Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Gurman: M1 Pro Mac Mini 'Now Off the Table' as Apple's Focus Turns to M2 and M2 Pro Options
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
By your definition a MacBook Pro could be described as just an M1 Mac Mini with different packaging, and an attached fold down screen.
The Studio Max has 2 M1 CPU boards and coprocessors literally joined together to form a more powerful cooperative processor that shares resources without needing a bunch of memory tied up as buffers for each of the individual cores. The Ultra does the same thing again, add another 2 boards and you have even more memory and CPU and graphics. This concept seems to scale pretty well from smaller CPU/GPU/Neural engines that are in the base model Mac Mini/MacBook Air up to MacBook Pro model laptops and Studio model Mac computers. They just keep adding another processor board to get from Mac to Mac Max to Mac Ultra in whatever product line they are updating. Physical space and marketing has more to do with whether a product line has features such as copious video and I/O ports than whether the computer is a Mini or a Studio or a laptop.
How much of a delta are people expecting here? Mac Studio starts with 32GB of RAM. The difference between an M1 Pro (binned version) and M1 Max is $500. So would a Mac Mini with 16GB of RAM and a M* Pro at $1,500 be worth it? We need less configs not more. This was a big issue with Apple back in the day.
There is just one chip die in the Max. No "2 M1 CPU boards" at all. The M1 has 4P and 4E CPU cores. The Pro and Max have 8P and 2E CPU cores. If doubled up the M1, that would bee 8P + 8E ... it is not.
Apple unveils M1 Ultra, the world’s most powerful chip for a personal computer
Apple today announced M1 Ultra, the next giant leap for Apple silicon and the Mac.
www.apple.com
The only two with a "double" factor is the Max and Ultra which are linked by a third chip (Ultrafusion) that lies below the connection on the right. The Pro and Max has a large amount of design overlap (and implementation reuse), but are constructed from two different die masks.
The M1 is shaped differently than the others. It is more squarish. The others are more rectangular. Accommodating more and larger memory packages drives that. (what is done with two physical packages on the M1 is enclosed in a even more customer single package for the others. ). So the memory access layouts are clustered differently also.
There is a high degree of overlap between several 'building block' design elements here across these different implementations, but there is also substantive differences internal connectivity infrastructure used to combine those basic blocks.
Things go a bit too far to connote that they are just snapping together legos here. That is an oversimplification. They are following a path to share design costs between dies but they are different dies.
And the "Max" die is unlikely to snap together into a quad set up unmodified either.
A M2 Pro Mini will probably keep the same port layout that the current surviving Intel model has. (maybe even default to 10GbE ... although with inflation pricing increases likely coming perhaps not.)
The M2 Mini won't. ( somewhat similar to the cheesy iMac 24" entry model pruning off two USB-C ports to push the 4 port config pricing up. )
The fundamental flaw here (need less configurations) is that the Studio has been positioned by Apple to take the iMac 27" place. There is no previous huge problem before when the Mini 2018 had a lower and upper end range and the iMac had two groupings. Same thing is basically true no only the top end "iMac" component to the set up doesn't have a screen attached. Still have two groups of two. There is no big expansion or contraction in options.
It is a bit if gross overkill that this is some kind of complexity problem that would explode buyers head from the required effort of thought. Most buyers are going to get segmented by a couple of hundred of dollars. When smaller discretionary spending budgets even more so.
The $699 - $1999 price range has more people in it than the $2,099 - 4,099 range does. That is why having a MBA , MBP 13" , and MBP 14" also works.
The M2 Mini will be generally more affordable than the rest. So the folks looking for most affordable will find it.
A M2 Pro Mini will be more affordable than a Studio. And substantially more space effecient if trying to rack/mount it in locations a Mini has been increasingly mounted/racked over the last 8=10 years. Same reason why Apple is still selling an Intel model 1.5+ years after the M1 mini came out.
The M1/M2 Max Studio will be more affordable than the upper end of of the desktop line up. The 27" iMac did just fine there previously.
A M1/M2 Ultra Studio will be more affordable than an Intel Mac Pro (and very probably the M-series one also).
Those all 'fit'. A bigger "is there room in the line up" question would be could Apple put a large screen iMac back into the line up or not with low fratricide. Just because the Studio has some physical characteristics to the Mini doesn't means it is playing the role in the line up as the historical Mini.
The M-series line up is generally more "powerful" at the bottom than before so there will be some pulling some users out of the more expensive models into less expensive models. That really isn't a new issue. As laptops got more capable users bought more laptops than desktops. The whole PC market over last 40 years has been moving folks from "bigger" machines to smaller ones. That isn't really 'new'. The models at the middle and high end are pulling folks down off of larger machines also. So generally it all just rebalances to have viable models across the line up.
that $1499 price point is exactly where people are thinking a Mac mini with M2 Pro would land. There is no M1 Mini that can meet that configuration, you are spec’ing the Intel Mini which is the only one with 32GB of RAM.
Last edited:
At $1499 and you will still need a monitor, which if you stick with Apple means $1600 additional dollars. So for a 27 inch IMac equivalent that you could have paid $2000 for in 2019 you will now need to spend $3100 dollars.
Prices are not set in stone. I don’t expect a certain level of capability to remain at the same price forever. But I don’t know if you can equate a (still theoretical) $1499 M2 Mac Mini to be a 2022 equivalent to a 2019 27” iMac. Especially since to get a 5k color matched screen, which you would automatically have with the iMac, you HAVE to spend at least $3100. Cheaper monitors are 4K, and clustered around $1100-1300 dollars and there aren’t a lot of 5 or 6k monitors from anyone in the market for less than the $1499 Apple Studio monitor.
Unless you already have one you didn't have to give up when you give up the machine. That's kinda the point of the mini for me: I don't have to buy a new monitor every time I get a new Mac. My monitor is 4K, not 5K, but really, that doesn't matter to me (after all, my first Mac had a 0.5K screen). It doesn't match in color, but again, that doesn't matter to me. I think I paid $400 for the monitor, because a 60Hz display is enough for me. And so on.
I used to do iMacs. I don't anymore.
It’s the cost of the transition that is giving my second thoughts second thoughts. I don’t really need a laptop, and I want a larger screen than a 14 or 16 inch MacBook Pro. Having to pay to get a computer with a more powerful processor I expected. Having to upgrade memory and hard drives and pay a premium I don’t like but it’s not a surprise. Getting hit with those extra costs and then having to buy an expensive monitor I didn’t think would happen.
Yes...the transition is a transition to the next "new" technology and therefore has a premium cost.
An example: I have a LG 4K monitor I paid about $550 for two years ago. Wonderful monitor coming from the Apple Thunderbolt Monitor (still use...great monitor). LG 4K matted...nice. ONCE I upgrade to the fast processor of the 16" MacBook Pro 2021 (I needed it as I use it professionally) and when side by side with my wonderful 4K monitor, my eyes NOW see the difference. the 4K LG is good, but not totally clear due to the scaling. It WAS acceptable UNTIL I upgraded. I work in the video field. I can live with it..but NOW after upgrading, the MacBook Pro's screen is just way too good, making the 4k monitor now sub-par. I will live with it because my wallet cannot handle the Apple Studio display cost...but it is what it is.
Then..with the new technology in my newly purchased MacBook Pro 2021 with fast internal SSD Apple integrated with CPU technology...way too fast for my thunderbolt 3 OWC and external disks when using it as the project disk(s) for video. Even with RAID 0. Will eventually have to put more costs when externals can catchup with the technology. This is a never-ending battle (and expected). Knowing this...so I purchased and extra 1 TB when I bought the MacBook Pro to use the extra space for important smaller projects (learned the hard way in past purchases of MacBook Pros...)
All that said, people need to factor in the additional costs when upgrading when newer technology arrives. Love the new technology, but if you been around awhile...you KNOW that you have to eventually replace all the "other" stuff that makes your workflow work. It's the name of the game. Yes..older things are "somewhat compatible" but not the same.
No, I was not spec’ing the Intel Mini.
I was just adding in the cost of what 32GB would cost (based on other models).
It’s not a complicated calculation…
For an investment of $1499, it just feels like you’d be getting a crippled Studio in an inferior housing.
I keep waiting and waiting for a machine to replace my 2012 Mini that won't feel like a downgrade.
Model Name: Mac mini
Model Identifier: Macmini6,2
Processor Name: Quad-Core Intel Core i7
Processor Speed: 2.3 GHz
Number of Processors: 1
Total Number of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB
L3 Cache: 6 MB
Hyper-Threading Technology: Enabled
Memory: 16 GB
Internal Storage: 1 TB Micron SSD
Model Name: Mac mini
Model Identifier: Macmini6,2
Processor Name: Quad-Core Intel Core i7
Processor Speed: 2.3 GHz
Number of Processors: 1
Total Number of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB
L3 Cache: 6 MB
Hyper-Threading Technology: Enabled
Memory: 16 GB
Internal Storage: 1 TB Micron SSD
For $500 less and you mainly are missing some GPU cores that many people have no use for. If they do an M2 Pro in the Mini, no reason they couldn’t bring in some more ports, like the Mini traditionally has.
$2000 is 33% more than $1500. That's a lot. If you can't recognize that difference, you either: a) have a lot of money or b) are extremely bad with it.
Yes…but the M1 Mini is not a downgrade. In fact, it runs circles around any mini before (and can keep up with my Mac Pro 6,1 12-core, 64 RAM 1TB SSD on many tasks..sometimes better).
The 2012 mini at the time was one of the best for the money. With 4-core at the time and 16 GBs of memory (add a SSD) for what it was…it was great. Fully upgradable etc. I still use it with a thunderbolt monitor to this day.
Can’t see why you see even the M1 Mini as a downgrade. Has the ports, but only downside is it is not upgradable (but that is expected with Apple silicone).
I bought a 2012-era Mac mini in 2014, about a month before Apple scooped half its brains out, and it's a great machine. Right now it's running my music, my Time Machine backups, and also my local git hub.
Probably October. That's (typically) the final and Mac-focused event.
Only problem is official support ends in a matter of weeks with final security updates for Catalina.
As previously mentioned the M1 runs rings around it, and if you need more native ports then the 2018 Intel one smashes it too and comes with Ram expandability.
I’d love to upgrade my 2012 base model i5 and I’m still in a wait and see till M1 is replaced situation.
The 2012 minis actually run Monterey really well with a few simple workarounds. I've been using it for almost a year now on my machine without any issues whatsoever. But your point does stand in terms of official support and how fast the M1 mini is.
The day after the 2014 Mac mini came out I ran to a local third party store to find the 2012 model. I got the last one. They were selling out fast. Still use it day. Glad I got it.
It was one of those cases where the 2012 versions were going for pretty much full retail on eBay all through the dual core days, during that stretch of years when Apple just did everything wrong about the Mac. The main reason I haven’t gone Apple Silicon yet is that I got the Space Grey mini within months of its release, and I’m still very happy with it. And I swapped out the spinner in my previous one and put it to work with about 220gb of losslessly ripped CDs.
The space grey 2018 Mac mini is still a good Mac also. Has it advantages still and is why it is sold still. The M1 Silicone mini is a wonderful Mac and Apple got that one right. I think Apple is back as far as putting out great machines now (at least the last few years consistent). The MacBook Pro 2021 is probably the best Mac I have ever had and I have had many.
The issue is, Gurman speaks for and works for a NEWS company.
My father tells me about all this amazing stuff Apple will come out with, because he heard it on the news. He only watches MSNBC where they obviously also report Apple rumors as news. They don't say, "we heard a rumor" or "a little birdie" and their company name doesn't include the word Rumor like what we're discussing on now.
Bottom line - news organizations should only report credible, vetted facts, not hearsay.
If you scroll back earlier in the thread the point was comparing the models, originally an unfair comparison as my original reply to someone who was comparing a $799 M1 8/256 with a $1999 32/512 Studio and implying there were quite similar, at $1499, they're only similar in storage and RAM. If you have a lot of money to spend $1499, invest a little more.
When comparing the price difference, I pointed out:
- Don't forget you've got a Studio with 10/24/16 cores while the Mini has 8/8/16 cores.
- and it doesn't have all the ports the studio has,
- nor does it have a Max chip with 4 times the memory bandwidth (that's actually M1 Max vs. M2 [400 vs. 100]).