M1 Mac Mini for Graphics Design

[djjeff]

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.

What rapid progress? The three systems are the first ARM generation Macintosh systems. Until third parties have had an opportunity to review them, the eco system (such as native applications) has had an opportunity to mature a little, and newer generations are released we can't say they're making rapid progress.

 

[hugodrax]

I am able to process and edit 50megapixel RAW images on my 2015 ipad pro. I think the M1 chip will more than suffice.

 

[iMi]

What rapid progress? The three systems are the first ARM generation Macintosh systems. Until third parties have had an opportunity to review them, the eco system (such as native applications) has had an opportunity to mature a little, and newer generations are released we can't say they're making rapid progress.

You weren't around when they transitioned to Intel, were you. Or maybe you forgot. This is a massive uptick in performance, all Apple apps have been optimized, macOS has been optimized and a fast growing list of developers are on board and will have their software either optimized for M1 or universal within weeks. Microsoft, Adobe, Affinity. All on day one.

That is a rapid progress.

 

[iMi]

I am able to process and edit 50megapixel RAW images on my 2015 ipad pro. I think the M1 chip will more than suffice.

That's a good feedback, thank you. I am pretty sure it will suffice for what I do. Again, if I get a year or two out of it and then jump onto the new iMac or whatever might come out that is even faster, no problem. I can do that.

 

[MevetS]

You weren't around when they transitioned to Intel, were you. Or maybe you forgot. This is a massive uptick in performance, all Apple apps have been optimized, macOS has been optimized and a fast growing list of developers are on board and will have their software either optimized for M1 or universal within weeks. Microsoft, Adobe, Affinity. All on day one.

That is a rapid progress.

Microsoft does not have ASi native apps ready yet. Link. Although there is a beta of Office. Link.

Adobe - Lightroom in December, Photoshop and Lightroom Classic in 2021. Link.

Affinity is available now. Link.

This can only be considered "day one" for large values of "one".

Cheers!

 

[djjeff]

You weren't around when they transitioned to Intel, were you. Or maybe you forgot. This is a massive uptick in performance, all Apple apps have been optimized, macOS has been optimized and a fast growing list of developers are on board and will have their software either optimized for M1 or universal within weeks. Microsoft, Adobe, Affinity. All on day one.

That is a rapid progress.

I am a veteran of the 68K to PPC to Intel and now ARM transition. As for massive uptick in performance I have yet to see it. Sure, Apple gave a few benchmarks which look good. But Apple has always done that. They did it with their 68K system and they did it with their PPC systems. Select benchmarks intended to illustrate the best case each time. I wouldn't be surprised to learn they're doing it again. We'll have to wait and see if this massive uptick in performance is select benchmarks against select systems or whether it is applicable across the board.

 

[throAU]

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?

According to that, 15 GB of your used memory is cache which is of minor importance on a machine with fast SSD. Of the remainder, only 5 GB is active memory in RAM, and you haven't even hit memory compression yet.

the TLDR is this:
because your machine has an excessive (or lets say "plentiful") amount of memory, macOS is doing its best to try and make use of it for SOMETHING (cache) rather than having it sit idle (because idle memory is wasted memory), and you're still using less than half the total system memory - my suspicion is because you haven't worked with more than 15 GB of data since the machine booted, or macOS is internally deciding that 15 GB of cache is more than enough and beyond the point of diminishing returns.

Basically macOS has put everything you've touched into memory and has run out of things to put into cache because it doesn't know what to put in there yet. It has literally run out of things to try and keep in memory for you "just in case" - even if they aren't active.

My view is that exact workload would fit in a 16 GB machine with minimal performance impact.

You might barely start to hit memory compression, but the machine would cope well with it IMHO (and in the case of having a faster SSD and faster CPU/etc. in the m1 you'd probably see a performance uplift that would more than off-set that, is my bet).

You could probably even run that workload in 8 GB, but the machine would certainly struggle and you'd see a big improvement with 16 GB. 32 GB you'd maybe see a minor improvement due to having plenty of disk cache. 64 GB for that workload is beyond the point of diminishing returns imho. I'm not saying you made a mistake going for 64 - because RAM is cheap (and it's definitely better to have more than not enough). And you're somewhat future proof.

But unless you start doing significantly different things with that machine that need much more RAM, you'll likely be hitting the wall with CPU and GPU before 32 GB becomes a limiting factor.

From your list, it's not uncommon for me to have all of these:

• Mail
• Spark
• Safari (many more than 2 tabs )
• Calendar
• Contacts
• Reminders
• Messages
• Maps
• Music
• Podcasts
• Books

PLUS a 4 GB virtual machine running in Fusion, plus Skype for Business, Excel, Word, a bunch of safari tabs, Brave, Firefox (where I work I use 3 browsers for different things , Cathode/Terminal, MS Remote Desktop, News, Bbedit and/or visual code running at the same time.

in 16 Gb

 

[iMi]

Well, I’m going for it. I’m having issues with bluetooth on the iMac anyway. Ordered the new Mini and we’ll see how things go from here. I’ll certainly update this post with my experience once it arrives, as it may help others.

Thank you everyone for your input. Much appreciated.

 

[MacCheetah3]

According to that, 15 GB of your used memory is cache which is of minor importance on a machine with fast SSD. Of the remainder, only 5 GB is active memory in RAM, and you haven't even hit memory compression yet.
...
My view is that exact workload would fit in a 16 GB machine with minimal performance impact.

That's not how I understand it. If you hover over the headers, it provides a brief description, or you can look here:

View memory usage in Activity Monitor on Mac

In Activity Monitor, view the amount of system memory being used on your Mac, including physical, compressed, wired, and app memory.

support.apple.com

In @iMi's example case, ~31.5GB is used for app and system data handling -- what RAM is meant for -- then you would also have ~15GB of system files loaded into RAM, i.e. cached for a total of ~46.5GB of RAM filled. However, caching files isn't necessary, and ~26.5GB of app and system data could be compressed.

Well, I’m going for it. I’m having issues with bluetooth on the iMac anyway. Ordered the new Mini and we’ll see how things go from here. I’ll certainly update this post with my experience once it arrives, as it may help others.

Thank you everyone for your input. Much appreciated.

Nice. I think, you'll be okay. Nevertheless, I'm interested to see/hear the details.

 

[iMi]

That's not how I understand it. If you hover over the headers, it provides a brief description, or you can look here:

View memory usage in Activity Monitor on Mac

In Activity Monitor, view the amount of system memory being used on your Mac, including physical, compressed, wired, and app memory.

support.apple.com

In @iMi's example case, ~31.5GB is used for app and system data handling -- what RAM is meant for -- then you would also have ~15GB of system files loaded into RAM, i.e. cached for a total of ~46.5GB of RAM filled. However, caching files isn't necessary, and ~26.5GB of app and system data could be compressed.

Memory is ironically something that no one can quite remember how to tally. 😂

 

[djjeff]

Well, I’m going for it. I’m having issues with bluetooth on the iMac anyway. Ordered the new Mini and we’ll see how things go from here. I’ll certainly update this post with my experience once it arrives, as it may help others.

Thank you everyone for your input. Much appreciated.

Excellent! I look forward to your feedback.

 

[EmlynDewar]

Well, I’m going for it. I’m having issues with bluetooth on the iMac anyway. Ordered the new Mini and we’ll see how things go from here. I’ll certainly update this post with my experience once it arrives, as it may help others.

Thank you everyone for your input. Much appreciated.

What screen are you going to be using with it?

 

[macdogpro]

I saw this.

View attachment 1660017

Very interesting, where can I see the source of this measurement?

 

[iMi]

What screen are you going to be using with it?

UltraFine 5K

 

[spacedcadet]

I'd worry about the 16gb in the Mini for graphic design, iStat is telling me 48gb is in use on my 5,1 2010 Pro.

I have Photoshop, InDesign and Illustrator open. They are using 14gb between them just idling. Safari is using another 6gb. I do have a lot of fonts switched on, but Suitcase and FMCore are using another 6gb each (not sure this is MEANT to happen, but that's another story).

All in all, the 56gb on my 5,1 is barely enough these days, although more than happy I can still run a graphic design business with it.

Pretty sure the pro versions of these new Apple chips are going to be outstanding though. I might wait a little longer before deciding on an upgrade.

Don't forget this first release is replacing the very low end Macs.