Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Rather than comparing Apple's upgrade prices o_O to the base model, just price the model with the features you want. Storage, RAM, etc. Then ask yourself if that price has value to you. You know you're not going to buy a base model machine, so there's no point in comparing that price to what you'll buy. You only need to worry about whether the machine you want is at a price you agree with, not the price of a different machine, that a person with different needs, is going to buy.

Good luck with your new Mini, I hope it all works out well and it's a great machine for you!
Thanks I think it should work. If it doesn't, it was pretty inexpensive.


Not everything in macOS works if you boot off an external SSD. That may or may not matter to you though.
Wow you replied fast. I just finished editing my last reply to you. Lol!
Yeah I'm vaguely aware of that. I think I heard Apple Intelligence doesn't work. I've never used it so I don't really care about that. I was on Mojave up until 2024. My Macbook Pro is still on Monterey right now and only because I've actively decided to finally try out Big Sur and then six months later Monterey. Because some app I was trying out needed it. An app I didn't even end up liking/using. I completely skipped Catalina. So I'm not the type to stay up on the times with this stuff.
Maybe there is more it can't do that way, I don't know yet. But so far so good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jumpthesnark
I don't edit off internal memory, I edit off 3.5" external hard drives.
The issue is that with just 16 GB RAM the Mac OS and its Unified Memory Architecture (UMA) will be swapping to SSD a lot. Even fast SSDs are at best ~1/8 as fast as RAM and have really awful latency (milliseconds rather than nanoseconds); slower SSDs are even worse, and overfilled SSDs can be a disaster.

UMA is one of the reasons Apple's SoC performs so well. At the same time, suboptimal RAM can quickly impact performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ishimura
The issue is that with just 16 GB RAM the Mac OS and its Unified Memory Architecture (UMA) will be swapping to SSD a lot. Even fast SSDs are at best ~1/8 as fast as RAM and have really awful latency (milliseconds rather than nanoseconds); slower SSDs are even worse, and overfilled SSDs can be a disaster.

UMA is one of the reasons Apple's SoC performs so well. At the same time, suboptimal RAM can quickly impact performance.
Well we'll see how it goes but I've been fine with 16GBs for all these years and nothing has really changed.
 
The point is not so much that commenters like me "think everyone is editing 8K multicam," but rather that we are advising what our experience suggests that a new box intended to "last me at least 11 years" doing "professional video editing" should consist of for the coming 11 years.

We all agree that M4 chips even at base level will show a perceived speed bump to most folks accustomed to older Intel Mac minis when performing identical work today. But today is not what a new box is bought for, a new box is bought intending a configuration that "will last me at least 11 years like my last one did."

I recommend against anyone intending a professional Resolve workflow choosing Apple's lowest-end Mac with 16 GB RAM when configuring a new box. Of course the work can be performed, but it will already be sub-optimal on the very first day the box is used. That is not the right way to configure a new box for any kind of professional usage.

Each of us should read up on Apple's Unified Memory Architecture, and grok how RAM is used for everything; also the much faster speed and hugely reduced latency when using RAM. Although never editing 8K video means missing one RAM hog, all kinds of things use RAM in an upcoming 11-year Resolve workflow.

Most professional users would also want to use other apps concurrent with usage of Resolve. Constantly opening and closing apps to cope with insufficient memory is hella inefficient in any professional workflow.

Edit: Note that I reference 11 years only because the OP did so. Personally I consider 5-7 years to be my personal rational planning horizon but recognize that some others prefer 3-5 years, or 10-12 like the OP. Any planning horizon is OK: what is important is that we acknowledge that the planning horizon exists.

Changing the planning horizon to 5-7 years would not change my recommendations. However I have recently learned that M2 chips may not support the AV1 video codec that might be relevant to the OP's work, so I retract my earlier suggestion to seek an M2 Studio.
I’ll refer and defer to Larry Jordan’s recommendations for configuring an M4 mini for video editing - https://larryjordan.com/articles/configuring-an-m4-mac-for-video-editing/ - and for the OP’s usage the 16/256 will be sufficient, even though I wouldn’t recommend that storage for any video professional.

My point being that what is insufficient for one might not be for another and that it’s really subjective. I wouldn’t want to edit on a 16GB/256GB myself, but I’m fine on my 24GB/1TB. I expect it will last me another 3-5 years or longer depending on where I go. I don’t expect any Mac to last 10 years just due to tech churn and I don’t buy for that length of time anyways. Most people shouldn’t.
 
I'm considering just going base with an external SSD and starting fresh with macOS and installing all my big apps externally.

I'll let everyone else argue about storage size, but I will say you want the apps on your internal drive and your big projects on an external SSD. Pick a good fast external drive and you won't notice much of a difference relative to the internal storage even if you were accustomed to more modern hardware.

You'll want your apps and system files on the internal drive though, that's what will make the machine feel more responsive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jumpthesnark
I'll let everyone else argue about storage size, but I will say you want the apps on your internal drive and your big projects on an external SSD. Pick a good fast external drive and you won't notice much of a difference relative to the internal storage even if you were accustomed to more modern hardware.

You'll want your apps and system files on the internal drive though, that's what will make the machine feel more responsive.
There is no more argument, I already bought the machine yesterday and installed the OS on the external SSD. No plans to send Apple any more money for overpriced storage or ram for at least a few years.
 
People get this weird idea in their head that all video editing needs super resource intensive computers. It doesn't
That is very true, sacrilege for some.

Yes, video can be edited on the base level machines of all models in the Apple system. Most likely quite nicely. My consideration is that if doing so is the person's profession, where they make money, then don't do so on the cheap. If a video can be rendered in 5 minutes versus 7 minutes that is not much in the scheme of things. When doing so professionally, time is money. Dozens of videos, saving two minutes each time, adds up to people time. That people time is expensive.

For the occasional video editing, home users, the hobbyist, the base model of the Mini, the Air, iMac, and MBP would do just fine. Even putting the resource files on an external drive is not an issue. The working professional, yes, it is an issue in my opinion.
I already bought the machine yesterday and installed the OS on the external SSD
Storage may not be an issue, but RAM may become an issue at some point. That cannot be externalized. Personally I think the OS is smart enough to properly allocate and manage the base memory.

There are people on here that think systems have to be maxed out, 16 Gig is joke, etc. Those people are really good at telling other people how to spend someone else's money when in reality, they are clueless. They most likely don't work in the real world and have nothing to back up their claims other than benchmarks which are far from real world working performance.

Using swap is no big deal as that solid state drive is fast. Long gone are the days of waiting on spinning rust. Swap files may get large, but swapping does not take place that often and is not really a bottleneck.

In the days of big iron where a couple hundred users were using the mainframe, swapping was a real performance issue. Multiple jobs, dozens maybe, were being run at the same time. On a Mac (or PC) there may be dozens of applications open at the same time, but generally only one is being actively used. Swapping the idle apps to disk is trivial and is only done when switching apps. Something that is much faster than the user. The only exception in my use has been using Lightroom, importing, or exporting images. Swapping is not a problem, the CPU is the bottleneck.

But you know what? If you are happy, if it works for you, then good for you. Enjoy your system and ignore the naysayers. There are no incorrect decisions as everyone's needs, wants, and cash, are different.
 
My consideration is that if doing so is the person's profession, where they make money, then don't do so on the cheap.
See I think the difference here is that I'm not looking at in in terms of cost, I'm looking at performance.
Let's forget for a moment that I spent $449 on this machine.
The question is, is it more powerful than my 2017 MBP that I'm perfectly happy editing on? Yes. Even that computer can handle more than I'm giving it. In fact I expect I'll continue to use that machine for the next 3-5 years as well. Really this mac mini is just insurance in case that one breaks. Plus a little bit of me just wanting to try the new Apple silicon macs to see what all the hype is about.
If a video can be rendered in 5 minutes versus 7 minutes that is not much in the scheme of things. When doing so professionally, time is money. Dozens of videos, saving two minutes each time, adds up to people time. That people time is expensive.

For the occasional video editing, home users, the hobbyist, the base model of the Mini, the Air, iMac, and MBP would do just fine. Even putting the resource files on an external drive is not an issue. The working professional, yes, it is an issue in my opinion.

I think a lot of people are hung up on the word "professional" and seem to think that means I'm constantly banging out videos all day long. If that was the case, I agree. In fact we wouldn't be having this conversion because I'd be loaded with cash and have a Mac Pro sitting on my desk or probably a Mac Studio these days. But even then I would have probably bought those just because I had all that cash laying around. My increase in project frequency would not necessarily mean an increase in project complexity. It would just mean I'm sitting at my computer editing more often than I am, as the work would be more consistent. A nice problem to have.

The video I rendered last night completed in 37 seconds on my 2017 Macbook Pro editing off footage on an external spinning hard drive. That's typical of the kind of videos I produce. Once I make the full switch to my new mini (waiting on a new TB4 enclosure today to migrate) then I expect similar results. If it does the same, awesome! If it performs better, even better. If it's worse, it depends how much worse and I assess it from there. But if the hype is real it should handle more than my 2017 MBP does. I'll let you all know.

Storage may not be an issue, but RAM may become an issue at some point. That cannot be externalized. Personally I think the OS is smart enough to properly allocate and manage the base memory.

There are people on here that think systems have to be maxed out, 16 Gig is joke, etc. Those people are really good at telling other people how to spend someone else's money when in reality, they are clueless. They most likely don't work in the real world and have nothing to back up their claims other than benchmarks which are far from real world working performance.

Using swap is no big deal as that solid state drive is fast. Long gone are the days of waiting on spinning rust. Swap files may get large, but swapping does not take place that often and is not really a bottleneck.

In the days of big iron where a couple hundred users were using the mainframe, swapping was a real performance issue. Multiple jobs, dozens maybe, were being run at the same time. On a Mac (or PC) there may be dozens of applications open at the same time, but generally only one is being actively used. Swapping the idle apps to disk is trivial and is only done when switching apps. Something that is much faster than the user. The only exception in my use has been using Lightroom, importing, or exporting images. Swapping is not a problem, the CPU is the bottleneck.

But you know what? If you are happy, if it works for you, then good for you. Enjoy your system and ignore the naysayers. There are no incorrect decisions as everyone's needs, wants, and cash, are different.

I agree that if there is one thing I might have upgraded it would be ram. That has been a bottleneck for me at times. But only because I'll have 200+ chrome tabs open and my Plex server running off the machine at the same time I'm trying to edit. If I close chrome, the issue goes away. But even then it's not always an issue. If I've only got 50-100 tabs open it's fine usually. So the question is, do I want to pay Apple $200 more for the luxury of not needing to close a bunch of Chrome tabs when I edit? I'm thinking no. But then part of my problem is I'm looking over at my girlfriend who is a PC gamer and she can go out and buy 32GBs of ram for less than $80 and pop it in her machine. And she can do that upgrade whenever she wants. But Apple wants me to pay $200 for 8GBs of ram when I first buy the machine. As a mac user you have to just ignore the existence of PCs but it's hard to do when I have 2012 era PC on my desk next to my macs and my girlfriend has a 2023 era PC in our bedroom that I helped her build. It makes it really hard on me psychologically to give Apple that tax. If only I hadn't been so spoiled by MacOS. But the silver lining is that Apple does make hardware that usually last a long time and their support is the best I've seen. So that needs to be accounted for as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nguyen Duc Hieu
First new mac since 2017. Even then I was using my 2012 Mac Mini until Feb 2024 when a power surge fried it. Been on my 2017 MacBook Pro i7 for everything since then.
I do professional video editing. Recently moved from Premiere Pro to Resolve. Now it's time to get a second mac again and I'm planning to pick up a 16/256 Mini.
Best decision of your life to buy a 16/256GB mini M4, the performance/price ratio is just incredible! :cool:
With this mini M4 in its base configuration, I have no memory issues with Resolve, while editing in 4K. Of course, with only 256GB internal storage, it's wise/essential to invest in external SSDs. As I did myself. Very satisfied with the speed of my heavy apps installed on my 2TB Sandisk Extreme.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roxics
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.