High-End 'M1X' Mac Mini With New Design and Additional Ports Expected to Launch in the 'Next Several Months'

[richinaus]

What I don't get with Apple's strategy is who they are targeting with this. I keep hearing they target the casual user with the mini (ones that only want to surf the web, facebook, video chat) but all that can be done on their phone or a base iPad for less than half the price (not even including monitor).

If you are going to work on your Mac, you probably would get a portable to take with you or a Mac Pro if you really need to push the envelope.

To me, the only thing needed more than a phone or tablet, that does not need to be portable and doesn't need to be an extremely high end workstation is a home system that can game.

The M1 seems to be great and if the M1X adds to the gpu side, awesome. I know the M1 is better than low to mid level Intel chips (or built in GPUs)and that what people point to for a comparison to say Apple is better. You know what though? My 2018 i3 Mac mini isn't pushed hard in the games I play, but my external eGPU is maxed at all times. I can't add a video card to an M1. I can add one to just about ANY Intel system - even the small form factors - use a half height card. I bought a $399 I3 because of this a few years ago with an SSD and added in an older gaming card I traded to a friend for an old MacBook I had lying around. Apple doesn't make a system today that can match this.

Sorry long rant - I just hope Apple can add some performance in the area they are mostly lacking in instead of focusing on areas they already are strong in. Weakest link and all

My studio is very profitable at present, however there is no way we are buying mac pro's. They are overkill and the wrong specification for our work. Ahuge amount of studios need something in the middle ground.
We are the customer for a mac mini pro. Single core speed, 32gb RAM and decent GPU, and it is an insta buy.

 

[SFjohn]

Instant purchase for me if it has HDMI 2.1, if not: hard pass.

 

[katewes]

The Geekbench results show the Mac mini (Late-2020) versions are faster than the Intel ones, so are they not more powerful than the Intel ones, regardless of RAM capacity?

For the software I use - Blackmagic Design's Davinci Resolve and Fusion - some aspects require high CPU speed, while other aspects require high RAM. So when I use this software, the fast single core speed of the M1 is a blessing, but it is hindered by its low RAM. In the PC world, for this software, 64GB RAM or higher is often required for complex compositions, and there's no way, even with the efficiency of Apple Silicon, that 16GB M1 can equate to 64GB of PC RAM.

I currently have the M1 16GB, and have been waiting impatiently for the upgraded M1X.

And no, I don't have the need or budget for a high end Mac Pro.

The idea is somewhere in between, about the performance in the PC World of a 3900X and Nvidia 3080. Maybe it might take the M2X or M3X to achieve that in a Mac Mini price.

 

[shapesinaframe]

So I guess this is the promised fix for the display resolution scaling issues with the m1.

Apple to Fix Resolution Issue With Ultrawide Displays on M1 Macs in Future macOS Update

In a new support document, Apple has acknowledged that when an ultrawide or super-ultrawide external display is connected to a Mac with the M1 chip,...

www.macrumors.com

 

[iZac]

...but then so far the M1 machines have all appeared at the same price as the Intel machines they replaced, despite outperforming them significantly in all respects apart from max RAM and external display support. The Mini even got a price cut and the iMac got a better screen. So the "faster machines" currently due are the replacements for the higher price tiers. Not that I like every detail of the new machines (esp. the non-upgradeable RAM) but so far it doesn't look like the agenda is price hikes.

Yeah I agree, I guess it I'm just slow witted in my realisation that the current designed M1 hardware is going nowhere for years to come. They'll certainly hold their prices for another year, at most giving an SSD capacity bump to maintain the price points. I'm delighted by the cheap Mac mini though, the 2018 one was a bit spicy on the low end.

 

[adib]

yes.

Hopefully...

OTOH there was no regular refresh for the iPad Mini — not even regular processor updates. So don’t count on it.

 

[Orionfox]

My studio is very profitable at present, however there is no way we are buying mac pro's. They are overkill and the wrong specification for our work. Ahuge amount of studios need something in the middle ground.
We are the customer for a mac mini pro. Single core speed, 32gb RAM and decent GPU, and it is an insta buy.

I can see you would be the target market IF the GPU is any good. The same target market as a serious home user, who much like you needs the performance, but refuses to pay the insane price for a Mac Pro.

The current tiers just seem to harken back to the dark days of the 040 chips. Performa with no math co processor and no upgradability for home users and the Quadra lineup for the professionals.

IMHO there needs to be a step between a mac that can match a phone's usefulness but affordable and mortgage your house just so you can add a GPU (since Intel system can do this for less than our low end).

 

[theluggage]

Yeah I agree, I guess it I'm just slow witted in my realisation that the current designed M1 hardware is going nowhere for years to come. They'll certainly hold their prices for another year, at most giving an SSD capacity bump to maintain the price points.

I'm cynical and suspect that the SSD will get bumped if and when the lower-capacity components become obsolete and it would cost Apple more to make than the larger one This is my main gripe with Apple - it is 2021 and (outside the Apple bubble) 512GB SSD and 16GB RAM are not expensive, serious-callers-only options that add ~50% to the price of a $700 desktop or $1000 laptop. We shouldn't have to be agonising over whether we really, really need them.

However, as for the M1 machines hanging around... I think it is anybody's guess at this point. There is certainly precedent for keeping old models around to serve as entry-level options. Also, just because the iPhone gets pretty dependable updates every September, that doesn't guarantee the Macs will. The iPhone is Apples #1 money maker - and also has a large "fashion accessory" element with a lot of customers who will feel they have to buy the latest model if they don't want to get sand kicked in their face at the beach. Macs are lower down the pecking order - and while the infrequent updates in the past were partly attributable to Intel not releasing the right chips at the right time they were also partly attributable to Apple's internal priorities.

On the other hand, this is a transition period, and the obviously "transitional" machines - cool-running Apple Silicon rattling around in bodies designed for hot, sweaty Intel chips - might well be short-lived and quickly replaced by re-designed versions. My wild guess is that both the M1 Air and M1 low-end MBP13 will be replaced by the rumoured M2 Air next year. The low-end Mini could be replaced by either an M2 (non-X) - which is only an incremental upgrade over the M1 (non-X) - or, since several rumours have suggested that the M1X will come in "good/better/best" versions, a low-end M1X. The 24" iMac - the only all-new release so far - already looks like it was designed to come with a choice of two significantly different processors (hence the extra fan and more ports in the higher-end version - which don't seem justified by just 1 extra GPU core, something that apparently doesn't bother the Air).

 

[theluggage]

IMHO there needs to be a step between a mac that can match a phone's usefulness but affordable and mortgage your house just so you can add a GPU (since Intel system can do this for less than our low end).

...well, for most of the 21st century there was a ~$2500 expandable tower option (e.g. the Power Mac G5 tower or the original cheese-grater Mac Pro) and even the trashcan started at "only" $3000. It was only the 2019 Mac Pro that went insane and, not only started at $6k, but $6k for a feeble spec that a $3000 iMac could beat in a sprint and which only started making sense if you spent another $10k on expansion. The 2019 Pro may have hit the spot if you were (a) earning enough money to make $20k seem like a reasonable business expense and (b) didn't have to justify your expenses to a bean counter - but it feels like it was deliberately, even out of spite, "designed up" to a price and even the design comes over as a deliberate parody of the old "chessegrater" Mac Pro tower.

 

[Paul from brussels]

Sometime in the future there will be new products! These type of articles dont offer anything.

agree. many of these articles have amazing headlines filled with promise. Once you open the article, you read that it 'might' be the case Am also sure that Apple strategically leaks to influence purchasing decisions (duh, of course, I hear you say)...

 

[deconstruct60]

What I don't get with Apple's strategy is who they are targeting with this. I keep hearing they target the casual user with the mini (ones that only want to surf the web, facebook, video chat) but all that can be done on their phone or a base iPad for less than half the price (not even including monitor).

That was the old 2006-2010 timeframe target for the mini. When Apple redid the Mini in 2018 there was lots of other use cases talked about by them.

"Sherman set the wayback machine for November 26 , 2018 "

" ... In addition to being a great desktop computer, Mac mini powers everything from home automation to giant render farms ...
...With a variety of ports, Mac mini is ready for a variety of workflow configurations ...
...

Versatility​

To the desktop. And beyond.​

Because of its size, performance, and wide array of ports, Mac mini goes where no Mac has gone before. And now with even more cores packed into its 7.7-inch-square frame, you never know where you’ll find a Mac mini — or dozens of them — hard at work. ...

• Build and Render Farms
• Xcode Server
• Live Performance
• Digital Art and Signage

...."



the current Mini market page lists " : 'Home Office ' , 'Gaming' , 'Music Creation' , 'Digital Art and Signage'


Most of these are commercial endeavors ; not low budget home activity.

Apple will try to cover both. A 'regular' M1 ( later M2 , M3 , etc) processor in the more affordable model and a 'bigger die' 'M1X' ( later 'M2X' , 'M3X' , etc) that ride the bow wave of the MBP 14-16" SoC. One gets the more affodable iPad Pro/MBA SoC and the other gets the higher performance.

If they don't radically thin out the enclosure they can do bot with one chassis. If there is enough volume they could do two chassis ( the iMac has support two with a much higher run rate. ). It would easier for Apple to separate out the two major role classes if there were two chassis. However, it is probably cheaper (i.e., profitable ) for Apple for have one chassis with some minor variances .

For example, Apple's upcoming XCode Cloud. If Apple eats their own dogfood and these are licensed out per person/business ( not packing large multiple tenants onto one machine) then need much more than the M1. If there is a team of 2-6 developers sending most of the build/test runs to a single machine than probably need something better than a M1 in most instances ( where 64GB would be usefaul along with a doubling (or more ) of cores ).
The Mini chassis is far more effective to rack at large volume deploymens than the Mac Pro Rackmount ( or old MP 2013 or 2009-2012 rack hostile design. ). Macstadium ( Mac Mini coloc ) , AWS , etc. all bought truckloads of Minis to provide Mac continous build and integration services for rent on. Selling Minis into Clous have been a 10's of thousands per year business for more than several years. ( that is just the "for rent" ones. Intenal private cloud deployments in Mac developer groups is at least as high. )

There is extremely long standing moan and groaning that Apple has no "xMac". Something that is not an iMac but also not Mac Pro. A higher performing Mini is not a 100% match. ( Most of that crowd is looking for a mini-tower box with slots for GPU and DIMM and drives).

Apple attaching the 24" iMac to the M1 is in part more problematical that old situation.

If you are going to work on your Mac, you probably would get a portable to take with you or a Mac Pro if you really need to push the envelope.

$1,500 - 2,500 versus $6,000-8000 the same market. Not even close. The Mac Pro 2019 ramped up a 100% increase in entry system costs over previous Mac Pros. There are a substantial number of folks that Apple has left out "in the cold". The Mini 2018 "moving up" into higher CPU performance was a partial offset . The M1 Mini is a slight better offset but still there is a huge gulf between where the Mac Pro starts and the Mini 'ends'.

Classically Apple has minimized the fratricide the Mini inflicted upon iMac sales. The Mini M1 and iMac 24" on M1 represents a bit of a change. Don't like Apple's screen choice... users can chuck it without taking a performance hit. I suspect they won't make that the same choice for the iMac 27 ("large screen") models but will allow more overlap than the past.

 

[tubular]

What I don't get with Apple's strategy is who they are targeting with this.

The mini targets the headless continuum of "good/better" with Mac Pro as "best." It isn't just an entry machine.

But Apple forgot that for a while, and from 2014 to late 2018 the headless continuum stagnated as "good/nothing here/GPU-roaster."

 

[deconstruct60]

Every time you be of these rumors is mentioned, out comes the fantasy list of sh*t Apple is never going to give you.

DRAM slots - 50/50 as needs in the >64GB region will be very expensive and complicated.
m.2 slots - let it go, you’re never getting removable SSD again.
Discrete GPU - nope, Apple has made this abundantly if anyone has been paying attention.

The M-series pragmatically makes the "GPU" and the DRAM intertwined. The "discrete GPU" like performance requiring higher aggregate bandwidth. The higher bandwidth with minimal power consumption leading to the LPDDR being soldered a relatively short distance from the GPU.

The more powerful the Apple GPU the more likely there will be a higher base memory attached to the GPU's package.


A laptop focus is drivng the M-series. Apple sells 75+ % laptops so that shouldn't be a surprise to those not engaging in myopic observations. The Mini and iMac 24" are going to be "hand me down" laptop SoCs. The iMac 27" ( learge screen) may escape this slightly more than the iMac 24" did . But iGPUs across the whole line up is more than likely coming.


Generic M.2 slots probably not. However, if Apple keeps the current Mini's base chassis around for a while ( so rack and desk stacking compatible with old ones) then seems to be little barrier to the "M1X" Mini adopting the two SSD daughter card modules. That doesn't give generic off-the-shelf SSD access. Still one and only one SSD present. (just splitting the NAND modules over two blades). However, it does give the ability to repair bad NAND modules without having to toss the entire logic board. Also allows "retirement" of a Mini where nuke just the storage (again not have to shred the whole logic board. )

Work within Apple’s self-imposed constraints and you’ll be much happier than getting upset when Apple disappoints you not giving you things they were never going to give you.

This is a bit of a two way street though. Apple charging $400/TB for SSD capacity and equally (if not worst) non market rates for RAM capacity are going to precipitate calls for M.2 and DIMM slots. Apple asks the customers to bend over and grease up and the response is that don't want to bend over and grease up.

Previous Apple desktops didn't really have huge self imposed z-height problems. Cutting the height of the mini in half would recover how much desktop footprint space from a user's desk? About none. Thinning out the iMac to such a new extreme that the Ethernet jack pops off the back is a similar "new" self imposed that benefits most customers how? Apple is going to have a bit of a hand waving thing with custom RAM facilitating "dGPU class" performance in a smaller form factor. At least it is a trade-off for something new in performance.

On the SSD front though it is far more a 'customer imposition' than a 'self imposed' constraint. Higher longer term maintenance costs for the customer. Higher up front costs. No substantive performance increase. Maybe a minor power decrease that for a wall socket powered system makes no material difference. Lower implementation costs doesn't mean much when 3-4x over market rate for capacity. It is almost entirely more money out of the customer waletl. Apple isn't imposing anything subtantial on themselves. It is others that are the primary target.

 

[richinaus]

The mini targets the headless continuum of "good/better" with Mac Pro as "best." It isn't just an entry machine.

But Apple forgot that for a while, and from 2014 to late 2018 the headless continuum stagnated as "good/nothing here/GPU-roaster."

Forgot on purpose …..?

the good / better machine is what I have as a PC . It’s not close to a MacPro in expandability, but it certainly spanks a Mac mini in all sorts of ways [except size].
Basically in the current line up there is a gulf between the mac mini and Mac Pro. Here’s hoping they can fill it this time round.

 

[tubular]

Forgot on purpose …..?

the good / better machine is what I have as a PC . It’s not close to a MacPro in expandability, but it certainly spanks a Mac mini in all sorts of ways [except size].
Basically in the current line up there is a gulf between the mac mini and Mac Pro. Here’s hoping they can fill it this time round.

I would definitely like to see the gap close. The price on the Mac pro makes it a non-starter.

Right now I've got a 2018 Mac mini i7 BTO, and the only real weak spot -- for its form factor -- is the Iris integrated graphics. So I'm verrrry curious about the GPU of the next mini.

 

[Lemon Olive]

Instant purchase for me if it has HDMI 2.1, if not: hard pass.

Why?

 

[deconstruct60]

But Apple forgot that for a while, and from 2014 to late 2018 the headless continuum stagnated as "good/nothing here/GPU-roaster."

Forgot on purpose …..?

Attention focusing more than "forgot". The number of "high end power" MBP and iMacs increased in sales. The amount of the market that is rabidly anti-built-in-screen is a relatively small minority. Apple was focused on where most customers where going not where the market had been back at the turn of the century.

Apple certainly fomented more agitation between themselves and the xMac crowd which they took steps to relieve in 2018 and 2019. Probably in part because they were feeling confident that the M-series would help laptops take more of the "desktop" workload over time later on. Apple needed to hold onto more folks in order to flip them to new laptop performance class processors later.


It is also not a "chicken and the egg" thing either. ( apple didn't off xMac so most folks bought the other stuff under duress ) Mainstream PC vendors have all seen laptops (and tablets) continue to grow to dominate their product unit sales. Lots of folks , pros and consumers, move around while still wanting access to their personal computer. Desktops are immobile and "lose" in those contexts. And basic CPU packages are getting "fast enough" for larger and larger groups of people.

the good / better machine is what I have as a PC . It’s not close to a MacPro in expandability, but it certainly spanks a Mac mini in all sorts of ways [except size].
Basically in the current line up there is a gulf between the mac mini and Mac Pro. Here’s hoping they can fill it this time round.

Apple seems on track ( via the leaks) to putting something back into the ballpark vicinity of the "old" Mac Pro price slot. ( a half sized M-series). Doubtful this is a hard core "box with slots " xMac box coming in the $1,500-3,500 price space though.

The Mini probsbly will pick up the 'M1X' SoC from the MBP 14-16" that will come this Fall. However, extremely likely that SoC is highly optimized for those laptops; not a desktop. Integrated graphics at very high performance probably means soldered on RAM ( so no DIMM slots). The thunderbolt is built into the SoC so no externally provision general purpose PCI-e lanes for that (which could be re-provisioned for slots or m.2 sockets on desktop). Decent chance that Apple goes cheap (and greedy) and soldered on NAND chpis for SSD.

Apple's M-series SoC are out to "obsolete" dicrete GPUs. That is going to put pressure on PCI-e slots disappearing from the desktop deployments of these primarily laptop design driven SoCs. If the number of externally provisioned lanes drop then not much to provision the "slots" with. Apple has used PCI-e v4 to reduce the number of lanes (and potential slots ) to do something like 10GbE also. Double clock the PCI-e lanes and reduce the lane count in half still has the same aggregate bandwidth and possible lower power costs ( fewer long channels to drive signals over ).


If Apple's 'M1X' takes the Mini into the 10 core range ( 8 P + 2 E ) range the Mini won't be "spaked" on a wide variety of workloads. Single core to single core the M-series isn't behind. Mulitple core workloads will even out with equal number of cores to deploy. Graphics wise it won't be top end dGPU class but generic dGPU sold on most high volume generic "box with slots" it should match much closer.

It is mostly going to do what the 2018 Mini's with i7's were doing only go deeper into that performance space. It won't be a "new age" in internal component molecularity though.

 

[Lemon Olive]

Good thing these are M2 models and there won't be an M1X chip.

Lol nope, but keep at it. You've been wrong about everything you've guessed at re: Apple Silicon, and I enjoy watching you continue to act like a know-it-all on every subject just because you worked on CPUs 20 years ago.

The only reason you think these are M2 models is because of "tHe TiMiNg" and you ignore the multitude of reasons why that is not a factor at all.

 

[ekwipt]

Instant purchase for me if it has HDMI 2.1, if not: hard pass.

for gaming?

 

[JDHiro]

What I don't get with Apple's strategy is who they are targeting with this. I keep hearing they target the casual user with the mini (ones that only want to surf the web, facebook, video chat) but all that can be done on their phone or a base iPad for less than half the price (not even including monitor).

If you are going to work on your Mac, you probably would get a portable to take with you or a Mac Pro if you really need to push the envelope.

To me, the only thing needed more than a phone or tablet, that does not need to be portable and doesn't need to be an extremely high end workstation is a home system that can game.

The M1 seems to be great and if the M1X adds to the gpu side, awesome. I know the M1 is better than low to mid level Intel chips (or built in GPUs)and that what people point to for a comparison to say Apple is better. You know what though? My 2018 i3 Mac mini isn't pushed hard in the games I play, but my external eGPU is maxed at all times. I can't add a video card to an M1. I can add one to just about ANY Intel system - even the small form factors - use a half height card. I bought a $399 I3 because of this a few years ago with an SSD and added in an older gaming card I traded to a friend for an old MacBook I had lying around. Apple doesn't make a system today that can match this.

Sorry long rant - I just hope Apple can add some performance in the area they are mostly lacking in instead of focusing on areas they already are strong in. Weakest link and all

The Mini is a great form factor for professionals that need memory and GPU performance, but not graphics, such as software engineers. I've frequently used Mac mini for build farms, test boxes, backup machines, and every dev workstations.

I also like monitor flexibility, and that's easier to do with an Mini and an iMac.

The M1 Mini is a great value and I'm sure it's not going anywhere, but there is absolutely a market for a higher device that isn't in a giant box.

Personally, right now, I run with a MacBook Pro Intel, Mac Air M1, and Mac Mini Intel i7/64GB (as a stable build environment). I don't need a better GPU in my Mini, but I still hope Apple does better than the pathetic Intel integrated graphics.

 

[Tagbert]

The Mini is a great form factor for professionals that need memory and GPU performance, but not graphics, such as software engineers. I've frequently used Mac mini for build farms, test boxes, backup machines, and every dev workstations.

I also like monitor flexibility, and that's easier to do with an Mini and an iMac.

The M1 Mini is a great value and I'm sure it's not going anywhere, but there is absolutely a market for a higher device that isn't in a giant box.

Personally, right now, I run with a MacBook Pro Intel, Mac Air M1, and Mac Mini Intel i7/64GB (as a stable build environment). I don't need a better GPU in my Mini, but I still hope Apple does better than the pathetic Intel integrated graphics.

The M1 Mini is as performant in CPU and GPU as any other M1-based Mac so it is no longer being treated like the red-headed step-child of the Mac family. The M1 GPU already handily beats the Intel integrated graphic and approaches the performance of lower end discrete GPUs. If Apple launches an M1x Mini and if it ramps up the GPU performance as expected, the higher end Mini will be very well suited for graphics use.

Having the M-series chips really levels the performance levels between the different Macs such that the main differentiator then becomes your preference for the package of laptop, desktop or all-in-one. This makes for a more rational and easier to understand product line.

 

[LovePeace]

The simple answer is that they'll do it because they now can. Apple silicon is quiet and heat efficient enough that now they can put it in a small package. It was an entry level mac because it could not be anything else (until now).

It was only an "entry level" Mac in terms of price; yet, depending on the generation of Mac Mini, it has been many times the best choice for many professionals. Certain generations of Mac Mini were not worth as a professional tool but others were a real practical tool for editing (videos and photos) specially if you frequently move around.
I have believed for many years now that there should be a Mac Mini more powerful than the top-best MacBook Pro. The problem with MacBook Pro is that it does not support persisting times of processor heating. Not enough ventilation space on such a small thing. Editing and rendering everyday with a MacBook Pro shortens its life considerably (specially on Summer). Instead, a well ventilated tiny box that you can easily take with you and plug to any screen will be the most lovable working tool to take to your, let's say, mother-in-law house for the weekend and still be able to work. It also allwos you to have a monitor in your co-working center as well as in your home and you just have to take your tiny yet powerful MacMini back and forth every day... A $4000 powerful machine that lets you work and render fast and INTENSIVELY during 3 years. A professional portable middle-point in between a powerful MacBook Pro and a Mac Pro. Oh! And with no need to carry around dongles for such basic things as an SD card reader and few extra ports, of course. The old cylindrical Mac pro was a nice try but it was not that portable and had not many ports after all. Mac Mini Pro is an intelligent way to go that I have been waiting for many years now. And yes, the recent implementation of the Silicon processor with its cool characteristics is the best moment to try how it works commercially wise. The thing I'm asking myself now is: when will it be possible (and worth channel-wise) to connect an external GPU to a Silicon Mac Mini?

 

[LovePeace]

The M1 Mini is as performant in CPU and GPU as any other M1-based Mac so it is no longer being treated like the red-headed step-child of the Mac family. The M1 GPU already handily beats the Intel integrated graphic and approaches the performance of lower end discrete GPUs. If Apple launches an M1x Mini and if it ramps up the GPU performance as expected, the higher end Mini will be very well suited for graphics use.

Having the M-series chips really levels the performance levels between the different Macs such that the main differentiator then becomes your preference for the package of laptop, desktop or all-in-one. This makes for a more rational and easier to understand product line.

It was only an "entry level" Mac in terms of price; yet, depending on the generation of Mac Mini, it has been many times the best choice for many professionals. Certain generations of Mac Mini were not worth as a professional tool but others were a real practical tool for editing (videos and photos) specially if you frequently move around.
I have believed for many years now that there should be a Mac Mini more powerful than the top-best MacBook Pro. The problem with MacBook Pro is that it does not support persisting times of processor heating. Not enough ventilation space on such a small thing. Editing and rendering everyday with a MacBook Pro shortens its life considerably (specially on Summer). Instead, a well ventilated tiny box that you can easily take with you and plug to any screen will be the most lovable working tool to take to your, let's say, mother-in-law house for the weekend and still be able to work. It also allwos you to have a monitor in your co-working center as well as in your home and you just have to take your tiny yet powerful MacMini back and forth every day... A $4000 powerful machine that lets you work and render fast and INTENSIVELY during 3 years. A professional portable middle-point in between a powerful MacBook Pro and a Mac Pro. Oh! And with no need to carry around dongles for such basic things as an SD card reader and few extra ports, of course. The old cylindrical Mac pro was a nice try but it was not that portable and had not many ports after all. Mac Mini Pro is an intelligent way to go that I have been waiting for many years now. And yes, the recent implementation of the Silicon processor with its cool characteristics is the best moment to try how it works commercially wise. The thing I'm asking myself now is: when will it be possible (and worth channel-wise) to connect an external GPU to a Silicon Mac Mini?

 

[LovePeace]

Mac Mini Pro or Mac Pro Mini?

Yes, good point. I'd say Mac Mini Pro. Because you want it mini and yet pro (which are two things compatible specially now with the Silicon processor). There has actually been already a Mac Pro Mini: it was the cylinder one. But you want a workstation that is mini with which you can make professional jobs at all times (and all places, since it is mini).

 

[LovePeace]

My studio is very profitable at present, however there is no way we are buying mac pro's. They are overkill and the wrong specification for our work. Ahuge amount of studios need something in the middle ground.
We are the customer for a mac mini pro. Single core speed, 32gb RAM and decent GPU, and it is an insta buy.

I totally agree. Insta buy with already an integrated SD reader (for love sake, an SD reader does increases the price MISERABLY when integrating it on the manufacture of the computer!) and the possibility of attaching an external GPU with real professional results if needed.