Mac Mini m2 Pro - 16GB vs 32GB

[gusping]

You mentioned that you are returning it...returning it for 32GB? Returning for just an M2?

Returned it and am sticking with my 2018 mini for a while. My 2018 mini is buggy enough, but the M2 Pro was unusable to me. In particular, both monitors would not always wake up (c.50% of the time). I tried everything to fix it but no luck. My 2018 mini is not great with waking up monitors but it is bearable.

I refuse to spend £1,500 on a supposedly better computer but AS is clearly very buggy and I don't expect Apple to fix it anytime soon. This issue has happened (in some way shape or form) since launch day on my 2018 mini and over 4 years later Apple has made no attempt to fix things. Why would I pay £1,500 for a broken computer that doesn't feel much faster than my 4 year old Intel Mac?

 

[foo2]

Returned it and am sticking with my 2018 mini for a while. My 2018 mini is buggy enough, but the M2 Pro was unusable to me. In particular, both monitors would not always wake up (c.50% of the time). I tried everything to fix it but no luck. My 2018 mini is not great with waking up monitors but it is bearable.

I refuse to spend £1,500 on a supposedly better computer but AS is clearly very buggy and I don't expect Apple to fix it anytime soon. This issue has happened (in some way shape or form) since launch day on my 2018 mini and over 4 years later Apple has made no attempt to fix things. Why would I pay £1,500 for a broken computer that doesn't feel much faster than my 4 year old Intel Mac?

Does any PC reliably wake your monitors 100% ?

 

[xraydoc]

Returned it and am sticking with my 2018 mini for a while. My 2018 mini is buggy enough, but the M2 Pro was unusable to me. In particular, both monitors would not always wake up (c.50% of the time). I tried everything to fix it but no luck. My 2018 mini is not great with waking up monitors but it is bearable.

I refuse to spend £1,500 on a supposedly better computer but AS is clearly very buggy and I don't expect Apple to fix it anytime soon. This issue has happened (in some way shape or form) since launch day on my 2018 mini and over 4 years later Apple has made no attempt to fix things. Why would I pay £1,500 for a broken computer that doesn't feel much faster than my 4 year old Intel Mac?

Kinda sounds like the monitors, but I agree you can't necessarily change out everything at once.

 

[gusping]

Does any PC reliably wake your monitors 100% ?

I can only go on my own experience, and my gaming PC has worked flawlessly for many years. A fairly recent windows update solved many longstanding issues that others experienced such as programmes not being in the same place after waking up. I'm not suggesting it is perfect, but it is certainly more reliable than Mac minis. And it certainly doesn't wake my monitors up in 30hz mode or at a different resolution, which is one of the most bizarre things Mac minis do.

 

[gusping]

Kinda sounds like the monitors, but I agree you can't necessarily change out everything at once.

It's less of an issue on my 2018 mini. Big Sur broke my mini's HDMI port rendering it useless (and my 3.5mm port), and USB-C (DP alt mode) has it's own set of issues. I think Apple's implementation is simply very poor. You don't need to do much googling to find widespread issues that have not been resolved in over 4 years. I never had as many issues with my previous MBPs or Windows PCs I have tried. It's a real shame as the Mac mini is the perfect daily driver computer for me.

 

[gazwas]

All these system tools that are available to monitor specific aspects of your computers resources and performance are all being obsessed over without any practical understanding of their meaning.

Give an Apple Silicon Mac double the memory and it will use more of that memory even if it has makes no real world difference to how your Mac runs. Memory pressure of green, amber or red means nada as long as the computer functions. Anxiously staring at these stats, obsessively thinking you should have spent more on 32GB without any real tangible evidence other than the colour of a graph that its seriously effecting the performance of the tasks the computer was purchased for.

Who cares if the system reverts to using the SSD and swap files if the process is seamless?

The task of asking the RAM question in the first place tells me those people probably need much less than they think. I’d say to them, buy what you can afford that makes you happy but never overstretch you budget… Even 8GB would work out just fine for 90% of people just like it has for me in one if my MPB’s.

For people who have experience their computers running out of RAM, its not because they have more than the average number of tabs open in Safari or they use Word and Excel at the same time while watching YouTube but hey, those people already know that.

 

[foo2]

All these system tools that are available to monitor specific aspects of your computers resources and performance are all being obsessed over without any practical understanding of their meaning.

Give an Apple Silicon Mac double the memory and it will use more of that memory even if it has makes no real world difference to how your Mac runs. Memory pressure of green, amber or red means nada as long as the computer functions. Anxiously staring at these stats, obsessively thinking you should have spent more on 32GB without any real tangible evidence other than the colour of a graph that its seriously effecting the performance of the tasks the computer was purchased for.

Who cares if the system reverts to using the SSD and swap files if the process is seamless?

The task of asking the RAM question in the first place tells me those people probably need much less than they think.
I’d say to them, buy what you can afford that makes you happy but never overstretch you budget… Even 8GB would work out just fine for 90% of people just like it has for me in one if my MPB’s.

For people who have experience their computers running out of RAM, its not because they have more than the average number of tabs open in Safari or they use Word and Excel at the same time while watching YouTube but hey, those people already know that.

I think a part of the basic problem is so many people don’t know how to differentiate performance on computers today; they don’t understand the impact of more cores vs. faster cores vs. more specialized cores (& functions in them), they don’t understand the concepts of swap and modern memory management, and they don’t know how to read performance charts. In the absence of real, actionable information, they use and stress over what is available to them, whether that’s misleading charts that look at exactly one thing in a disk benchmark, or whether that’s misleading sensationalist YouTube videos, etc.

 

[marstan]

All these system tools that are available to monitor specific aspects of your computers resources and performance are all being obsessed over without any practical understanding of their meaning.

Give an Apple Silicon Mac double the memory and it will use more of that memory even if it has makes no real world difference to how your Mac runs. Memory pressure of green, amber or red means nada as long as the computer functions. Anxiously staring at these stats, obsessively thinking you should have spent more on 32GB without any real tangible evidence other than the colour of a graph that its seriously effecting the performance of the tasks the computer was purchased for.

Who cares if the system reverts to using the SSD and swap files if the process is seamless?

The task of asking the RAM question in the first place tells me those people probably need much less than they think. I’d say to them, buy what you can afford that makes you happy but never overstretch you budget… Even 8GB would work out just fine for 90% of people just like it has for me in one if my MPB’s.

For people who have experience their computers running out of RAM, its not because they have more than the average number of tabs open in Safari or they use Word and Excel at the same time while watching YouTube but hey, those people already know that.

You are right. There is no substitute for real world testing.

I am testing both the M2 base mini and the M2 Pro base mini right now and not paying particular attention to the metrics; just to how the work flow feels and performs subjectively (Adobe LR, PS, Pixelmator Pro for images; haven't done the audio workflow yet). And I have to say that while the Pro is faster on everything, including mundane tasks like scrolling through files in Finder, I could manage with the base M2 mini as in getting the work done albeit a little slower but with no beachballing or hangs. As I quipped to someone else, I could live with the base mini but live better with the Pro.

 

[gusping]

..scrolling through files in Finder..

Both the M2 and M2 Pro mini with a 512GB SSD should be c.3000Mbps read/write shouldn't they?

 

[foo2]

Both the M2 and M2 Pro mini with a 512GB SSD should be c.3000Mbps read/write shouldn't they?

That helps with large copy operations. That won’t help with scrolling in Finder. Random IO and single core speed drives that, and at those two items I’d expect both to be pretty close if not the same.

 

[gusping]

That helps with large copy operations. That won’t help with scrolling in Finder. Random IO and single core speed drives that, and at those two items I’d expect both to be pretty close if not the same.

That's what I thought. I doubt there is a difference in scrolling in Finder between an M2 and M2 Pro. It could simply be the 8GB RAM M2 mini is using more RAM (maybe even swap) and slowing down slightly.

 

[gazwas]

You are right. There is no substitute for real world testing.

I am testing both the M2 base mini and the M2 Pro base mini right now and not paying particular attention to the metrics; just to how the work flow feels and performs subjectively (Adobe LR, PS, Pixelmator Pro for images; haven't done the audio workflow yet). And I have to say that while the Pro is faster on everything, including mundane tasks like scrolling through files in Finder, I could manage with the base M2 mini as in getting the work done albeit a little slower but with no beachballing or hangs. As I quipped to someone else, I could live with the base mini but live better with the Pro.

I think its more than just testing. You’ve got to get past the forum/YouTuber mindset of comparing in infinite detail and be realistic in how fast is fast enough.

My base spec M1 MBP (8GB RAM) processes a RAW file from Capture One in approx 1.5 seconds. With lots of image adjustments and adjustment layers with masks, colour edits and healing approx 3 seconds per image.

Even when the new AS Mac Pro arrives and you spend 20K on the top spec model and it processes the same heavily adjusted image in under one second (highly doubtful) you‘ll hear all the Tubers and the Mac forums sing its 70% faster.

Still doesn’t change the fact that my M1 MBP‘s 3 seconds per images sound fast enough to me.

RAM, storage capacity, CPU, GPU upgrades should only be decided on by the stuff you plan to do with your machine and the cost benefit which is normally a pretty obvious decision. Not being sure is usually a sure sign to save your money.

 

[gazwas]

That's what I thought. I doubt there is a difference in scrolling in Finder between an M2 and M2 Pro. It could simply be the 8GB RAM M2 mini is using more RAM (maybe even swap) and slowing down slightly.

No difference between base spec M1 and M2 Pro for me.

Absolutely no complaints from me on M2 Pro, its a solid machine but it is underwhelming how similar it is to M1 in the day to day.

 

[marstan]

That's what I thought. I doubt there is a difference in scrolling in Finder between an M2 and M2 Pro. It could simply be the 8GB RAM M2 mini is using more RAM (maybe even swap) and slowing down slightly.

The Finder remark was just my brief subjective impression; not any kind of objective test. Lets not go down the rabbit hole on that like the YouTubers.

 

[foo2]

No difference between base spec M1 and M2 Pro for me.

Absolutely no complaints from me on M2 Pro, its a solid machine but it is underwhelming how similar it is to M1 in the day to day.

For “day to day” that implies to me single core activity. At that, the jump is literally just 10-20%. What else would one expect for day to day tasks?

 

[NeonNights]

No difference between base spec M1 and M2 Pro for me.

Absolutely no complaints from me on M2 Pro, its a solid machine but it is underwhelming how similar it is to M1 in the day to day.

I kind of had a similar revelation after a week with the base Mac Studio. For day to day stuff it wasn't a noticeable difference from my M1 MacBook Air with 16GB. It made me reconsider the need for the Mac Studio and how often I'd really utilize the extra power. Honestly I probably don't need the M2 Pro either, just a want and not a need.

 

[foo2]

I kind of had a similar revelation after a week with the base Mac Studio. For day to day stuff it wasn't a noticeable difference from my M1 MacBook Air with 16GB. It made me reconsider the need for the Mac Studio and how often I'd really utilize the extra power. Honestly I probably don't need the M2 Pro either, just a want and not a need.

The difference in the fairly few MacOS games is pretty apparent.

Other things, it’s pretty much the same.

I’m happy I returned the Studio. For the lion’s share of what I did, it wasn’t faster. The M2 Pro is a good compromise.

 

[Cham2000]

The difference in the fairly few MacOS games is pretty apparent.

Other things, it’s pretty much the same.

I’m happy I returned the Studio. For the lion’s share of what I did, it wasn’t faster. The M2 Pro is a good compromise.

Could you elaborate? Except games, you say that there's no real differences between which Mac mini?

 

[NeonNights]

My interest in gaming ended long ago so any GPU performance boost would really only matter to me as it relates to editing media.

I'm keeping my M1 Mini for HTPC duties in the living room and started off wanting to go big and get a beefed up M2 Pro or Mac Studio for personal use but now I'm at the opposite spectrum and thinking a base M2 might be fine too, lol. What a flip-flop. The decision is tough because my 16GB M1 MBA works so well and is already meeting all my needs.

 

[gazwas]

What else would one expect for day to day tasks?

Which was my point but supposed I should have been more specific.

 

[foo2]

Could you elaborate? Except games, you say that there's no real differences between which Mac mini?

M2 Base and M2 Pro Base.

You get 2 extra cores (but that’s only useful for those things that are multithreaded - like a video export; I don’t do that much). You get 60% more GPU (but you don’t care about games). You get 2 more USBC/TB4 ports. RAM speed is doubled (but that matters for the GPU, and you don’t game, so…)

So yeah, you might not get much benefit unless you can point to where you’d use the 2 extra cores concurrently with everything else you do.

Otherwise, might be best just to focus on an extra 8GB of RAM + base model.

And the comment on the M1 Studio Return: Well, the M2 is faster per-core (read: in everyday tasks), even the base model. So for those apps that aren’t multithreaded, the M2 will be faster. And that’s a lot of common, everyday apps. Plus the M2 Pro mini is a lot cheaper than the Studio.

 

[Loi84]

How do size and length of (4-5.3k) videos factor into the memory decision? I have fairly large files (50-100gb) which are about an hour worth of footage. No crazy effects. Any benefit from 32gb? I aim to keep the machine 5-7yrs.

Thanks!

 

[foo2]

How do size and length of (4-5.3k) videos factor into the memory decision? I have fairly large files (50-100gb) which are about an hour worth of footage. No crazy effects. Any benefit from 32gb? I aim to keep the machine 5-7yrs.

Thanks!

Which app? What does the publisher say?

 

[Loi84]

Which app? What does the publisher say?

Sorry. Forgot the most critical info… I’m new to video editing, but a quick learner, but obviously don’t earn money with it. That said, I have enough of it, so no need to count pennies, but also don’t want to waste cash on super useless stuff.

Will do it only for private purposes/fun. Cycling Footage.

Intend to use Final Cut Pro.

 

[foo2]

Sorry. Forgot the most critical info… I’m new to video editing, but a quick learner, but obviously don’t earn money with it. That said, I have enough of it, so no need to count pennies, but also don’t want to waste cash on super useless stuff.

Will do it only for private purposes/fun. Cycling Footage.

Intend to use Final Cut Pro.

People do amazing things with 8GB / 256GB configurations. More is gravy.

Do you intend to do lots of other heavy tasks while doing work in FCP, or do you intend to mostly focus on FCP while doing video tasks?