One thing nice is that the RAM does not have to be replaced in pairs. Even though a bit expensive, I would throw in a 32G stick first—with the stock 4G, you have 36G.
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.
Is RAM upgradeable in the Mac Mini?
- Thread starter bumfluff
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Let's suppose that the eventual target is 64GB. You've now just paid about $500 for 36GB, which is about $200 more than you would pay to self-install 32GB (2x16). That is not necessarily a crazy thing to do.
What is the performance consequence of mixing 4GB + 32GB?
And is there a disadvantage to adding an additional 32GB later that was not purchased at the same time as the original 32GB?
Last edited:
Ultimately it is an expense vs benefits situation. A few years ago I was splitting hair in deciding between a 128 or 256GB SSD for a 2011 MBP, at that point the price difference was pretty significant, despite knowing 128GB was not enough for my use case I made do with it anyway. After a while even a 512 SATA SSD dropped to reasonably level and only then I swapped to that. Life became much easier and in retrospect, I guess the time I wasted doing file management between external drives probably had cost me more than the price difference.This really comes down to what you decide your computer is for.
I decided some years ago that it is a workspace for current work and that everything else should be on external drives. One result is that I deliberately limit the size of my flash drive, because I think that there is a real tendency, a least for me, to use whatever is there. I call it "flash drive creep"
Other people decide that their computer is for everything except data that they want to archive. I think that this is a more common, and indeed more natural, approach, and that if you want to deviate from it, it takes discipline.
Either way, there's no right or wrong.
Lately my budget is much more loose, I didn't blink an eye while ordering a 1TB with my 2015 MBP, and then also 1TB for an iMac 2017, but I still advise others to only top at 512GB unless they know what they want. The fact pretty much that all Macs' SSD are soldered also limits your options, as the initial config will last forever.
I have one 2TB and two 1TB external SSDs for orchestral samples already. But the loading times would sure be fast on that internal drive. More space means more samples.
I hope it's clear from what I wrote that I see it as a matter of personal taste/personal psychology on workflow and organisation.
If you see it as an expense vs benefits calculation, cool, but I don't personally take that approach.
Last edited:
On a system without a dedicated GPU, the performance ramifications of running in single channel CAN be pretty high because your frame buffer is in system RAM - remember that the iGPU has to contend with everything else using the memory bus.
If you're using an eGPU though, the performance impact of single vs. dual channel is not very high for MOST workloads. There are exceptions of course, especially for very memory intensive workloads that aren't well designed (e.g. they trash the cache or confuse the prefetch a lot) where the difference between having a 64-bit bus and a 128-bit bus can be substantial. Most of the time, you'll know if you fall into that category.
I'd highly recommend most folks stick with dual channel instead of weird configurations like 36GB.
Yes. To take an example that we are probably both familiar with, Apple announced recently that Logic samples no longer have to be on one's internal drive.
As I'm sure you know, people have been trying to achieve that, against advice, for a long time, and for those people this was very welcome news.
But if you want the fastest loading, you'll still keep your Logic samples on your internal drive, as I suspect many people will be doing.
Now the wild card question. How fast do you need samples to load, and given that decision, what is the cost of internal storage vs external storage at a speed that you have decided is acceptable?
I've looked into this a bit, and my understanding, correctly or not, is as follows:
- There is no external storage that is as fast as the mini's internal storage.
- External storage that is reasonably close in speed costs more than what Apple charges.
- One can save a significant amount of money if one is prepared to accept external storage that is very fast but not internal storage fast.
Last edited:
It mostly boils down to are you earning your income from your computer? If you are, than get the max you can possibly afford. A 512GB SSD might save a few bucks up front, but cost much more over time due to extra file management & external drive costs.
I was just in an Apple store listening to this drivel from a "genius" tonight. It's gonna drive me crazy if something else doesn't get me first.
I'm just fed up with companies assuming that they can treat people poorly and get away with it. It might be my age, or some reflection on my patience these days. I had similarly ridiculous crap from both my ISP and DirecTV Now this year, and neither wanted to be consumer friendly, or abide by laws. In both cases I filed an FCC complaint and man.. everything got straightened out very quickly.
With the greatest respect, I think that you may not understand how much data we are talking about. We are talking about multitrack orchestral mockups plus data-intensive music sample libraries. There are very few people, if any, at the professional level, who are keeping both their current project and their entire sample library on an internal drive.
Similarly, people who are working on feature films or documentaries do not keep the whole project on their personal computer. These projects do indeed involve, to use your phrase, "file management & external drive costs".
Last edited:
I understand that, and it is a fair point. I have edited/processed large RAW audio files before, with limited boot drive space and it was frustrating, though that was before TB3 and only at the amateur level, so time costs didn't really factor in. Having TB3 may well solve that problem.
But it is also a matter of degrees. Plus a bigger SSD boot drive also operates faster than a smaller one, though it may not make much practical difference.
But it is also a matter of degrees. Plus a bigger SSD boot drive also operates faster than a smaller one, though it may not make much practical difference.
Earning money via audio, I am not. Though I would hope that a more capable system would lead to more creative freedom and fewer restrictions such as RAM limits. But I would like to use this Mac Mini to make money in the future. It all goes back to the gray area between that of a hobbyist and a pro. Even a hobbyist has to pony up if he or she wants a pro capable rig. That being said, I can get by just fine now with 512GB. 256GB would be too much of a hassle. 1TB would be for future proofing.
Actually, having watched a number of videos, that cage may also be mechanical protection for when sliding the logic board out. Maybe even entirely for that purpose.
You beat me to it. For anyone still wondering, go to the 14:22, the SSD is definitely soldered to the board.
Tests in the past showed, that the following things DO NOT influence the RAM performance:
- a few hundred MHz more or less
- non-matched modules
- CAS Latency (CL)
The reason is, that the CPU does not read data from RAM. Instead the CPU uses the Level 3 (L3) cache, then the Level 2 (L2) cache and so on, and reads data from the caches. The caches are much faster than the RAM.
512GB would be nice for dual booting, but 256GB is pretty decent, even more if you bear in mind that it's a desktop.
In theory you should be able to get by with 8GB. You'd be much wiser to go with 16GB as it's not really that much more of an investment....32GB is overkill!
For reference:
My MacBook Air only has 4GB in it, I bought the base model, as all I use of for is basic administration, web browsing and email. It's still good to this day. I tried an iPad once but I just can't get along with them. So I use this.
I'm currently working on my MacBook Pro. I have Sketch (3 documents), Photoshop (1 document), Safari (3 tabs), Slack, Zeplin, Outlook (work), Messages, Mail (personal) and iTunes all open. In this laptop I have 16GB of RAM and it's using about 10GB at the moment.
From what you're saying, 8GB is pretty fine. I could live forever with my Early-2013 Macbook Pro 15" (8GB) if it was only used for browsing and office stuff. It won't be "snappier" with 16GB. My dream is a 6-Core i7/64GB for playing with machine learning and natural language processing stuff, but otherwise I'm fine with my quad-core Mac with 8GB.
--------
In my daily use, I have opened Netbeans, SQL Developer, Chrome, Firefox, iTunes and Microsoft Remote Desktop divided in three displays. Memory pressure stays green on this scenario.
Last edited:
Probably right. My point was Apple didn't do that to "lock out" RAM upgrades. Well, it's obvious now they didn't: you can upgrade the RAM.
Mike
Exactly.
Looking at my situation, I could squeak by with a 1T but it would be a hassle to offload and bring over projects as needed. A 2T lets me do that housekeeping a couple of times a year—I don't like the expense but prefer the convenience.
Certain DAWs like Digital Performer will assign each instance of a VI player like Kontakt to its own core (up to the total, of course). I don't think my budget will handle a 10–18 core iMac Pro but a 6 core Mini w/ 64G (eventually) will get me through if it must.
For many of us, More Cores + More RAM = More Better. This puts the i7 Mini ahead of the iMac in every way but one:
Monitors.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT209224
I need three for my day gig. I hate to spend all that money and not be able to run at least three 4Ks. A 2017 iMac lets you run two 4K monitors while the Pro lets you add a pair of 5Ks. Yea, I know I can add an eGPU but now I'm looking at the price of an 8 core iMac Pro.
https://www.apple.com/us/search/eGPU?src=globalnav
LG has a large choice of 27" monitors. If I can find an acceptable combination, I may treat myself to the new Mini.
https://www.lg.com/us/4k-monitors
[doublepost=1541784942][/doublepost]
Apple hasn't said—except that you can do it. Until someone runs bench tests, we won't know if there's a real difference. It won't be significant.
Macs that require matched pairs handle access differently. The new Mini is not one of them.
That one's easy: None as long as the replacement sticks meet all the correct specs.
Last edited:
Well, I think that 16GB is still the sweet spot for most medium duty work and/or if you have a lot of concurrent applications open at the same time.
You can edit 4K and do audio work with 16GB, but those tasks really do benefit from 32 GB at some point along the way.
If you’re seriously considering 32GB of DRAM, you might be better off going to the $1099 model with the i5/256GB. You could see whether 8GB is sufficient for your workflow, but considering how fast the SSD storage is, it probably will be until you are running a demanding enough task that actually needs more DRAM.
That’s one of the benefits of such a fast storage system. Loading in and out of Virtual Memory tends to have less penalty that when dealing with a spinning HDD.
Just my 2 cents.
Today the RAM is not for performance (as it was in the pas), but mostly for the opening many applications at once, having many tabs in browsers (especially in the memory hog like Chrome!), edit 4k or bigger resolution videos, opening and editing many RAW images, using many virtual machines etc.
For most users the 16 GB is enough. At least for now. Not to forget, that the memory prices are still insane.
I remember, when I did pay 2+ years ago 50 EUR for 16 GB (2x8) of DDR3 memory.
Three 4K Dell P2715Q displays will run you about $1200.00. I like them as they have been very reliable, they are relatively sturdy, are nice to view and they have an anti-glare coating that I prefer.
Running all three of them at the true Retina resolution of 1920x1080@2x would probably be the best way to ensure the best performance, but it would be interesting to see how well these mini handles a scaled resolution.