Do you think there will be 32 GB of RAM options and more for the new Mac Mini?

[Micky Do]

With every release Mac OS get chunkier and more graphically intensive for no reason. If Macs had user upgradable cards or RAM they'd be replaced when a new OS comes out instead chucking out the entire computer.

Was to some extent true in days of yore, but likely to be less of an issue going ahead. Computers come standard with more than enough RAM now, and the increase in OS requirements is not increasing as much as it did in the past. With “system on a chip” replaceable RAM is not going to be an option. Get used to it.... and if you feel insufficient RAM will be an issue, spec more at the outset.

 

[InuNacho]

Was to some extent true in days of yore, but likely to be less of an issue going ahead. Computers come standard with more than enough RAM now, and the increase in OS requirements is not increasing as much as it did in the past. With “system on a chip” replaceable RAM is not going to be an option. Get used to it.... and if you feel insufficient RAM will be an issue, spec more at the outset.

Mac OS is getting getting chunkier and chunkier with each release and their planned obsoleteness is ridiculous. My old studio 2011 27" i7 iMac would need the DOSdude patch and a GPU upgrade to run anything newer than High Sierra. Why is this iMac which is still plenty usable not allowed to be on the latest Mac OS but can run the latest build of Win10 with ease?

If the M1 Macs CPU is so powerful why'd they gimp them with 16GB of ram? That may be good now but who knows how much more bloat Mac OS is going to get in 4 years?

Oh wait, they gimped it so they can phase it out like they do with the iPhones every few years.

 

[4sallypat]

Mac OS is getting getting chunkier and chunkier with each release and their planned obsoleteness is ridiculous. My old studio 2011 27" i7 iMac would need the DOSdude patch and a GPU upgrade to run anything newer than High Sierra. Why is this iMac which is still plenty usable not allowed to be on the latest Mac OS but can run the latest build of Win10 with ease?

If the M1 Macs CPU is so powerful why'd they gimp them with 16GB of ram? That may be good now but who knows how much more bloat Mac OS is going to get in 4 years?

Oh wait, they gimped it so they can phase it out like they do with the iPhones every few years.

Agree!
Before the A1x (iOS) and M1, MacOS was definitely getting hefty for sure with the Intel processors.

But with the A1x and M1 the new SOC / ARM designs with very efficient clock and instruction cycles - they have overcome the Intel deficiencies.

By leveraging the efficient iOS platform into MacOS, they have been able to write code that runs like a RISC processor of the old days when Apple had more control.

Apple didn't "gimp" on RAM - they don't use standard Intel based memory hungry DDR RAM. The M1 uses Unified Memory which combined with their silicon that they don't need to cram more and more memory to make it work.

Thus, my base 8GB M1 Mini runs cooler and much faster than an Intel 6 core i7 BTO/CTO w/ 32GB of RAM which also runs very hot and the fan spins up like crazy.

 

[bearcatrp]

Apple probably gimped with ram so the mini doesn't compete with the iMac.

 

[Okta]

I would have to hope so but I think they might be holding it back to prevent cannibalizing their iMac or Pro Lines

 

[Micky Do]

Apple probably gimped with ram so the mini doesn't compete with the iMac.

Dunno what you are on about.....

The new M1 24” iMac has the same RAM and storage options as the M1 Mini. Both consumer level, with a similar level of performance. Choose all in one and ready to go, or byo peripherals.

 

[AussieJoe]

I read that the M2 chip is in production, but I also read that there's a world shortage of processor chips. I've no idea how this will or won't affect M2 availability, but I'd bet my left nut that Apple is going to give the new 27" iMac priority before it gets around to upgrading the Mini. That pushes the timeframe out somewhat, I would think. I'd be surprised if we see them this year.

It's the old conundrum - the minute you buy technology its out of date. Sure I'd like to have an M2 Mini on my desk right now, but I've spent hours and hours reading and researching the M1 model and I've decided it will do just fine with 16GB for my usage. When it comes to RAM, the M1 really means we aren't comparing Apples with Apples any more, if you'll excuse the dreadful pun.

 

[Yebubbleman]

For a moment I've been wanting to go with the highest spec Intel Mac Mini to replace my old Mac Pro 5,1. Now there's this new Mac Mini released and I believe it's better than the Intel ones, but it only comes with max. 16 GB of RAM. I would be happy to have at least 32. My Mac Pro has 32 right now and sometimes I feel like I need more.

Do you think they will upgrade it at some point?

For the Intel to Apple Silicon transition, Apple has been very deliberate in terms of replacing Intel products that they feel that the M1 is apt to replace and leaving alone ones that they don't feel that way about just yet. For the Intel Mac mini and the 4-port 13" MacBook Pro, they obviously have port and RAM limitations that prevent them from outright replacing those models. Similarly, the M1 doesn't have sufficient graphics performance to outright replace the discrete AMD GPUs present on the 16" MacBook Pro, the 27" Retina 5K iMac, or the Mac Pro tower/rack. I think that when Apple has a computer that they feel covers all the bases that the Intel Mac mini still has over its M1 counterpart, they will use that computer to replace said Intel Mac mini altogether.

Frankly, I'm much more curious as to how the 4-port 13" MacBook Pro will shake out, seeing as there really doesn't need to be two different MacBook Pros that otherwise share the same body, but differ by having two extra ports.

 

[bearcatrp]

Dunno what you are on about.....

The new M1 24” iMac has the same RAM and storage options as the M1 Mini. Both consumer level, with a similar level of performance. Choose all in one and ready to go, or byo peripherals.

Didn't know the iMac was crippled like the mini. Am surprised. When I bought the 1st gen thick white iMac, had plenty of ram compared to the mini. Can only think there must be some limitation with the new M1 chip.

 

[velocityg4]

Didn't know the iMac was crippled like the mini. Am surprised. When I bought the 1st gen thick white iMac, had plenty of ram compared to the mini. Can only think there must be some limitation with the new M1 chip.

Could be. I’m thinking it’s more to do with the RAM itself. It’s very fast and much smaller than standard RAM modules. I’m thinking that was the largest available. When they designed the CPU.

 

[Micky Do]

Didn't know the iMac was crippled like the mini. Am surprised. When I bought the 1st gen thick white iMac, had plenty of ram compared to the mini. Can only think there must be some limitation with the new M1 chip.

Why do you say "crippled"?

It seems to me that they (iMac, Mini, Air & 13 inch MacBook) are what they are, all built around Apple's M1 "system on a chip".... all consumer level computers which perform quite well with less RAM (using less power) than the products they have replaced.

The limitation is that RAM, and storage, is all on the chip, and cannot be changed with aftermarket tinkering.

Expect higher RAM options to be available on pro level M chip computers when they arrive. That’s my guess anyway.

 

[ITM69]

For what purposes? Have a look at all the YouTube reviews with 8GB machines. They are doing just fine for most tasks, even extensive photo and 4K video editing. I'd agree (as do several reviewers) that 8GB is a bit limiting, but I have yet to see *any* tests where the 16GB model is shown to be lacking due to memory limitations; the CPU / GPU performance reaches its limit before memory becomes the bottleneck.

Of course, there are applications and use cases that require more than 16GB of RAM - editing massive photos, working with extremely large data sets, in-memory databases, running multiple virtual machines and so on, but these entry-level computers are not positioned for those users. These are consumer machines for the mass-market. For that purpose they are adequately specc'd and perform very well.

What are your uses that require >16GB RAM?

Fomalhaut wrote : 'For what purpose'.
Well, you seem to mistakenly believe that 16GB is sufficient for any user basing your logic on the idea that because the M1 can handle video editing well on its own optimised Final Cut Pro platform, it can somehow magically meet the conceivable needs of any other power user - because You Tube videos says so too apparently !
Let me immediately say ' ********' to this misleading notion !
As a writer and composer of music ( songs /library/other ), I can very reliably tell you that 16GB is nowhere near enough for projects containing sample heavy data, period ! Don't start talking about 'Yes, but there's loads of YouTube footage showing the M1 running lots of Vsts and PlugIns ... '. Again, this would be massively misleading, as most high track counts showing this are predominantly referring to situations using native Logic instruments and FX ... not the type of third-part virtuals and plugins that us professionals use as our bread and butter go to work horses. Then, add into the equation projects in which I'm using a large number of samplers and sampled content, 16GB is gobbled up in absolutely no time and 'System Overload' kicks in very quickly on M1's, 16GB or not ! 64GB up to 128GB ( SOC ) will be a tremendous help to many serious muso composers who are not yet running large, professional studios ... I would eventually expect to see up to 1TB ram options on the eventual M2/M3 based Mac Pros, but that will no doubt result in users getting a second mortgage to afford one, or ,as you pointed out, those will be aimed at studios with serious equipment budgets.

 

[bearcatrp]

Why do you say "crippled"?

It seems to me that they (iMac, Mini, Air & 13 inch MacBook) are what they are, all built around Apple's M1 "system on a chip".... all consumer level computers which perform quite well with less RAM (using less power) than the products they have replaced.

The limitation is that RAM, and storage, is all on the chip, and cannot be changed with aftermarket tinkering.

Expect higher RAM options to be available on pro level M chip computers when they arrive. That’s my guess anyway.

When I got my 1st iMac ( the 1st big 24 inch white), it had more ram than the mini during that time. Reason why I went with the iMac. The past iMacs usually had more umph than the mini's. Seeing them as the same tells me its the limitation of the processor. For what the current mini maxed out can do, should be fine for most folks. Those trying to video edit or similar should get something bigger. After the 2008 mac pro prices, The cost of newer mac pros was nuts so I built dual processor systems for windows and switched to windows for video editing. Saved more than half the price of the mac pro's back then.

 

[robertosh]

Today you still can order an Intel mini with 64G of RAM. It would be strange for me if they just drop that option and not giving you the posibility to get at least 32G...

 

[Silly John Fatty]

Guys, they announced a Mini with more RAM (and better CPU) a few days ago! I hope the price will be okay and that it will be released soon.

 

[southerndoc]

Guys, they announced a Mini with more RAM (and better CPU) a few days ago! I hope the price will be okay and that it will be released soon.

Uh, a rumor isn't an announcement. However, having said that, they probably will announce something soon in my opinion. Maybe at WWDC.

 

[mdgm]

Today you still can order an Intel mini with 64G of RAM. It would be strange for me if they just drop that option and not giving you the posibility to get at least 32G...

I agree. Having held off on getting a new Mini for a long time I can wait a bit longer if they don't release an Apple Silicon one with 64GB RAM or consider picking up one of the Intel ones.

 

[Silly John Fatty]

I am so ready to get an M1 Mini with 32 GB of RAM. That means, if the price is right of course.

 

[Boyd01]

FWIW, it costs $600 more to go from 8gb to 32gb on the 2018 Mini or $1000 to go from 8gb to 64gb.

 

[mdgm]

FWIW, it costs $600 more to go from 8gb to 32gb on the 2018 Mini or $1000 to go from 8gb to 64gb.

Which is a rip-off when 3rd party costs so much less. Considering that with ARM the memory is not replaceable hopefully the memory upgrade pricing would be a bit more reasonable.

 

[Fluttershy462]

It would be nice especially since they released the 10gb Ethernet option for the Mini.

 

[IceStormNG]

Apple didn't "gimp" on RAM - they don't use standard Intel based memory hungry DDR RAM. The M1 uses Unified Memory which combined with their silicon that they don't need to cram more and more memory to make it work.

That's ********. They use regular off-the-shelf LPDDR4X RAM. Unified memory has nothing to with DDR or not. Unified means, that the GPU and CPU have direct access to the same pool of memory. (the PS4 also does that with a x86 AMD CPU and GPU).

The RAM itself is the same as for intel. It's just used differently. And you still need more RAM. The amount needed didn't changed. Just that the GPU can access memory out of RAM without having to copy it to its special VRAM first.

 

[v0n]

Since the launch of M1 in November not much changed for us video editors - vast majority of third party plugins still don't have silicon versions and by the look of things - it's going to be years before that that changes. I keep watching those videos on YT showing fast renders and how M1 beats everything in FCPX. That's just not the case if you do anything else than blogging or tiktoks. FCPX in Rosetta (and you have to run it in Rosetta for plugins) is unbelievably hit by the lack of physical memory. It's absolutely clear majority of speed advantages on M1 is done by optimisations and the whole unified architecture is just FCPX watching memory pools like a hawk and using fast disk access for smart caching. You can see that because it behaves like iPad editor - almost nothing (footage-wise) you put on timeline in FCPX on M1 is 'conformed', chuck it on Intel and it re-renders it to whatever format your timeline is set to. All that optimisation goes out of the window when you launch FCPX in Rosetta and suddenly that 20 minute project takes up 14-20GB of memory again, rendering out 18 minute video takes 30 minutes, you reach points where memory is full, swap is reaching 16Gb and the entire FCPX just beach balls to infinity - you have to close the project and reopen to continue. Ans that's in 1080p. I'm not complaining - it's just a mac mini, I have a Mac Pro two rooms down to do it properly, it just annoys me that they try to paint it as some sort of 'mighty, beating all hands down' marvel. The current silicon lineup is crippled. Unnecessarily. Why don't shills on YT show proper projects in FCPX and Logic, struggling with Rosetta and lack of RAM to people?
Arm architecture isn't some of micro kernel magical wand - **** that needs 32-64Gb of memory still needs 64Gb of memory. There is no escaping that in 21st century.

 

[InuNacho]

Arm architecture isn't some of micro kernel magical wand - **** that needs 32-64Gb of memory still needs 64Gb of memory. There is no escaping that in 21st century.

Just curious, what other NLEs have you tried on Silicon? A friend and I are starting a YT channel, I'm on my Intel 2018 Mini + eGPU and he's in the market for a new Mac. I bought FCPX years ago for a single big project and am currently familiarizing myself with Da Vinci Resolve.
In a controlled studio environment (my front room) with almost always identical color grading and around 5-10 minutes of video from an A7S' XAVC S (1080) what do you think would be the better purchase?

 

[IceStormNG]

Well.. as he said. If you only cut for youtube and don't need an extensive list of plugins (so you can run Final Cut in native ARM mode), then it will work fine.

The M1 seems to have hardware support for XAVC, while the Intel machines have to software decode it. You might have to cut with proxies to get optimal performance.