Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Your scenario is likely. However the real question is about ports. Now that Studio exists to fill the midrange very well with a bunch of very fast and flexible ports, personally I do not see Apple continuing to make two different port configurations for the future Minis that comprise Apple's low end. So, what ports does the M2 Mini get? My guess (because we now have Studio) is not the full complement that Intel Mini has.

An ancillary question is: how many displays does Apple allow an M2 Mini to drive?
Regarding the M2 *PRO* Mac Mini:

I would assume the port situation will roughly match the M1 Pro MBP combined the M1 Mac mini:
  • 3 USB-C TB/USB 4 ports
  • HDMI
  • SD Card
  • Ethernet
  • Headphone
  • 2 USB-A
  • Power

Supporting:
  • Two displays with up to 6K resolution at 60Hz connected via Thunderbolt and one display with up to 4K resolution at 60Hz connected via HDMI
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tagbert
Please explain why AIOs do not interest you and what your use case is.
Tia
I think most of us expect to upgrade the compute portion more often than the display portion. An AIO forces you to either keep a computer longer than you want to or to discard the whole thing, including montor, sooner than you would want. Yes, an AIO is more convenient in some ways but it does force you in an all or nothing upgrade cycle.
 
I am rather confused with the amount of hate for Gurman. He is overall more reliable than most leakers.

Only behind Ross Young.
I kid you not, I treat Ross Young's claims as essentially facts lol.

He has never been wrong once with his leaks (the one time he was wrong was because his friend trolled him).

Mad respect to the guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ProfessionalFan
I kid you not, I treat Ross Young's claims as essentially facts lol.

He has never been wrong once with his leaks (the one time he was wrong was because his friend trolled him).

Mad respect to the guy.
Same. Unfortunately his leaks are isolated to screen tech as far as I know so we don't get much from him. But when we do get it, its good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vtuberalpha
I would assume the port situation will roughly match the M1 Pro MBP combined the M1 Mac mini:
  • 3 USB-C TB/USB 4 ports
  • HDMI
  • SD Card
  • Ethernet
  • Headphone
  • 2 USB-A

Supporting:
  • Two displays with up to 6K resolution at 60Hz connected via Thunderbolt and one display with up to 4K resolution at 60Hz connected via HDMI
IMO your forecast may be too ambitious, given that the M1 Mini only has two TB ports and only supports two external displays. I will be very surprised if Apple configures Mini to drive more than two displays, since the Studio now exists to fill that role.
 
Last edited:
I am super curious to see how the MacPro will fare when it comes to graphics.
How will it compare to, say, a 3080? Or a 4090?

Will the Pro-architecture be user upgradable in any way?
Will Apple allow/enable GPU upgrades? RAM upgrades? SSD upgrades? How?

Exciting! (Though I fear I will be extremely disappointed when/if Apple reveals another "closed" Apple Silicon system-design for the Pro market).
 
Am I the only one baffled by the lack of a decent mid-range desktop? The Mac Mini and the iMac are both base M1. The Studio has a Max and Ultra option, which are beyond most peoples needs and budget. There are no Pro chip desktops. If you want that level of performance you buy a MacBook Pro. The 16" MacBook Pro offers a Max option, so there's some overlap between the laptop and high-performance desktop... If Apple can squeeze the performance out of a laptop, surely we can expect the same from a desktop machine?

Perhaps the 24" iMac is heat constrained, but that's just one more reason to bring back a larger iMac that so many people are asking for. Surely a Mac Mini chassis that was able to dissipate Intel heat levels for years can handle a Pro level chip.

I'm really hoping the M2 generation gives us back reasonably performant desktops. The lack of any predictions in this space is as baffling as the lack of options in the first place. Do people really only buy very low end or high end?
I agree. A Mx Pro chip hits a sweet spot for me in terms of RAM and CPU core count. For my workload I don't really need GPU cores and I don't really need the added expense of a laptop. Desktop machine is all I need.

Something I've not seen anyone talk about is the downsides of unified memory. On my work 2018 Macbook Pro, the discrete GPU sports 4GB of memory. That gets mostly used up when using with an external monitor with a couple of virtual desktops (spaces). That means an AS chip with 16GB of RAM would likely only end up with 12GB of usable RAM as 4GB will go to GPU. That's really not enough RAM. Sure there's swap but that'll always be much slower than if you have sufficient RAM.
 
IMO your forecast may be too ambitious, given that the M1 Mini only has two TB ports and only supports two external displays. I will be very surprised if Apple configures Mini to drive more than two displays.

I would be surprised if I was wrong, but almost anything is possible.

The M1 MBA and M1 Mini share "2 displays total" and two TB ports.

Given that the M1 Pro MBP supports "3 displays total" and 3 TB ports, I don't see why an M2 Pro Mac Mini couldn't as well.
 
Am I the only one who isn't excited at all about the new MacBook Pros after the disaster that is the refreshed iPad lineup?

Can't help but feel my optimism wither away...

Well considering I have been waiting for M2 or M3 to get a new MBP, I am pretty excited.

I don’t care about iPads, so whatever they do with that lineup is meh to me. Although I do agree that iPad lightning to usb pencil charger is pretty offensive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Allen_Wentz
I agree. A Mx Pro chip hits a sweet spot for me in terms of RAM and CPU core count. For my workload I don't really need GPU cores and I don't really need the added expense of a laptop. Desktop machine is all I need.

Something I've not seen anyone talk about is the downsides of unified memory. On my work 2018 Macbook Pro, the discrete GPU sports 4GB of memory. That gets mostly used up when using with an external monitor with a couple of virtual desktops (spaces). That means an AS chip with 16GB of RAM would likely only end up with 12GB of usable RAM as 4GB will go to GPU. That's really not enough RAM. Sure there's swap but that'll always be much slower than if you have sufficient RAM.

Tradeoffs. On a Mac Studio with 128GB of RAM, you are suddenly looking at a iGPU with an impossible amount of RAM :)
 
Your scenario is likely. However the real question is about ports. Now that Studio exists to fill the midrange very well with a bunch of very fast and flexible ports, personally I do not see Apple continuing to make two different port configurations for the future Minis that comprise Apple's low end. So, what ports does the M2 Mini get? My guess (because we now have Studio) is not the full complement that Intel Mini has.

An ancillary question is: how many displays does Apple allow an M2 Mini to drive?
As long as there are a handful of USB-C/Thunderbolt ports, then there are going to be a bunch of fast and flexible ports. I'm sure there will be at least four of those and that is enough. Also I would not be shocked at all if there were still legacy USB-A ports and/or a headphone jack. Apple seems to have pivoted away from killing ports. Though both of those types of ports are very long in the tooth. I've got a mini on my desk and nothing plugged into the USB-A or the headphone jack. Though now that you mentioned it and I looked at it, I've got a scanner that uses USB-A, which is plugged into an adapter to use the USB-C. I'm going to change that right now though it works fine either way.

Nice question on displays. The answer has to be at least two and the question will be if it can drive three. I'm going to guess no on three displays.
 
I am super curious to see how the MacPro will fare when it comes to graphics.
How will it compare to, say, a 3080? Or a 4090?

Will the Pro-architecture be user upgradable in any way?
Will Apple allow/enable GPU upgrades? RAM upgrades? SSD upgrades? How?

Exciting! (Though I fear I will be extremely disappointed when/if Apple reveals another "closed" Apple Silicon system-design for the Pro market).

I imagine an M2 Quadra Mac Pro will definitively be competition for a 3080ti, but depending on how that is architected, it is a little hard to be sure what overhead Apple might have to lose.

Nothing is stopping Apple from having some PCIe slots on an M2 system.

GPU upgrade: no, except may be as a specific hardware accelerator

RAM upgrade: probably not

SSD Upgrade: The boot drives maybe via the Apple store like you can TODAY with the Mac Pro, but adding MORE PCIe SSDs would be easily.

The kicker is, the M1 doesn't seem to have barely any PCIe lanes, and even if each 4x PCIe lane powered TB can be converted BACK to PCIe... there's not a lot those either. Time will tell what the M2 Quadra will look like :)
 
IMO your forecast may be too ambitious, given that the M1 Mini only has two TB ports and only supports two external displays. I will be very surprised if Apple configures Mini to drive more than two displays, since the Studio now exists to fill that role.
Oh, I was ONLY intending to talk about the M2 Pro Mini.
The normal M2 Mini will be the same as the M1 Mini, of course.
 
I think most of us expect to upgrade the compute portion more often than the display portion. An AIO forces you to either keep a computer longer than you want to or to discard the whole thing, including montor, sooner than you would want. Yes, an AIO is more convenient in some ways but it does force you in an all or nothing upgrade cycle.

Yep. In 2018 I went with the Mac mini instead of an AIO. There is a minor pain point in making that switch because iMacs are so good and so cheap. But I'm just at the point of starting to reap the benefits of my switch. I'm currently using an Apple Studio Display with my 2018 Mac mini. So I got a display bump while the computer part was still good enough. I will consider replacing the Mac mini to the new M2 Mini. But more likely replace the mini with the M3 mini in late 2023 or 2024 when it comes out. The Studio Display will likely be my display until it breaks. And it might at some point serve as a secondary display.
 
I thought the Mac Pro was just going to be 2 M2/M3 Ultras stuck together.
M2 Max have to be architected with enough bandwidth off package to interconnect with another Ultra package. While it is possible, wiring up two sockets (which will be slower anyway) seems just more complicated, and not something we've even heard hinted at. I would assume 4 chiplets on package using an improved Fusion interconnect.
 
I would be surprised if I was wrong, but almost anything is possible.

The M1 MBA and M1 Mini share "2 displays total" and two TB ports.

Given that the M1 Pro MBP supports "3 displays total" and 3 TB ports, I don't see why an M2 Pro Mac Mini couldn't as well.
Agreed an M2 Pro Mac Mini probably could as well. The reason it might not would be about engineering, marketing and product placement. Does Apple want to encourage heavier users driving 3 displays to do it with a Mini, or does Apple think those users should move up a tier to the Studio? It probably has to do with how much heat Apple expects M2 Pro chips driving 3-display workflows to be creating.
 
An almost unbroken record here. I buy something and Apple updates it just outside of the return period. iPad Pro? Yep. Mac IIcx? Yep. iMac? Yep, even that. Mac Mini? Apparently...
Oh wow, that brings back horrible memories. I was bitten by the Mac IIcx, having bought it for over $6000, and a few months later Apple comes out with the IIci. Yes, this was during the days when Apple computers cost well over $5000 for their consumer computers. I think that might have been the shortest time between Mac releases ever.

Looking it up, the Mac IIcx came out in March 1989 and the IIci came out in September 1989. The IIci was a significant power increase, going from a Motorola 68030 running at 16MHz to a 68030 running at 25MHz. Those were dark days.

I was also bitten by the shortest upgrade cycle for iPads, having bought the iPad 3, which came out in March 2012, and then the iPad 4 came out in October 2012 with a dramatic power increase.
 
The M1 Max and Ultra have 4x and 8x the GPU cores of M1 (32 and 64 vs. 8). Given that the M2 has 10 GPU cores, why is Gurman predicting 4, 8, and 16 x 9.5 (= 38, 76, and 152) GPU cores for the Max, Ultra and Extreme—instead of 4, 8, and 16 x 10 (= 40, 80, and 160) GPU cores? Some have suggested this is binning, but I'm not sure. After all, they didn't need to bin the max GPU cores on M1 Ultra down from 64.

And why wouldn't Apple make use of the 12 GB LPDDR5 sticks they're offering on the M2 Air (which enables the 24 GB RAM option with that machine)? With those, max RAM for the M2 Max, Ultra, and Extreme would be 96 GB, 192 GB, and 384 GB, respectively (instead of the 64/128/256 GB max RAM options predicted by Gurman).

One possibility (this is pure speculation) is that Apple was able to go with LPDDR5x RAM for these new models, but that RAM is currently available with a max of 8 GB sticks.
 
Last edited:
AIOs do not interest me because because they force-fit the computer with a single display, forever.

A) Displays and the computers that drive them wear out at different times.

B) Different users have different display needs and different computer needs. E.g. image folks need great color accuracy and should invest in pricey displays, whereas a coder, or a music designer, or an MS Office using person can get by with a cheaper display. Similarly on the computer side different folks have different needs.

C) Displays and computer needs may change independently. E.g. one gets involved in a new app that demands more horsepower that means the current computer needs upgrading - - but the current display remains perfect.

My personal use case evolved over decades from desktop + laptop, to maxed out MBP, to MBP driving three 4K displays; and crossed all the issues A+B+C above. Hence my disdain for AIOs. My primary need for horsepower revolves around manipulating tens of thousands of large still image files, however history has taught me that next year is likely to involve different computing demands.

Since computers last me 3-5 years I prefer to buy the latest tech available, and I plan to meet future years' possible demands, not today's. Also I look at what Apple is up to. E.g. Apple has been on a run of increasing RAM in its boxes. Why? What is Apple planning for? I have no clue, but certainly in planning for the future 3-5 years I will buy more (non-upgradeable) RAM, not whatever worked for last year's workflow.
Excellent, THANK YOU, and I agree!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rokkus76
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.