Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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?
DaVinci is really great, even free version but has steep learning curve and less third party plugin support. FCPX has three major advantages:
one - anything that's hard or takes too much time to do there is probably already a plugin for it
two - you'll learn it in days, master it in weeks. When FCPX was launched we all complained that it was "iMovie Plus", compared to the original FCP, like a Fisher Price version of NLE - we won't admit it, but we all appreciate it now (just don't tell anyone).
two - it's available to you in App Store on every machine you are logged in to as yourself. In perpetuity. No dongles, no license swaps, no emailing support and waiting for days. You just buy another mac, set it up, log in to App Store, download it and off to work you go.
 
DaVinci is really great, even free version but has steep learning curve and less third party plugin support. FCPX has three major advantages:
one - anything that's hard or takes too much time to do there is probably already a plugin for it
two - you'll learn it in days, master it in weeks. When FCPX was launched we all complained that it was "iMovie Plus", compared to the original FCP, like a Fisher Price version of NLE - we won't admit it, but we all appreciate it now (just don't tell anyone).
two - it's available to you in App Store on every machine you are logged in to as yourself. In perpetuity. No dongles, no license swaps, no emailing support and waiting for days. You just buy another mac, set it up, log in to App Store, download it and off to work you go.
Yea I remember using FCPX when it first came out for a project I did and FCP7 was taking eons to re-render the footage we had in a then new codec. It really was the big kid version of iMovie back then but it seems like its pretty solid now.
 
So nothing was announced at the last WWDC, right? I guess it will take a little longer until the new Mini gets released. What do you think is the next presumable date at which it could be presented/announced? (I don't know much about Apple and their events)
 
It could be released with just a press release, if that. Or it could be released at an event alongside other products such as the expected 14” and 16” MBP, or it may not be released at all.
 
So nothing was announced at the last WWDC, right? I guess it will take a little longer until the new Mini gets released. What do you think is the next presumable date at which it could be presented/announced? (I don't know much about Apple and their events)
Yep, nothing announced. Unlikely (given the past years) there will be an event before the usual iPhone event in September. Seems a while to wait given most rumours point to the 14in and 16in MBPs being nearly ready (not sure about the Mac mini, but it hardly requires much engineering work).
 
Yep, nothing announced. Unlikely (given the past years) there will be an event before the usual iPhone event in September. Seems a while to wait given most rumours point to the 14in and 16in MBPs being nearly ready (not sure about the Mac mini, but it hardly requires much engineering work).
I think we might see an M1X (or whatever it is called, I am referring to a higher spec version than we have seen so far) that covers 14" and 16" MBP, large iMac, and top-end Mac Mini, perhaps with some options on GPU core counts. This would match the M1 covering a number of models that did not all share the same chips in the Intel era.

It suspect the launch was planned for WWDC, but delayed because the redesigned MBP models were not ready (some rumours point to miniLED component supply issues). So now we won't see any models with the M1X until the MBP redesign can be shown off, and even if ready before September, it will be at least then before we see it as summertime (at least here in the Northern hemisphere, where most big Apple markets are) is not a good time for maximum impact as too many people are on holiday at any one time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jorbanead
FWIW, here's what MacRumors is predicting

"The new MacBook Pro models are expected to enter production in the second half of 2021 and launch in the third quarter, with shipments on track to begin in the third quarter."

 
I think we might see an M1X (or whatever it is called, I am referring to a higher spec version than we have seen so far) that covers 14" and 16" MBP, large iMac, and top-end Mac Mini, perhaps with some options on GPU core counts. This would match the M1 covering a number of models that did not all share the same chips in the Intel era.

It suspect the launch was planned for WWDC, but delayed because the redesigned MBP models were not ready (some rumours point to miniLED component supply issues). So now we won't see any models with the M1X until the MBP redesign can be shown off, and even if ready before September, it will be at least then before we see it as summertime (at least here in the Northern hemisphere, where most big Apple markets are) is not a good time for maximum impact as too many people are on holiday at any one time.
I agree with you on the MBP delay (due to miniLED yields/supply issues, etc). Bit of a shame, but my 2018 mini is absolutely fine. I can wait until Q4 if necessary, so it's all good. More time to save :p
 
I kind of gave up on that Mini. I think it will never be released. I guess is I’ll just stick with my old Mac Pro.
 
I need that M1 Mini with 32 GB. 😵‍💫
I kind of gave up on that Mini. I think it will never be released. I guess is I’ll just stick with my old Mac Pro.
I’m 99.999…% certain there will never be a 32GB M1 option. However, there will be at least a 32GB choice with the M1X/M2. I do still foresee a later year event (September - November) announcing at least some of the upper tier models with an M1X/M2 -- perhaps the 14” and 16" MBP plus the higher end MM but maybe not the presumed 30” iMac until Spring 2022.
 
I’m 99.999…% certain there will never be a 32GB M1 option. However, there will be at least a 32GB choice with the M1X/M2. I do still foresee a later year event (September - November) announcing at least some of the upper tier models with an M1X/M2 -- perhaps the 14” and 16" MBP plus the higher end MM but maybe not the presumed 30” iMac until Spring 2022.

I hope so, I need that new computer soon…
 
I kind of gave up on that Mini. I think it will never be released. I guess is I’ll just stick with my old Mac Pro.

Yeah, if you need it for anything video related, anything that doesn't involve just chucking b-roll on a timeline and exporting tiktok shorts, the M1 Mini with even 16Gb is just not enough.

The M1 mini has only two things going for it, and it depends on those two things for its hype:
- internal disc access is fast, and I mean, lightening, the fastest thing in storage history, so fast that it can get away with swapping from memory all the time
- the chip, with built in basic acceleration for 8 bit formats like h264 and h265 gets incredible support from software - FCPX treats them as proxy and doesn't conform them in real time. I'm 99% sure it could be done on software level to any mac with dedicated graphics, but obviously Apple left it for Silicon to gain solid benchmark advantage.

Everything else on M1 is just iPad on steroids.

Silicon as a CPU, despite all the praise, can barely cut the mustard. Incredible read and write access helps a lot and Apple has done massive amount of work to create multiple ways in which the OS can accelerate otherwise very pedestrian amount of power, but use something that needs raw Hz - even ffmpeg encoding ProRes - and it runs slower than Intels many years ago.

The very few ports that M1 has are all crippled. It's all integrated and doesn't have half the stuff necessary for a desktop machine to work properly - so that Ipad power has to be diverted from basic resources all the time.
As a result monitors connected via Thunderbolt 4 randomly ghost and flicker on high contrast backgrounds when other stuff happens in the background. Monitors connected via HDMI randomly black out for fraction of a second, under heavy load.
Thunderbolt 4 hardware is stripped to bare minimum and has multiple display disabled, data speeds crippled and relies on external hubs to provide power and processing for multi device negotiation. It gets silly to the point where a fast SSD runs slower when connected to TB4 port of Mac Mini than via TB4 hub connected to the same TB4 port of Mac Mini (plenty of videos on YT to learn the chain of connections you need to gain extra speed).
Trouble with that solution is that TB4 hubs are licensed design, so there are only two or three versions of exactly the same motherboards on those hubs - it doesn't matter if you choose OWC, Kensington, Razer, CalDigit or Anker - it's the same stuff inside (check port layout on all those boxes and you'll see what I mean). One design for the small one and one design for the big hub. And because that design is properly TB4 compliant and our M1's are not, each and every one of them will be "buggy" on M1 Mac. All it takes to test is to connect a 40Gbps capable external drive to 10Gbps USB-A port on your hub (normally backwards compatible), and within a single transfer you M1 Mac will throw a hissy fit "this device use too much power" and will (oversimplifying) shut down negotiation with that port address. In truth, your M1 Mac is not providing power to that device, your hub is, but an iPad chip doesn't understand WTF is going on. By design it was only meant to have one port. The only way to regain that port/address on the hub from then on is to unplug and replug everything. Major pain in the backside.

Then there is the constant lack of memory. 16gb M1 Mini can spare you 16Gb of RAM and approx 40Gb of swap before excrement hits the fan. It completely loses track of things after that. That's about 5 minutes of ProRes media with reasonably busy layout of tracking points. Or, if you use plugins for spatial tracking, Silicon native MotionVFX 3D tracker can run out of the memory and all the swap across about 2 minutes of video. We will never be able to cheat those things. M1X/M2 doesn't need 32Gb of memory. It needs to come with options all the way to 128Gb or most of us are forked for another year until M3 or beyond.

From my rant you would think I'm angry - but I am not. I knew it was iPad on steroids when I bought it. You would think I am bitter - I am not. A little peed off that the rollout is so slow, I really thought M2 was just a matter of months, not years. I thought they had the whole Silicon thing sorted, seems not.
I don't have any bitterness or agenda. I'm just telling you, from my own experience, realistically, things that any i7 Mac could do without issues (other than slower disc access and lack of optimisation quirks than Silicon got in Big Sur) and M1 Mac Mini simply cannot. M1 is a benchmark wonder. But that's it. In FCPX M1 will start doing things faster but fall face down stumbling on its own shoe laces much quicker.
My workflow on M1 is now in few minute long chunks, mask, track, export, force quit FCPX when it runs out of all the memory, reopen, reimport exported media, do another chunk.
Why don't you buy Intel iMac Pro then, you ask - what's the point - Silicon is here to stay - support for Intel Mac's is on the way out. Spending any serious money on Intel Mac would be a very short term investment. There is simply no machine Apple can sell me at the moment - I just have to wait.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: AAPLGeek
Why would you think it would be a matter of months? They said when they first announced M1 that it would be a two year process to get all of the macs onto Apple Silicon. Even now it's only been 9 months.

If Apple Silicone doesn't meet your needs either buy an Intel one or wait for them to release an Apple Silicone Mac that does meet your needs. Spending money on an Intel mac may be a short term investment but it sounds like your consumer level M1 Mac wasn't good enough the moment you bought it so you should have sent it back. Seems like you bought a Nintendo Switch and are disappointed it doesn't do 4K like a PS5. These devices are targeted at consumers, not professionals; be patient.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacCheetah3
Why would you think it would be a matter of months? They said when they first announced M1 that it would be a two year process to get all of the macs onto Apple Silicon. Even now it's only been 9 months.

If Apple Silicone doesn't meet your needs either buy an Intel one or wait for them to release an Apple Silicone Mac that does meet your needs. Spending money on an Intel mac may be a short term investment but it sounds like your consumer level M1 Mac wasn't good enough the moment you bought it so you should have sent it back. Seems like you bought a Nintendo Switch and are disappointed it doesn't do 4K like a PS5. These devices are targeted at consumers, not professionals; be patient.

As I said - I'm not bitter. M1 mac mini was always a temporary stop gap for me. Admittedly I got 'swayed' by all the youtubers racing to their channels to absolutely assure me M1 was the best thing since sliced bread, how in their 2 minute benchmarks this thing was faster than 10 grand worth of iMac Pros, Pro editing of 4k was now a matter of seconds and 16Gb was to be the new 256Gb because of magical SoC implementation and whatever didn't fly on native optimised code, Rosetta 2 would run faster than on Intel.
Obviously none of it is true. M1 gen made nice bedroom machines and most of the speed advantage is SoC access to super fast storage. But that's all it is. In real world applications 16gb is just 20 years ago and cannot cope, Rosetta 2 is a crap shoot beach balling game and obviously Mac Mini isn't even close - in real world, outside of carefully selected for YT video benches - to even classic Mac Pro with modern PCIe card.
And I'm not complaining about it - I'm just sharing the realities of working on an iPad in Mac Mini chassis with forumite who asked. Don't expect wonders from M1, take the shill bidding for YouTube audience with a pinch of salt and wait, because despite all the praise and wet pants - 16Gb Mac Mini just ain't all that for anything more than browsing and light use. I'm talking about pragmatic examples from own, real world experience.

What does surprise me however, is the rollout. The same M1 chip with exactly the same internals is now running on half of the product line up - small MacBook Pro, Macbook Air, Mac Mini and small iMac. That leaves us with rollout to big MacBook Pro, big iMac, iMac Pro and Mac Pro still to come. When Apple announced 2 year transition, not for a second did I expect that they had no chip lineup ready to ship. I never thought they only had one, feature stripped, port crippled, memory limited iPad motherboard to offer to workstations.

Somehow, from all the hype and discussions I got the impression that this was a proper revolution. Proper "ef you Intel" move. That this was going to be like the PowerPC to Intel switch back in a day. That we are going to get M1 in November, shortly followed by M1X and M2 by the spring and by the end of year one each popular product - MacBook Pro, iMac and Mini - would have at least five different 'power levels' to choose from - you know - your "less ports" i3, full i3, i5, i7, i9 equivalent to select in store. Maybe even with multiple core clocking.

And that by the end of year two Intels would be out and we would be talking about selection of some whimsical gazillion, quatrillion and humpadillion core versions of Mac Pro chewing through 8k raw footage like cookies with tea.

Add that to a stupid, stupid, crazy idea of not preparing developers for it and here we are 9 months later with 98% of software still not ported and still not ready.

Why would I think it would be matter of months? Well - I don't recall such **** architecture rollout since... I don't know - nineties. WTF does that? Noone since like - Cyrix. If Intel announced big chip revolution - then started shipping a single Atom products for a year, then a year later added single Celeron, then eventually, two years down the line added another single chip, we would laugh them out of the internet.

But we all love Apple and this is Apple fan forum, so we are going to wait. And I'm not angry and I am not bitter. But if in November, they ship M1X with just two extra cores and 10% speed advantage and we'll have to wait for another year for another chip - then yes - I am going to be (angry and bitter).
 
Last edited:
Really want to change computer, but that 32 GB M1 isn't out yet. So annoying … I hope we see an M2 soon or anything else with 32 GB that isn't a Studio or too expensive.
 
The M2 mini will almost certainly cap out at 24GB. Hopefully the M2 Pro mini is real and comes out soon as well.
Why do you think it would have 24 GB? Isn't that an unusual number also?

And yeah, I wouldn't mind if it's a "Pro", didn't think of that. I think I need just at least 32 GB. My Mac right now has 32 GB and I don't feel comfortable having less.

What do you believe how much RAM the M2 Pro could have at most?
 
Why do you think it would have 24 GB? Isn't that an unusual number also?

And yeah, I wouldn't mind if it's a "Pro", didn't think of that. I think I need just at least 32 GB. My Mac right now has 32 GB and I don't feel comfortable having less.

What do you believe how much RAM the M2 Pro could have at most?
24GB is the maximum RAM in the M2 13” MacBook Pro and M2 MacBook Air, so it follows that the same limitations will apply to the M2 in the mini.
 
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?

M2 has 24 GB so Apple determined that there was a decent market for more than 16 GB of RAM. I partition my workflow on an M1 mini with 16 GB of RAM and an old iMac with 32 GB of RAM. It gets the job done but the mini would run most of both with 24 GB of RAM (except for the Windows Virtual Machine). If you need 32 GB, there's always the Studio.
 
I went from my M1 Mini 8GB to a M1 Max Mac Studio 32GB and absolutely loving it.

Running both new Apple Studio Display and Apple Thunderbolt Displays side by side is perfect for my needs.

Who would believe you can run a 11 year old display alongside a new Apple display is amazing how flexible the Mac Studio is...
IMG_8808.jpg
 
I went from my M1 Mini 8GB to a M1 Max Mac Studio 32GB and absolutely loving it.

Running both new Apple Studio Display and Apple Thunderbolt Displays side by side is perfect for my needs.

Who would believe you can run a 11 year old display alongside a new Apple display is amazing how flexible the Mac Studio is...
View attachment 2098461
If you ran the Mac Studio with the Thunderbolt Display as your primary monitor, do you think it would be awful? I know the resolution is half but I'm coming from a 22" 1080 screen and was considering a Thunderbolt Display...
 
M2 has 24 GB so Apple determined that there was a decent market for more than 16 GB of RAM. I partition my workflow on an M1 mini with 16 GB of RAM and an old iMac with 32 GB of RAM. It gets the job done but the mini would run most of both with 24 GB of RAM (except for the Windows Virtual Machine). If you need 32 GB, there's always the Studio.

that'd be great if the studio wasn't more than double the price simply to satisfy the request of 32GB of ram. all of my non-mac desktops and laptops are either 32GB or 64GB and have been for a while. i guess i shouldnt expect any different from them
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.