M1 Mac Mini for Graphics Design

[iMi]

I realize it's impossible to determine at this point what kind of performance we should expect from the new Mini, but I could use some advice. Do you think the new Mini would be solid enough for Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Dreamweaver and the likes? Along with two email clients, several email accounts, dozens of browser pages open, few spreadsheets, and a few other things running in the background?

I just got the new iMac with the 5700XT and 64GB of RAM. The obvious concern is the limited RAM, but does it even matter? Is the new architecture different enough to get by with 16GB?

 

[throAU]

Yes.

I would suggest that the new M1 mini will be faster than a MacBook Air, and likely as fast or faster than a MacBook Pro with the new M1.

I don't believe your workload would push for more than 8-16 GB of RAM - whether you're on x86 or Apple Silicon.

I typically have 3 browsers, 3 email clients, Remote Desktop apps, terminals, word/excel/skype for business and VMware workstation open with a VM in 16 GB of RAM on a MacBook air and have RAM free mostly.

 

[averagenerd81]

I think you need to keep in mind that at first many of those applications are going to be running in emulation for .. well .. who knows.

At this point only Apple and adobe know how things will perform in Rosetta emulation. If it's your line of work and you don't have a fall back machine, I wouldn't ... but since you have the iMac I don't see the harm in trying.

 

[LeeW]

I saw this.

So whilst yes it is certainly more powerful than many options out there and welcome it is still not 'amazing'. The Mini has the best cooling of the 3 new options which will mean it could likely squeeze out a bit more performance overall than the other two but not significant by any means.

As @averagenerd81 noted above, you are going to have to pass the apps you mentioned through Rosetta2, no idea yet what kind of performance hit that will result in, but it will affect it until Adobe release native software, which they are doing, was it mentioned in the event that was coming Q1 2021? I think it was.

Wait a week for the tests to start appearing to get a better idea of how these things will run.

 

[chabig]

I think you need to keep in mind that at first many of those applications are going to be running in emulation for .. well .. who knows.

Translation, not emulation. Translation only occurs once.

 

[throAU]

I think you need to keep in mind that at first many of those applications are going to be running in emulation for .. well .. who knows.

Not really emulation.

Rosetta compiles them at install time - there won't/shouldn't be any significant memory overhead at run-time.

With regards to teraflops .... largely irrelevant for the OPs workload. Thats a measurement of GPU performance and most of the above tasks will make minimal use of the GPU.

I'm seriously considering a new M1 mini myself as a dip into the water because its cheap and would be a nice development machine for when I'm at home at my desk.

 

[iMi]

Not really emulation.

Rosetta compiles them at install time - there won't/shouldn't be any significant memory overhead at run-time.

With regards to teraflops .... largely irrelevant for the OPs workload. Thats a measurement of GPU performance and most of the above tasks will make minimal use of the GPU.

I'm seriously considering a new M1 mini myself as a dip into the water because its cheap and would be a nice development machine for when I'm at home at my desk.

So, are you and @throAU saying that Rosetta essentially “converts“ the native app one time to run on Apple’s silicone and then it’s done?

I’m starting to think that the iMac 8-Core, 5700XT with 64GB of ram is an overkill for my needs. Although I do see the RAM fill out. The biggest concern I have is the RAM in fact. 16GB seems small. Do we know if the difference in the architecture makes a difference? If so, to what extend?

 

[throAU]

So, are you and @throAU saying that Rosetta essentially “converts“ the native app one time to run on Apple’s silicone and then it’s done?

Yes, that is what Rosetta 2 does. How well it works remains to be seen, but Rosetta v1 was pretty seamless if your Mac was fast enough and that did the translation while the app was running (in real time, every time you ran the app).

Apple have a history here and Rosetta 2 seems to be a more advanced (and better performing) way of doing it.

 

[djjeff]

So, are you and @throAU saying that Rosetta essentially “converts“ the native app one time to run on Apple’s silicone and then it’s done?

I’m starting to think that the iMac 8-Core, 5700XT with 64GB of ram is an overkill for my needs. Although I do see the RAM fill out. The biggest concern I have is the RAM in fact. 16GB seems small. Do we know if the difference in the architecture makes a difference? If so, to what extend?

Unless by "RAM fill out" you mean cache then 16 GB is insufficient for your needs.

Yes, we know the difference in architecture does not make any meaningful difference (especially with todays RAM sizes). At one time RISC (the M1 architecture) tended to consume more memory for programs than did CISC (the x64 architecture). However the distinction between RISC and CISC somewhat blurred over time with RISC systems becoming less "RISCy" as transistors counts greatly increased. Generally speaking the difference in code size can be ignored given the multi gigabyte memory sizes we're discussing.

The ARM specification / implementation (i.e. M1) is not some magical architecture that "changes the laws of physics".

 

[teohyc]

I just bought a Mac Mini i7 + 32GB RAM and speed is amazing. Main use is for Final Cut Pro, Lightroom, web browsing, and that uses 20GB RAM most of the time.

So 8GB with the M1 Mac Mini is going to be tight. Highly recommend upgrading to 16GB for the extra US $200 to make the total US $1099.

Storage is not a concern at this point because people have to come to the realisation that external storage (online or SSD) is the way to go. The only place where Apple can still gouge you is with RAM prices.

It's difficult to say how good the M1 Mac Mini is for graphic design at this time. Speed is definitely there. Main concern is whether the 8GB will limit performance, and what happens when you run out of RAM.

 

[MacCheetah3]

I’m starting to think that the iMac 8-Core, 5700XT with 64GB of ram is an overkill for my needs. Although I do see the RAM fill out. The biggest concern I have is the RAM in fact. 16GB seems small. Do we know if the difference in the architecture makes a difference? If so, to what extend?

With all of your regular workflow apps launched (and working for at least a little while), what does Activity Monitor report for Memory Used? Is it more than 16GB? Is it a lot more?

 

[throAU]

uses 20GB RAM most of the time.

I keep seeing people claiming massive memory consumption figures beyond what they should be, and I think it is because people don't understand unix memory management.

What is your "App memory" number under "memory used"? Thats how much your workload is using, and "wired" is how much of it is actually held IN RAM at that moment.

The rest is basically cache.

Cache is optional, and cache is very much not as essential as it used to be with machines using SSD.

I mean look at this:

I'm "using" 10.56 GB, right?

No. Not really. My workload is 6.15 GB (i.e., it would fit in an 8GB machine without using memory compression) and the actual amount of RAM used for my apps right now is 2.86 GB. At most 2.86+1.55GB, which is still less than 6 GB.

 

[iMi]

With all of your regular workflow apps launched (and working for at least a little while), what does Activity Monitor report for Memory Used? Is it more than 16GB? Is it a lot more?

Yes, I’ve seen it in excess of 50GB when large projects are open. I moved from a 16” MacBook Pro, which had 16GB, and the performance is definitely better. Is it earth shattering? No, but you notice it.

 

[iMi]

I keep seeing people claiming massive memory consumption figures beyond what they should be, and I think it is because people don't understand unix memory management.

What is your "App memory" number under "memory used"? Thats how much your workload is using, and "wired" is how much of it is actually held IN RAM at that moment.

The rest is basically cache.

Cache is optional, and cache is very much not as essential as it used to be with machines using SSD.

I mean look at this:
View attachment 1660423

I'm "using" 10.56 GB, right?

No. Not really. My workload is 6.15 GB (i.e., it would fit in an 8GB machine without using memory compression) and the actual amount of RAM used for my apps right now is 2.86 GB. At most 2.86+1.55GB, which is still less than 6 GB.

This is what I'm showing right now and here's what's running:

• Mail
• Agenda
• Quicken Books
• Spark
• Safari (2 tabs)
• Calendar
• Contacts
• Reminders
• Messages
• WeChat
• Maps
• Pages (one page document)
• InDesign (no project open)
• Illustrator (one page project open)
• Music
• Podcasts
• Books
• Epson Scan
• Skitch

I don't always work on making brochures, sales sheets, logos, websites, etc. That represents about 30% of the work I do. The rest is pretty much intensive office work.

I have graphic intensive proposals that have 60-80 pages in InDesign at times. Not all the time, but sometime.

Here's another thing I am wondering about. Would the 2X faster SSD (as Apple claims) make a difference? Would it negate the need for more RAM?

 

[djjeff]

I just bought a Mac Mini i7 + 32GB RAM and speed is amazing. Main use is for Final Cut Pro, Lightroom, web browsing, and that uses 20GB RAM most of the time.

So 8GB with the M1 Mac Mini is going to be tight. Highly recommend upgrading to 16GB for the extra US $200 to make the total US $1099.

Storage is not a concern at this point because people have to come to the realisation that external storage (online or SSD) is the way to go. The only place where Apple can still gouge you is with RAM prices.

It's difficult to say how good the M1 Mac Mini is for graphic design at this time. Speed is definitely there. Main concern is whether the 8GB will limit performance, and what happens when you run out of RAM.

No, we don't. Perhaps it is for you but for me having ample internal storage is preferred.

 

[djjeff]

I keep seeing people claiming massive memory consumption figures beyond what they should be, and I think it is because people don't understand unix memory management.

What is your "App memory" number under "memory used"? Thats how much your workload is using, and "wired" is how much of it is actually held IN RAM at that moment.

The rest is basically cache.

Cache is optional, and cache is very much not as essential as it used to be with machines using SSD.

I mean look at this:
View attachment 1660423

I'm "using" 10.56 GB, right?

No. Not really. My workload is 6.15 GB (i.e., it would fit in an 8GB machine without using memory compression) and the actual amount of RAM used for my apps right now is 2.86 GB. At most 2.86+1.55GB, which is still less than 6 GB.

RAM cache is faster than SSDs. SSDs have helped reduce the impact of exhausting RAM but it is no substitute for RAM. If I am working with a 32 GB data set then I should have at a minimum 32 GB of RAM. Whether the application itself directly manipulates it or the OS indirectly manipulates it via caching it's considerably faster than paging it out to an secondary storage, even if that secondary storage is a fast SSD.

 

[iMi]

No, we don't. Perhaps it is for you but for me having ample internal storage is preferred.

I agree. 1TB is the absolute minimum I'll accept.

 

[iMi]

RAM cache is faster than SSDs. SSDs have helped reduce the impact of exhausting RAM but it is no substitute for RAM. If I am working with a 32 GB data set then I should have at a minimum 32 GB of RAM. Whether the application itself directly manipulates it or the OS indirectly manipulates it via caching it's considerably faster than paging it out to an secondary storage, even if that secondary storage is a fast SSD.

There is no doubt about it and any synthetic test will clearly show the difference, but how much impact will it have in a real-life situation. Will the difference be significant or will the task executes by the time I finish sipping coffee. You see what I mean?

I guess we've had relatively fast machines for a while now. There is a lot to say about software optimization, too.

 

[djjeff]

There is no doubt about it and any synthetic test will clearly show the difference, but how much impact will it have in a real-life situation. Will the difference be significant or will the task executes by the time I finish sipping coffee. You see what I mean?

I guess we've had relatively fast machines for a while now. There is a lot to say about software optimization, too.

Real life tests also benefit, especially if the task at hand is updating the data. SSDs are unable to provide byte level writes to memory. SSDs write in blocks, typically in 4 KB sizes, which means writing a single byte to an SSD requires a read (to retrieve the entire block), a modify (to update the single byte), and then writing the 4 KB block to the SSD. It gets worse if you're writing two blocks and the data has to span two 4 KB SSD blocks. Thus a two byte write can require two read/update/write cycles. Best case scenario is an entire 4 KB block needs to be written in which case the read can be omitted (as none of the original information is needed). Memory, for all intents and purposes, does not don't have this issue.

Further more the time to write 4 KB to an SSD is, relatively speaking, slower than RAM. More so if the SSD is approaching capacity and has to perform house keeping in order to perform the write. Caching on the SSD can minimize this and the above but SSD caches are a fraction of a 32 GB data set.

Memory management systems combined with fast SSDs have reduce the impact of low memory situations but they have not eliminated it. It still holds that you should have the appropriate amount of memory for the task at hand.

As for the M1 Mini I think a better argument is that 16 GB should be considered sufficient for its target market. If your work requires larger memory capacity then the based systems are not for you. Trying to justify the 16 GB limit based on some technical reason is, IMO, foolish. It's obvious to me the M1 target is entry level, low power use systems. The three released systems match that criteria.

 

[MacCheetah3]

This is what I'm showing right now and here's what's running:

• Mail
• Agenda
• Quicken Books
• Spark
• Safari (2 tabs)
• Calendar
• Contacts
• Reminders
• Messages
• WeChat
• Maps
• Pages (one page document)
• InDesign (no project open)
• Illustrator (one page project open)
• Music
• Podcasts
• Books
• Epson Scan
• Skitch

View attachment 1660766

I don't always work on making brochures, sales sheets, logos, websites, etc. That represents about 30% of the work I do. The rest is pretty much intensive office work.

I have graphic intensive proposals that have 60-80 pages in InDesign at times. Not all the time, but sometime.

I am curious, which app is using the most and how much? That usage seems a bit high to me as (I would assume) many of those apps should have small footprints.

Here's another thing I am wondering about. Would the 2X faster SSD (as Apple claims) make a difference? Would it negate the need for more RAM?

With a fast SSD, the impact will be far less than it was on system£ with an HDD. However, as you mentioned, ithe acceptability is subjective, preference. Additionally, you’d be adding I/O wear to the SSD, which may not be significant but still worth consideration.

 

[iMi]

I am curious, which app is using the most and how much? That usage seems a bit high to me as (I would assume) many of those apps should have small footprints.

With a fast SSD, the impact will be far less than it was on system£ with an HDD. However, as you mentioned, ithe acceptability is subjective, preference. Additionally, you’d be adding I/O wear to the SSD, which may not be significant but still worth consideration.

Top apps taking up memory are safari, illustrator, window server, inDesign and Agenda. I should mention that I am also running UltraFine 5K in addition to the iMac. I'm not sure if that has an impact or not.

 

[Fishrrman]

OP wrote:
"I just got the new iMac with the 5700XT and 64GB of RAM. The obvious concern is the limited RAM, but does it even matter? Is the new architecture different enough to get by with 16GB?"

In my opinion, what you have above will probably outperform ANY configuration of the new M1 Mini.

I wouldn't move "from where you are now".
To do so... would be a downgrade.

 

[iMi]

OP wrote:
"I just got the new iMac with the 5700XT and 64GB of RAM. The obvious concern is the limited RAM, but does it even matter? Is the new architecture different enough to get by with 16GB?"

In my opinion, what you have above will probably outperform ANY configuration of the new M1 Mini.

I wouldn't move "from where you are now".
To do so... would be a downgrade.

No doubt it will outperform it, but that’s not really the point. The question is what will the experience be like on the mini. Will it be smooth and sufficient for what I do. I’ve kind of done a 180 on the Intel Macs. If this is what the mini can do, I expect new apple silicone iMacs will be even more amazing. I bought to iMac pretty much maxed out to lock into the last Intel and stay on it for a few years until kinks are worked out with apples silicone.

 

[djjeff]

No doubt it will outperform it, but that’s not really the point. The question is what will the experience be like on the mini. Will it be smooth and sufficient for what I do. I’ve kind of done a 180 on the Intel Macs. If this is what the mini can do, I expect new apple silicone iMacs will be even more amazing. I bought to iMac pretty much maxed out to lock into the last Intel and stay on it for a few years until kinks are worked out with apples silicone.

What do you mean by this?

As for what the experience would be like we won't know but it seems reasonable to conclude it would be poor given this:

Although I do see the RAM fill out. The biggest concern I have is the RAM in fact.​

If you're maxing out the RAM in a 64 GB configuration than a 16 GB configuration, M1 or x64, is going to be inadequate. You'd be forced to alter your workflow to match the 16 GB RAM configuration.

Are you considering returning / selling your current iMac and replacing it with an M1 Mini? If so what is the driving factor for doing so? It seems to me since you already own the iMac that you should hang on to it as it currently suits your needs and, given its configuration, is likely to do so for many, many years to come.

 

[iMi]

What do you mean by this?

As for what the experience would be like we won't know but it seems reasonable to conclude it would be poor given this:

Although I do see the RAM fill out. The biggest concern I have is the RAM in fact.​

If you're maxing out the RAM in a 64 GB configuration than a 16 GB configuration, M1 or x64, is going to be inadequate. You'd be forced to alter your workflow to match the 16 GB RAM configuration.

Are you considering returning / selling your current iMac and replacing it with an M1 Mini? If so what is the driving factor for doing so? It seems to me since you already own the iMac that you should hang on to it as it currently suits your needs and, given its configuration, is likely to do so for many, many years to come.

I was certain I would want to have an Intel based iMac for a few years, but seeing the rapid progress Apple seems to be making with it's silicone, I am starting to think that jumping in now makes more sense. Also, the Mini is less than half the cost and if it suffices until next year when the iMacs are out, that's fine. I can justify spending more then.

Second, I didn't realize I could run iOS apps in Big Sur... that's a big deal for me. There are quite a few I'd like to have on my desktop. In fact, that's a really big deal for me.