Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yeah, the Apple Guy (a Genius?) is right. However, the price jump between the 24GB and 48GB M4 Pro Mini is almost 500€. It’s insane. There needs to be an intermediate step of, say, 36GB. That would be my optimal setup.

But staying at 24GB or bumping it to 48GB for almost 500€ is just too much.
Given the apparent number of memory banks and sizes of memory banks, it is interesting to see what SKU's Apple probably could have easily made, but decided not to:
1730563782812.png


We still need confirmation if the down-binned M4 Max really only uses 6 banks instead of 8. I believe that was the case for the lower binned M3 Max, but details are less clear right now.
 
Last edited:
Remember when you could buy a top cpu Mac and buy ram and gfx plus storage aftermarket? For essentially this price... Pepperidge farm remembers...


Oh well, a Puck it is.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: blufrog
Remember when you could buy a top cpu Mac and buy ram and gfx plus storage aftermarket? For essentially this price... Pepperidge farm remembers...
Apple absolutely holds the reins of scaling now, and will absolutely charge for it.

Luckily, Apple's "lower" priced models are so generally capable that almost nobody needs to scale them up.

Hopefully base storage doubles in the next 2 generations.

As for gaming, just don't buy a Mac for that. :)
 
It’s not confusing. If Apple Silicon is advancing quickly, then the best strategy is to upgrade each year or two, rather than buy a fully maxxed out model that you plan to keep for 5 years.

I’ve never followed the fully maxed out, long term purchase strategy. I’ve always gone with the best CPU I could afford, and enough ram and SSD to last me a year or two.

“Unfortunately” I got stuck at the 10 core 14” M1Pro MacBook Pro with 8P cores and 2E cores. My DAW only uses P cores, so the equivalent M2Pro and M3Pro really weren’t much of an upgrade…especially the 12 core M3Pro being 6p6e.

Now that there is an M4Pro chip with 10P cores I’m interested in upgrading! If I do, it would be the 14core M4Pro Mac Mini with base ram and SSD. That will be a kick ass machine for a couple of years until we get an M series pro chip with 12P cores.
Since with rare exceptions like Intel's periods of stagnation this is the same situation everyone has been in for the entire 40+ year history of home computing, the best strategy is actually exactly the same as it's always been:

When your current computer isn't doing what you need of it, then buy the best balance of what you can afford and need/want from a computer. Then don't think about the fact that whatever you just bought will be outdated in six months.

If whatever you buy today is doing what you need it to today, then it's very likely still doing what you need it to a year from now, in which case it doesn't matter if you can now buy something ten times as fast for the same price then.

We're still using plenty of computers at work that are 4-6 years old. They are all from just before Intel started improving things, so they're all drastically slower than something new. And it's fine! They're slower than my current phone, sure, but they're also perfectly sufficient for people to get their work done without suffering or wasting time, so literally nobody is complaining, because they're not spec-hounds who care what Geekbench says or whether their computer is faster or slower than what's on the desk next to theirs, they're people who need a tool to do a job.

I will say, though, that here's my personal argument for buying high end and keeping it longer: Assuming that you do, indeed, get an extra 2-3 years out of a high-end computer, you don't need to go through the hassle of changing as often. That's one of my main reasons to go high-end at home; I get to have fun with the latest-and-greatest for a little while, then have something that's still quite decent for another few years without having to shop for or migrate to something new, even if it's better.
 
Since with rare exceptions like Intel's periods of stagnation this is the same situation everyone has been in for the entire 40+ year history of home computing, the best strategy is actually exactly the same as it's always been:

When your current computer isn't doing what you need of it, then buy the best balance of what you can afford and need/want from a computer. Then don't think about the fact that whatever you just bought will be outdated in six months.
While I generally agree with you, there are specific instances where this is not very good advice.

For example, in 2016 I advised people to wait one year before buying new Macs, because the next iteration would most likely get hardware h.265 HEVC decode support. Of course, some people here said just buy what you need now and don't worry about what's coming in a year.

Low and behold, a year later, h.265 HEVC did indeed get supported and in fact Apple built an entire multimedia ecosystem around it.

It's one thing not to wait because it won't be the fastest in a year, but it's another thing to have a critical feature (for some people) that's completely missing if you don't wait:

Playing a Sony h.265 HEVC 4K HDR demo video:
2016 iMac Core i7 - Stutters, even at 100% CPU usage, fans at maximum
2017 iMac Core i5 - Smooth as butter, at 10% CPU usage, fans quiet
2017 12" MacBook - Smooth as butter, at 25% CPU usage, fanless!
 
Last edited:
While I generally agree with you, there are specific instances where this is not very good advice.

For example, in 2016 I advised people to wait one year before buying new Macs, because the next iteration would most likely get hardware h.265 HEVC decode support. Of course, some people here said just buy what you need now and don't worry about what's coming in a year.

Low and behold, a year later, h.265 HEVC did indeed get supported and in fact Apple built an entire multimedia ecosystem around it.

It's one thing not to wait because it won't be the fastest in a year, but it's another thing to have a critical feature (for some people) that's completely missing if you don't wait:

Playing a Sony h.265 HEVC 4K HDR demo video:
2016 iMac Core i7 - Stutters, even at 100% CPU usage
2017 iMac Core i5 - Smooth as butter, at 10% CPU usage
2017 12" MacBook - Smooth as butter at 25% CPU usage
This is a legitimate point, although I'd argue that specific features like that, with a big future ecosystem impact, are pretty rare. And even in a dramatic example like that, for some use cases (like a work computer where you aren't doing anything with video), there still would have been little to no actual-use impact.

The only obvious previous one I can think of as dramatic as that example is math coprocessors capable of playing an MP3 in real time (as opposed to taking literally days to convert one to something the computer was capable of playing in real time--I tried on an 68020 once), and that was a long, long time ago.

Heck, I knowingly bought a final-generation Intel iMac with full knowledge that soon-to-arrive Apple Silicon would mean there were features the iMac wouldn't support, because it did what I needed it to--and although it's missing out on a few things, still does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blufrog and rb2112
Leaning towards the 16” M4 Pro 14/20 core - one reason being that is has rated 24hr battery life vs 21hr on the M4 Max. The best power/thermals inflection point across the lineup.
 
  • Love
Reactions: blufrog
The Apple guy is right, especially for audio production, more RAM is a better pay off. It'll handle more tracks at the same time with ease over hitting the bottleneck and using swap which, while fast on Apple Silicon machines, still isn’t as fast as straight RAM. For audio production any Apple Silicon CPU is going to be quick and not much of a noticeable improvement over a new chip while RAM is still king 👑.
It’s not that clear cut.
If you use a lot of large sample libraries in your DAW then you need a lot of RAM. If you mainly use Virtual Instruments that crunch code to make sounds then you need CPU.

I don’t use big sample libraries, but lots of VSTi’s and effects plugins.

I run out of CPU on my 10core M1 Pro more than I run out of 16GB ram in my use case.
 
The M4 Pro's performance makes me wonder if Apple will release M4 Max Mac Studios sooner than later. Maybe the hit to Mac Studio sales isn't as significant compared to the ( presumably ) higher M4 Pro ( on the new mini ) sales. I'm thinking March and not June ( just a guess folks ). Should be interesting.
 
If I could, I would rather spend 4K on a custom built PC at least I can upgrade and swap out stuff lol
I did just what you said 2 years ago.....waited to see what M1 ultra would do, once that was known spent $2.7k on a custom PC 13900KS that I have used ever since for awesome performance.
 
It sure isn't fun when you spend $5000 highest end Mac Studio to get dwarfed by $1000 M4 Pro chip a year later on a Mac Mini. I do think Apple is way too dwarfing the last gen chip as if spending more for a prosumer Mac means nothing.
if you have work to do that demands the power you buy what you can when it is available. the pro users on mac studios from last year have more than paid for the device in the past 12 months of ownership through work generated on it.

if you need the power - more as soon as you can get it is best. im sure they will appreciate the speed bump available if they choose to upgrade either now or later. fact is the m4 wasn’t available when they needed to buy a computer and not purchasing and thus not generating revenue with the machine be in order to wait is just not a thing.
 
if you have work to do that demands the power you buy what you can when it is available. the pro users on mac studios from last year have more than paid for the device in the past 12 months of ownership through work generated on it.

if you need the power - more as soon as you can get it is best. im sure they will appreciate the speed bump available if they choose to upgrade either now or later. fact is the m4 wasn’t available when they needed to buy a computer and not purchasing and thus not generating revenue with the machine be in order to wait is just not a thing.
Second that. Heaven forbid evolution stops because someone maxed out his/her Mac Studio.....

Whatever hardware someone bought a year ago is just as fast and just as efficient today as it was at purchase. Newer versions don`t slow down previous ones. At all.

The only thing that changes is that people will be less impressed by it. And that`s the way it`s supposed to be :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuckeee
I did just what you said 2 years ago.....waited to see what M1 ultra would do, once that was known spent $2.7k on a custom PC 13900KS that I have used ever since for awesome performance.

I did more or less the same thing except with 14700k. (Basically the same cpu) and macos runs great on it

The poor apple silicon gpu performance was what really got me.

Now I need a laptop for work and it so happens that the m4 pro handily outperforms our CPU, and without a giant tower, a big cooler and a 1000 watt power supply


The gpu hasn’t quite caught up to 6xxx amd, but it’s a lot closer to it was
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rb2112
As someone who purchased an M2 Max studio last year, I am feeling jealous.

I must admit, I might have purchased it with future proofing in mind, easy to justify when the maxed out Mini with the same RAM and storage was the same price but with a much weaker CPU. But in hindsight, I wish I got a base Mini and held out for this upcoming Studio.

I must say, Studio ports are great.
 
Last edited:
Apple Silicon is straight up the best thing Apple has done post Steve so far

I have the original M1 MacBook Air as a second machine and it still feels as fast as the day I’ve got it and it’s gonna be able to do Apple Intelligence as well? Crazy value for a sub-1000 laptop
did Steve Jobs know this was coming in the future ?




When are reviews coming out for Mac mini m4?
 
Jobs was around for the purchase of PA Semi. Those were the engineers tasked with developing Apple Silicon.
Yeah I wasn’t trying to imply the man had nothing to do with it of course! Just establishing a timeframe more than anything
 
I ordered the 12/16 M4 Pro mac mini which had a ship date of 11/8. The 14/20 M4 Pro had a ship date of 12/5.

I am having a bit of buyers remorse already and haven't even received it. Do you all think the 2 extra CPU cores and 4 additional GPU cores are worth the extra $200 even for someone that doesn't game heavily or do any video editing?

I do plan on testing out running Stable Diffusion locally as a hobby that will probably utilize 10% of this machine.
 
Stable Diffusion is the only thing I do on my M1 Pro MBP that thermally maxes out the laptop.

I suspect that the extra CPU cores won't be missed; and unless you know have GPU needs, the extra GPU cores are also not worth it.

For any 3D work or gaming, those GPU cores will almost certainly be felt daily. So if you want the GPU cores, they are absolutely worth it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kyarlito
Within two hours of the announcement, I ordered a MM with M4 Pro, 12 Core, 24 GB RAM, and 1 TB SSD. After reading through this thread, this morning, I contacted Apple to change the configuration to the 14 Core M4 Mac Pro, not due to my current needs, but for future-proofing. The very nice Apple Guy suggested pretty strongly for my use case (MM will be new hub for my hobbyist music studio) that I'd be better off leaving the processor at the lower core count, but increasing RAM to 48 GB even though I don't need it now. I went through the ordering process, and was about to pull the trigger on the new configuration, but then backed out. I am torn about paying 25% more for a computer just for 24 GB of RAM. I also thought that, maybe I get the cheaper option now, and then, if in 5 years 24 GB or RAM doesn't cut it, maybe at that point, the M8 MM for the same price as today will be 3x faster and come with 128GB RAM???
I was expecting a 64 GB version of a capped M4 Max processor, or 64 GB in an M4 Pro (just like one can get in the Mac Mini).

I cancelled an order for a MacBook Pro 16" M Pro - not a Max - with nano screen and 2 TB with 48 GB RAM, and have ordered a refurb M3 Max 40 core with 1 TB and 64 bGB RAM.

I reckon the M3 Max with 64 GB RAM is better value, although I'd have preferred a Thunderbolt 5 Mac. The cost of an M4 with 64 MB RAM would have been an extra $US1,000. Or an extra one third. I bought because I think such refurbs are unusual, but I may cancel and settle for a 1 TB M4 48GB Pro. One third extra cost seems to costly considering I may not need the horsepower.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.