any 2 layer OLED screens on the market yet, and if the are I believe Apple will do them better If & when Apple releases them. 🍏👀
As I said, the SSDs can be replaced even if Apple don't allow upgrades. I.e. if the SSDs fail you can replace them with the same configuration. Via an authorised service agent or via the DIY scheme (which will only sell you the permitted SSDs for your system's serial number). That's not perfect but its 100% better than the Mac Mini which would need a new mainboard if the SSDs failed.“Since the Mac Studio's storage controllers are housed within its SoC, swapping out or adding SSDs isn't as easy as it might seem. Tests have showed that even original Apple SSDs cannot be used to swap or expand a Mac Studio's storage unless they are the exact configurations the M1 Max or Ultra is expecting.”
It is very sad when you realize that there are hundreds of great games on Steam that can be maxed out and run flawlessly on these chips and yet, there is no official support. Really, it is not that difficult. Take the 100 top games on Steam and provide official support for M-chips and Metal, and the Mac will become appealing for those that not only use their computers for productivity.
Yes, but there have been articles about how Apple is working with LG to create new 2 layer OLED panels that meet their needs.Apple does not make the actual panels themselves. They are either Samsung, Sony or LG. The only thing Apple does is make the hardware that drives the panel.
I wasn't commenting on the Mac mini at all..? 🤨 I was commenting on the higher end MBPs versus the studio.Mac Studio with 32gb Ram and 512 ssd with M1 Max is the same price as the Mac mini with M1 Pro with 32 gb ram and 512. both at $2000..so ? I think you meant the M2 Pro mac mini has very little rationale to be bought with 32gb ram and 512 SSD or more
That's why they probably aren't going to sell many until they upgrade the Studio to the M2 Ultra.So... The M2 Max in a laptop form factor is nearly on par with the M1 Ultra in a "desktop form factor". That's a bit of a yikes for Studio buyers.
Have you picked one? Also look at these same setups.Okay so performance and longevity wise, which of the these two same priced systems am I better off with:
- Mac Studio - Apple M1 Max with 10-core CPU, 24-core GPU, 16-core Neural Engine, 32GB, 1TB SSD; or
- Mac Mini - Apple M2 Pro with 12‑core CPU, 19-core GPU, 16‑core Neural Engine, 32GB, 1TB SSD
I actually decided to give the prospects of a new decent sized (i.e. not 24inch) iMac one more year. If nothing is released by end of this year then will re-assess.Have you picked one? Also look at these same setups.
Apple has always updated systems in this order... Those that sell in larger volumes get updated first. That just good business sense as it helps bring costs down.
If someone needs a powerful desktop (not a laptop) right now, there's no reason not buy the Ultra Studio. You can always resell it later, if you need something with more power.
This happens with Intel and AMD as well. They can’t bring out all of their chips in a generation at once. They bring out the desktop, laptop, and server chips on a staggered schedule. No one has the design resource or the manufacturing capacity to do them all at once.The "staggered release" of Apple Silicon-based Macs causes frustration. First, the M* comes out, then the M* Pro and Max, then the M* Ultra. For example, the M2 Max in the mini and MacBook Pro temporarily obsolete the M1 Studio until it too is upgraded to the M2 Max. And we have to assume the "M2 Ultra" will be available at the same time in the Studio line. The new ASi "Mac Pro" may indeed bring back the discrete GPU concept that we've had in the Intel Macs for quite some time now. The eGPU concept is still valid, even though Apple has decided (so far) to not bring it to the ASi Macs.
Easy to see with massive design undertakings and complex manufacturing processes like processor chips.This happens with Intel and AMD as well. They can’t bring out all of their chips in a generation at once. They bring out the desktop, laptop, and server chips on a staggered schedule. No one has the design resource or the manufacturing capacity to do them all at once.
Nice, though I did spend £600 on an eGPU case and a Radeon RX 6600XT and it sits nicely (even over TB2) between the M1 Max and M2 Max.The high-end M1 Ultra chip released for the Mac Studio last year is still about 9% faster than the M2 Max based on Metal scores: