It often says I have about 5gb free. That is with my 16gb M2 Pro Mini with 512gb ssd. Should I go 24gb for the m4?
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.
Justify M4 Pro Mac mini over M4 Purely for Future Proofing?
- Thread starter sidgriffey
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I really appreciate your perspective here. I definitely wasn’t considering the cost of the upgrades as related to the total cost.
A base m4 I would def stretch easily 4 years without any specific slowdown, then you buy the next mini base and do 4 years…..the cost is less than a single m4 pro for 8 years, at least where I live. ( and you can resell the m4)
In the next 4 can be sure the m8 will be a lot better than the m4 pro.
So my math says no not worthed, unless you need the power now.
In the next 4 can be sure the m8 will be a lot better than the m4 pro.
So my math says no not worthed, unless you need the power now.
Last edited:
Buy the $600 today, and trade it in for another $600 Mini in 2 years.
If you need an M4 Pro, or more RAM, you'll know. Otherwise, just enjoy the every-other-yearly upgrades.
If you need an M4 Pro, or more RAM, you'll know. Otherwise, just enjoy the every-other-yearly upgrades.
The base version is great value, although its drive prices are outrageous.
Apple charges $200 extra for adding 256 GB of storage. I doubt 256 GB is enough. But then 512 GB may not be either. And for 1 TB you pay another $200, but Apple throws in an extra 8 GB RAM.
An external Thunderbolt 3 case and cable costs $US90. A 500 GB NVME card for it costs $40. And you can run many of the apps from the external drive - there are some YouTube on how to set that up. So you just run the OS on the 256 GB drive. Or maybe something like mail. Leave the OS apps on the native drive, like Safari. That way you'd have a cost of $730. Or you can get a 1 TB external for $55 instead of the $40. Total cost $745. And if you sell it down the track, you can keep the drive.
Sheesh ... a MacBook 16" MAX is $4,000. You can buy 5 of these and have $275 left over.
Geekbench:
M4 mini Single core: 3,678
M4 Max Single core: 4,060
M4 Mini Multi-core: 14,678
M4 Max 40 Multi-core: 26,675
Now ... 5 x 14,678 =73,390 which is 73,390/26,675 =2.75 faster for $275 less! Are those last numbers prophetic?
Apple charges $200 extra for adding 256 GB of storage. I doubt 256 GB is enough. But then 512 GB may not be either. And for 1 TB you pay another $200, but Apple throws in an extra 8 GB RAM.
An external Thunderbolt 3 case and cable costs $US90. A 500 GB NVME card for it costs $40. And you can run many of the apps from the external drive - there are some YouTube on how to set that up. So you just run the OS on the 256 GB drive. Or maybe something like mail. Leave the OS apps on the native drive, like Safari. That way you'd have a cost of $730. Or you can get a 1 TB external for $55 instead of the $40. Total cost $745. And if you sell it down the track, you can keep the drive.
Sheesh ... a MacBook 16" MAX is $4,000. You can buy 5 of these and have $275 left over.
Geekbench:
M4 mini Single core: 3,678
M4 Max Single core: 4,060
M4 Mini Multi-core: 14,678
M4 Max 40 Multi-core: 26,675
Now ... 5 x 14,678 =73,390 which is 73,390/26,675 =2.75 faster for $275 less! Are those last numbers prophetic?
Last edited:
The most valid reason to go M4 Pro over base M4 is that you intend to use high res/refresh rate, non-Apple displays in the future.
The base M4 maxes out at 6K width frame buffer, which can limit your HiDPI scaling options on e.g 5Kx2K/8Kx2K ultra/superultrawide or other high res displays.
On the M4 Pro/Max this limit is 8K width. Which still results in some ********, but less so.
Apple's own 5K/6K displays conveniently have scaling levels that fall under these limits, and due to their pixel density those options end up being a comfortable text/UI size too.
This is unlikely to change unless Apple lifts this hardware or software limitation, or implements a better scaling system. By comparison Windows does not have any of these problems.
The base M4 maxes out at 6K width frame buffer, which can limit your HiDPI scaling options on e.g 5Kx2K/8Kx2K ultra/superultrawide or other high res displays.
On the M4 Pro/Max this limit is 8K width. Which still results in some ********, but less so.
Apple's own 5K/6K displays conveniently have scaling levels that fall under these limits, and due to their pixel density those options end up being a comfortable text/UI size too.
This is unlikely to change unless Apple lifts this hardware or software limitation, or implements a better scaling system. By comparison Windows does not have any of these problems.
I have the M4 Pro with stacks of RAM. Local LLMs chew RAM and compute power, and given that they will continue to increase rapidly in popularity, there's actually a reason again today (the first for many years) to care about processing and memory.
Here is why you want TB5 i.e. Display Port 2.1:
Yes, DisplayPort 2.1 is capable of supporting 8K at 120Hz with HDR, but it depends on the configuration and compression settings:
1. Bandwidth: DisplayPort 2.1 offers a maximum raw bandwidth of 80 Gbps with a usable bandwidth of 77.37 Gbps after overhead. This makes it capable of driving 8K120 in certain configurations.
2. Compression:
• Without compression, 8K120 (10-bit color, RGB or 4:4:4 chroma) exceeds the available bandwidth, so it would require DSC (Display Stream Compression) to fit within the bandwidth.
• With DSC, 8K120 HDR is achievable and visually lossless.
3. Cabling:
• You would need a certified Ultra-High Bit Rate (UHBR) DisplayPort cable to utilize the maximum bandwidth of DisplayPort 2.1.
4. Hardware Support:
• Both the GPU and monitor must support DisplayPort 2.1 and be capable of handling the resolution and refresh rate.
In summary, DisplayPort 2.1 can indeed push 8K120 with HDR, but compression (e.g., DSC) will typically be required for this resolution and refresh rate combination.
Believe one thing, I have an old ATI 5770 on a MacPro 2008 and 2009 that can drive 4K60 i.e. 3840 non-HiDPI and 1920 non-HiDPI
But you never know if in 2-3 years you wanna just buy like a 54" an LG or Sony 8K120 OLED or MiniLed TV!
<and>
I use(d) a MacBook Pro M1 Pro with 32GB, 1TB, that thing has lasted 3 years NO PROBLEM!
Here is something awesome... Apple just gave me an offer to extend AppleCare for $149/year for the first TIME EVER on my MAC!! Which I have ALWAYS wanted. Sooo....
I said awesome future proofing is REAL! This MBP M1P will last till 2030 easily, for couch surfing and light coding and Starbucks and such.
Now enter the Mac Mini M4 Pro, hmm... 64GBs done, I had a 2019 MBP got 16GB regretted it. Got the 32GBs M1P regretted it a "little" so this time I said ok that's that, with AI and future proofing I can keep the Mac Mini M4 Pro till 2030 and beyond... I am happy to do so... 1TB 64GB, locked and loaded!
I mean I'll be good till 2035! (gonna repeat the AppleCare) but I have some Mac Pros that have 15-18 years and some 2013s that are at 11! Runnin' strong!
2¢ Laters...
Yes, DisplayPort 2.1 is capable of supporting 8K at 120Hz with HDR, but it depends on the configuration and compression settings:
1. Bandwidth: DisplayPort 2.1 offers a maximum raw bandwidth of 80 Gbps with a usable bandwidth of 77.37 Gbps after overhead. This makes it capable of driving 8K120 in certain configurations.
2. Compression:
• Without compression, 8K120 (10-bit color, RGB or 4:4:4 chroma) exceeds the available bandwidth, so it would require DSC (Display Stream Compression) to fit within the bandwidth.
• With DSC, 8K120 HDR is achievable and visually lossless.
3. Cabling:
• You would need a certified Ultra-High Bit Rate (UHBR) DisplayPort cable to utilize the maximum bandwidth of DisplayPort 2.1.
4. Hardware Support:
• Both the GPU and monitor must support DisplayPort 2.1 and be capable of handling the resolution and refresh rate.
In summary, DisplayPort 2.1 can indeed push 8K120 with HDR, but compression (e.g., DSC) will typically be required for this resolution and refresh rate combination.
Believe one thing, I have an old ATI 5770 on a MacPro 2008 and 2009 that can drive 4K60 i.e. 3840 non-HiDPI and 1920 non-HiDPI
But you never know if in 2-3 years you wanna just buy like a 54" an LG or Sony 8K120 OLED or MiniLed TV!
<and>
I use(d) a MacBook Pro M1 Pro with 32GB, 1TB, that thing has lasted 3 years NO PROBLEM!
Here is something awesome... Apple just gave me an offer to extend AppleCare for $149/year for the first TIME EVER on my MAC!! Which I have ALWAYS wanted. Sooo....
I said awesome future proofing is REAL! This MBP M1P will last till 2030 easily, for couch surfing and light coding and Starbucks and such.
Now enter the Mac Mini M4 Pro, hmm... 64GBs done, I had a 2019 MBP got 16GB regretted it. Got the 32GBs M1P regretted it a "little" so this time I said ok that's that, with AI and future proofing I can keep the Mac Mini M4 Pro till 2030 and beyond... I am happy to do so... 1TB 64GB, locked and loaded!
I mean I'll be good till 2035! (gonna repeat the AppleCare) but I have some Mac Pros that have 15-18 years and some 2013s that are at 11! Runnin' strong!
2¢ Laters...
lol please you really gonna run an 8k monitor at your desk? 😂 🤣 okay… 8k is not even mainstream for tvs yet. By the time you have an 8k monitor Thunderbolt 8 will be out.With an M12 processor that makes an M4 Pro look like an Intel i5 Mac mini .
Heh heh, I run a 55inch 4K LG TV at 120Hz right now, and man 8K would be silly having essentially 4 x 4Ks... for math programs it's silly silky smooth... so... YEAH! But I mean if at that point it backed down to just 8K at 60fps... I could easily be VERY HAPPY...
I'd personally worry about paying up for a machine that can do 8k/120hz ... when I actually had (or was about to buy) an 8k/120hz display
Buying the computer to handle something that isn't really anywhere close to being a reality (for any sane pricing at least) feels like out of order shopping to me
Buying the computer to handle something that isn't really anywhere close to being a reality (for any sane pricing at least) feels like out of order shopping to me
I could totally understand that rationale, BUT and this is an "experienced BUT" the way Apple keeps NEUTERING things, Apps etc, I will be happy when my mmM4P is 100% maxed out and running so good with the 100+ Apps and all other data files running smooth, and then just getting an upgrade without worrying about having to "LOSE APPS and DATA" from Apple "pruning." BUT and this is learned also: Apple seems to be hella hard core BENT on M5 M6 M7 and letting apps keep running on them i.e. from an M1 all the way to an M9! So either case has merit...
But this is something I cherish with all my "older macs" being able to ROLL BACK to an older OS and setup a machine for specific tasks... i.e. Apps that still run that don't run on newer machines because of whatever PRUNING the DEVs+Apple consider "needed" which is BS...
But either way this pretty much depends on your use case...
Currently using a 2020 iMac 27 and looking to upgrade. Current iMac crashes at least a few times a week. Have decided on 512 as I currently am using about 333. Also going with 24 Mb as I suspect AI might require more RAM. Am therefore considering the Base Mini 4 Pro or Base 4 with 24 and 512. I can get educational pricing and can write off the machine for tax purposes so the difference to me is about $200. Would be about same price if I got a base 4 with 24/1TB.
Inclined to get the Pro and add a base with 1TB SSD for backup and USB A ports.
Inclined to get the Pro and add a base with 1TB SSD for backup and USB A ports.
Let me tell you what an 8K experience, even at 60 Hz would be on a Mac, the way it is now. Even though DP 2.1 has the bandwidth, other limitations will make the experience suck big time.
Your highest HiDPI scaling level on a 8K 16:9 would be 3840x2160, because all Macs atm max out at a 8K width framebuffer, and the baseline M4 at 6K width. This heavily limits the scaling levels the higher your resolution. Even Apple's own 5K/6K displays offer scaling levels that are under or at that limit.
Considering a 50-55" 8K (which would be cool especially if it's curved!) would be about the smallest sensible size for such a high res, you would end up with a scaling level that visually looks the same as your 4K TV set to "looks like 1920x1080". Namely everything is annoyingly big, even if it's very sharp.
I'm already running into this problem with "half of 8K" on my Samsung G95NC 8Kx2K superultrawide. It maxes out at 3840x1080 HiDPI, and the only way to go higher is running it as two separate displays.
So until Apple raises the framebuffer limit, or makes a way better scaling system where this becomes a non-issue like it is on Windows, I wouldn't recommend anyone to use an 8K display with a Mac.
Which also means TB5 for DP 2.1 is pretty useless for future proofing.
My opinion only, but...
... there's no point in thinking "8k" until 4k has become the streaming/cable/broadcast "standard"...
(as 1080p seems to be now)
... there's no point in thinking "8k" until 4k has become the streaming/cable/broadcast "standard"...
(as 1080p seems to be now)
I was also thinking wether it is worth going for the m4pro. I have gone for the m4 24/512. If apple would not charge an extra 200$ for the mini upgrade due to the heat problems of the small housing i would go for the pro.
One thing that I haven't actually seen much mention of in the forums, (haven't been reading too hard but...). I did notice the other day that the:
10-core mmM4 has 4 Performance and 6 Efficiency
where as the:
12-core mmM4 Pro has 8 Performance and 4 Efficiency!
Which in MY EYES, means it has TWICE the cores! Yeah you read it here first (perhaps)! Me being bold, but this is gonna make Xcode builds twice as fast easily. Not to mention encodes etc
So just something to think about...
Cause you would think oh 10-core versus 12-core only a couple extra cores, Nah Nah Dawg...
10-core mmM4 has 4 Performance and 6 Efficiency
where as the:
12-core mmM4 Pro has 8 Performance and 4 Efficiency!
Which in MY EYES, means it has TWICE the cores! Yeah you read it here first (perhaps)! Me being bold, but this is gonna make Xcode builds twice as fast easily. Not to mention encodes etc
So just something to think about...
Cause you would think oh 10-core versus 12-core only a couple extra cores, Nah Nah Dawg...
The is a follow up—after nearly 6 weeks I am super satisfied with the m4 pro base, and I’m even playing death stranding 4K with all the details and effects. And never have to worry about too many things open or running, it just plows right through.
Hope you love your choices too guys.
The Pro (and greater) may be worth it for running local LLM due to the greater memory bandwidth. Turns out even an M2 Pro is faster than a base M4 for running local LLM likely due to the greater memory bandwidth. It's been a while since I've seen a common application/use-case sensitive to memory bandwidth but it appears memory bandwidth is going mainstream. I wouldn't be surprised if other generative AI algorithms similarly benefit from greater memory bandwiddth but I don't have the data.
It's possible the importance of memory bandwidth decreases with future advances and optimizations of the algorithms underlying LLM but it's hard to predict. If we're planning for the next 2 years or less, I think we have to go with what we know now.
If I was doing everything you listed except LLM, I would get an M4 base w/32GB of RAM. If I just planned to experiment with LLM on the side, I would probably still go with that. If I planned to add heavy local LLM/etc to the mix, I would get an M4 Pro w/48GB of RAM or more.
Yes I was thinking about that too. For parallel rebuilds, the compiler system should be able to dynamically dispatch processes for each source file across all the processors to keep them all busy.
However, for running traditional fine-grained multiprocesing code, it's hard enough to get that right and scale that a lot of programs don't dynamically adjust to running across processors with different performance characteristics and will effectively run at the speed of the slowest processor (so the code may run slower when 2 efficiency cores are added to the mix than just leaving it all on performance cores).
I don't have a system nor a code that needs that at the moment to test myself but I would be curious to see the numbers if anyone else has tested our such scenerios.
In relation to "future proofing," it is difficult to tell what the future will be. 24GB RAM seems like a good idea, but in my view large videos and photo-editing takes a lot of storage space, and Apple wants too much money, not only for RAM, but for internal storage. Yes, I believe that the latest OS allows for installing photo-editing and other apps in external SSD's and hard drives, so I assume that one can edit photos and videos externally.
I have been ambivalent about buying a M4 Mini. The more I think about it, the more I feel that there are other options, including some of the "used" M3 Macs loaded with extra RAM and storage being sold at a 50% reduction in price from new, just one year later? I also don't want to deal with the M4 Mini's thermals, regardless of what the Apple engineers think about the design.
a. Would some of the M4 buyers desire to future-proof by buying Macs with the M5 chip?
b. Would one of these Mac Pro with the M3 chip would keep me happy until the future M5 Pro models arrive?
c. See most buyers, including myself, want the latest and the greatest, and right now, but what is one waits a little ?
This video relates to the MacBook, but I am certain that the same is starting to happen to the Mac Studio in the used market:
Last edited:
It’s particularly bad if you spec them up
You get absolutely HAMMERED on resale
If at all possible, buy base models or buy preowned and let others take it in the shorts
Typical replacement cycle is
- 4 years for Macs
- 5-6 years for PC
The price difference of the non-Pro vs Pro could be spent years later.