M1 Max vs M2 Pro? (M2 mini vs M1 Studio)

[PsykX]

Easy, the Studio will suffer the most.

A few years from now, when your two otherwise comparable machines go up on eBay, people won't pay as much for the Studio because the larger and much heavier Studio is going to cost more to ship. 😁 The "price-including-shipping to performance ratio" will heavily favor the M2 Pro Mini over the M1 Studio.

I've never seen it this way, because I've always sold my stuff face to face.

Maybe I should consider eBay a little more. It could make it easier to sell Apple products. I'm always scared of just getting stabbed during the transaction 😅 I've read so many things in the newspaper.

 

[PsykX]

Studio has better display support.

You're halfway right.

Studio supports more displays but Mini supports higher resolution displays.

Example :
Mac Studio doesn't support 8K displays.
Mac Mini does : "One display with up to 8K resolution at 60Hz or 4K resolution at 240Hz over HDMI"

I think this point alone will settle the debate for me, as I'm looking to combine my Mac with the upcoming Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 (8K, 57-inch).

 

[tstafford]

I think this point alone will settle the debate for me, as I'm looking to combine my Mac with the upcoming Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 (8K, 57-inch).

There you go! Use case drive it. The machines are very close but there are nuanced differences. I run 3 ASD so the Studio is the right choice for me.

 

[mr_roboto]

Yep, exactly what @Andropov says.

M2 Pro will be faster CPU-wise and slower GPU-wise than the M1 Max. If you don't care much about the GPU, getting the "base" 10-core M2 Pro will save you some money and it should have comparable CPU performance to M1 Max.

Minor note: the 10-core M2 Pro has 6 performance and 4 efficiency cores, while 10 cores on M1 Pro/Max is 8+2. There are probably circumstances where 10-core M1 Pro is faster than 10-core M2 on multithreaded loads.

(edited to add: this is not likely to be a compelling reason to go one way or the other, for most people.)

 

[madeirabhoy]

not the first time recently where apple has ran into these situations of having 2 products where its not clear which is better and they really should try and avoid it as much as possible. Both in having a studio thats similar to a high speck mini, and in terms of havin M1 Max v M2 Pro

reminds me partly of 'old apple' of the 90s and 00s, and partly of trying to look at a myriad of samsung cheap mobiles all about the same price point with different model numbers and benefits and drawbacks.

it will cause sales, it always does. with any product, you will always lose people who want to buy if they keep getting confused about which one to buy.

whatever apple puts into the studio, it should be better than the highest model of mini, just to keep it clean and easy what people should be buying. And their processors should be named in such a way that its easy to know which one is better than the other.

 

[ondioline]

I don't see what is confusing. There is an M2 Max, and it will eventually go into the Studio along with the M2 Ultra.

 

[madeirabhoy]

I don't see what is confusing. There is an M2 Max, and it will eventually go into the Studio along with the M2 Ultra.

and when that does, we will go back again to having a clear lineup.

 

[PsykX]

I don't see what is confusing. There is an M2 Max, and it will eventually go into the Studio along with the M2 Ultra.

There's no M2 Max desktop computer right now. This is what we're comparing.

 

[VivienM]

Maybe I should consider eBay a little more. It could make it easier to sell Apple products. I'm always scared of just getting stabbed during the transaction 😅 I've read so many things in the newspaper.

Around here, police services have an area in the parking lot of some stations that's designed as a buy/sell meeting area with cameras, etc, exactly for this purpose.

 

[Andropov]

Minor note: the 10-core M2 Pro has 6 performance and 4 efficiency cores, while 10 cores on M1 Pro/Max is 8+2. There are probably circumstances where 10-core M1 Pro is faster than 10-core M2 on multithreaded loads.

(edited to add: this is not likely to be a compelling reason to go one way or the other, for most people.)

Hmm, I hadn't noticed that. It's going to be interesting seeing the benchmarks of the 8+2 M1 Pro vs the 6+4 M2 Pro. Should give us a rough idea of the performance of the E cores. I expect them to be very close in multicore performance. The improved µarch of the P and E cores plus the 2 extra E cores could offset the loss of 2 P cores on the 10-core M2 Pro (relative to the 10 core M1 Pro).

 

[Samadaeus]

Did you say you're a software developer? Sounds like you should spend a bit more time reading about hardware!

NAS = network attached storage. Like these: https://www.synology.com/en-global/products?product_line=ds_plus,ds_xs

Your local network speed is unrelated to your internet connection speed.

The standard for Ethernet LANs and computer network interfaces (NICs) has been 1 Gbps for about 15 years, but 10Gbps networks and NICs are now becoming quite common at reasonable price points.

If you have another computer or a NAS on your local network (with a 10 GbE NIC) then you will be able to transfer data at maybe 1000-1223 MB/s depending on the processing ability of the end point, cable type and length, number of other devices etc.

A 1 Gbps network will be about one-tenth of that.

You may also in the future have an internet connection that supports > 1 Gbps, and if your computer only has a 1 GbE NIC, then that will be the limiting factor.

Full stack web developer.. no besides the associated languages in the backend, I’m not in the know of the hardware use of abstract or alternative transfer.

That being said, I actually aiming to learn programming among blockchains. Soo The more you know ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Samadaeus]

You are running a 2016, the best option is probably refurb mac mini 1tb 32gb which was in stock early today.
Second best is the m2 Mac mini.
Third best is the Mac Studio.

You probably could have gotten by on an mba m2 16gb. M2 has better memory bandwidth. GPU shouldn’t matter to you unless you change from full stack and it’s not worth it now.

Pick one because I doubt you will max out the config you listed here and can bet you may upgrade to the m6 chip in 4 years before you over stress this setup.

Lol I mean… I ordered the M2 pro how I listed it there. It arrives the 26th.. they better slow them M’s I waited for too long in order to stay within the current “next level “

I haven’t been able to update my MacBook in like 3 years.. it’s rather
Ruthless

I'm asking myself the same question and I'm torn between the two options.
Basically Mac Mini has better CPU and Mac Studio better GPU.

I'll give another twist to the discussion :
1. Which one will lose more value over time?
"Old base model Mac Studio" or "New Mac Mini w/ M2 Pro - 32 GB - 1TB SSD".

2. Few additional differences :
- Mac Studio has Wi-Fi 6 / Mac Mini has Wi-Fi 6E
- Mac Studio has Bluetooth 5 / Mac Mini has 5.3
- Mac Studio has 10 Gbps Ethernet / Mac Mini has 1Gbps (10Gbps costs extra $)
- Mac Mini is much smaller (but does it have a good cooling system to keep prolonged tasks running?)
- Mac Studio has 400Gbps memory bandwidth / Mac Mini has 200Gbps (how does it translate to a real world experience?)
- Video/Media encoders : is the M2 Pro better than M1 Max!?


I think this is a good topic for an upcoming video, isn't it? 😅

this was an enriching outlook to filter in depreciation costs but at the actual time for sale rather than just next year . I Appreciate the side view of the box , thanks

 

[Confused-User]

Minor note: the 10-core M2 Pro has 6 performance and 4 efficiency cores, while 10 cores on M1 Pro/Max is 8+2. There are probably circumstances where 10-core M1 Pro is faster than 10-core M2 on multithreaded loads.

That's extremely unlikely to be significant, or even perceptible. The M2 is known to be roughly 20% faster than the same-config M1 in multicore. So just comparing the P cores, 1.2 * 6 = 7.2 leaving .8 P cores of perf loss for the 6P M2P. However, the E cores are roughly 1/3 the performance of P cores, so two extra E cores gives you ~.66 P cores back, for a total deficit of .14 P cores, or .14/8 = less than 2% difference in total. Expect them to run neck and neck, and if any part of your workload is limited by single-core perf, the M2 Pro wins on that.

Or, y'know, wait a few days for the geekbenches to land, and then you can see for yourself.

Also note that on the M1, E cores are about 2/3, not 1/3 the performance of P cores, for non-integer workloads (FP, NEON) and maybe somewhere around 55-60% for Accelerate code (GPU-based, and therefore sort of a gray area... we're trying to look at CPU cores after all). So if you have any FP or SIMD code the M2 Pro will again pull ahead.

Of course if you pony up the extra $300 for the 8P + 4E configuration of the M2 Pro, it's a clear winner in all cases, and if you actually have use cases where you'll be fully loading the machine for more than brief periods, you should definitely buy that if you can.

 

[dirkske]

I'm asking myself the same question and I'm torn between the two options.
Basically Mac Mini has better CPU and Mac Studio better GPU.

I'll give another twist to the discussion :
1. Which one will lose more value over time?
"Old base model Mac Studio" or "New Mac Mini w/ M2 Pro - 32 GB - 1TB SSD".

2. Few additional differences :
- Mac Studio has Wi-Fi 6 / Mac Mini has Wi-Fi 6E
- Mac Studio has Bluetooth 5 / Mac Mini has 5.3
- Mac Studio has 10 Gbps Ethernet / Mac Mini has 1Gbps (10Gbps costs extra $)
- Mac Mini is much smaller (but does it have a good cooling system to keep prolonged tasks running?)
- Mac Studio has 400Gbps memory bandwidth / Mac Mini has 200Gbps (how does it translate to a real world experience?)
- Video/Media encoders : is the M2 Pro better than M1 Max!?


I think this is a good topic for an upcoming video, isn't it? 😅

I just ordered the Mac Mini M2 Pro 12‑core CPU, 19‑core GPU with 32GB RAM and 2TB SSD.

Video encoding is much faster on the Mac Studio, but that is something I only do about five times a year. And only for videos about holidays or special events within the family.
So the faster processor and neural engine are more important. The improved bluetooth and wifi are nice touches.

It was a difficult choice, but only because both machines are dream machines for me. So there is no such thing as a wrong choice.

 

[GooseInTheCaboose]

The Mini will be a bit faster CPU wise, and it's smaller. The Studio is faster GPU-wise, has more ports and is generally sexier. Take whichever you like.

This is true. But…expand plz. Who needs the extra GPUs of the Max? For which tasks is the M2Pro’s GPU performance more than enough? Where does the benefit of the faster CPU apply? Does anyone “need” one over the other? What about multitasking for long periods of time or people who leave lots of stuff open? Do the cooling systems affect this/throttling?

 

[cassmr]

Pretty much everyone will benefit from the faster CPU single cores speed of the M2 Pro, so many tasks on your computer are single core focused.

At the end of the day, the people who need the extra GPU cores, know they need it. Regular workloads dont. So if you are buying an intel machine before, and it was important for your apps to have the fastest GPU you could, its still important now (unless you were just getting it to game in windows via bootcamp).

So as I see it for most people the Mac Mini with M2 Pro is best suited for the average to power user. It'll be faster in most day to day tasks, and stay current longer. It'll do great at video editing, photo editing, etc. I.e. its a beefed up mac mini, probably a good replacement for any one who had a reasonably specced imac 27 before.

The Mac Studio base level Max is perhaps better for someone who is doing a lot of video work (double the hardware video encoders), 3d work, and some other scientific/simulation fields which more headily rely on GPU raw power. And i mean regularly doing one or multiple of these tasks because its not like you cant do these as a hobbist with a reasonable experience on the m2 pro. Studio also has better IO, higher memory bandwidth. However, most people in this category should probably hold off for Studio m2 Max, unless they live outside the US and are expecting a big exchange rate hit on the new pricing.

Ultimately, both the top Mac Mini M2 Pro and Mac Studio base m1 Max are great machines, and while they suit slightly different tasks better, both will be fine for most people considering them. If you still cant decide I would say the mac mini is for you. The base studio should be your choice if you want a non-base studio (i.e. damn i really need 64gb, or 30+gpu cores for my work but I cant quite afford it) then the base studio is likely better suited to your tasks.

Also the fear mongering on here(generally not just this thread) is insane. 32gb is more than sufficient for most people including power users and people who want to keep it 10 years. Most computers today are still sold with 8gbs. Ram capacity hasnt really increased at a rapid rate the way its used to and people are stuck in an old mindset about it. The focus advancement has been in ram speed, which has been more important than capacity for most home users for a long time. If you cant point to a specific high memory professional task that you do or are very likely to do, then you dont need more than 32gb of ram (and 16gb is likely fine, but I can see the justification for 32 given its shared with the GPU).

Given the low price difference between the top mac mini m2 pro and base mac studio m1 max, it's also completely valid to decide based on form factor, and ports.

Most importantly, I doubt the people worrying about this would notice any performance difference unless bench marking both machines side by side.

IF you some how still dont know what you should get. Then work out your top 10 most common uses for your machine and see how those tasks compare in the head to heads you'll see all over youtube any day now.

 

[Andropov]

Hmm, I hadn't noticed that. It's going to be interesting seeing the benchmarks of the 8+2 M1 Pro vs the 6+4 M2 Pro. Should give us a rough idea of the performance of the E cores. I expect them to be very close in multicore performance. The improved µarch of the P and E cores plus the 2 extra E cores could offset the loss of 2 P cores on the 10-core M2 Pro (relative to the 10 core M1 Pro).

Very close indeed. M2 Pro 10 cores (6+4) scores 11,807 in Geekbench Multicore, vs 12,191 points for the M1 Max (10 cores, 8+2). 3% difference.

The 12-core M2 Pro (8+4) is definitely faster (15,198).

 

[singleshard]

Also the fear mongering on here(generally not just this thread) is insane. 32gb is more than sufficient for most people including power users and people who want to keep it 10 years. Most computers today are still sold with 8gbs. Ram capacity hasnt really increased at a rapid rate the way its used to and people are stuck in an old mindset about it. The focus advancement has been in ram speed, which has been more important than capacity for most home users for a long time. If you cant point to a specific high memory professional task that you do or are very likely to do, then you dont need more than 32gb of ram (and 16gb is likely fine, but I can see the justification for 32 given its shared with the GPU).

My at work iMac is a mid 2011 27" with 24 GB of RAM. It is not enough. My at home iMac is a late 2013 27" with 32 GB of RAM. It is barely enough. I run memory cleaning utilities on both and tab savers. It is still not enough. Google Workspace is a bloated monster and Google Drive will creep through RAM like the Blob. With now aged CPUs and ancient GPUs, everything climbs into RAM for power.

I used the 2013 for 10 years and the 2011 for 5 years. Whatever I reached for was going to be the improvement I needed. I saved and hemmed and hawed for a long time, not finding anything right for my needs particularly because of the limited RAM in almost all of the M1 offerings (laptops are useless for my work). I finally pulled the trigger on a Mac Studio with 64GB of RAM and the day it was delivered to my house, the M2 Mini dropped.

It was almost an existential crisis.

But the thing is the days when grabbing the cheapest iMac to use for 2-3 years then repeat are long over. That is an expensive cycle. It is far better to by the best machine available and use it for as long as possible. The TCO for that 2013 iMac was ~$350 as shipped (with 8GB of RAM). Using the cheapest iMac (with upgraded SSD and ethernet), the TCO is ~$510 a year.

The M2 Mini is probably "faster", but everything is "faster" than these scores: