Mac Mini m2 Pro - 16GB vs 32GB

[gazwas]

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.

FCP runs just fine with 8GB RAM. The important stuff like 4K playback in timeline, curves/grading/LUTS are all super smooth with no dropped frames.

Export time (the least important bit) is the only place you will see any noticeable difference. I never wait for an export and usually grab a coffee, answer email etc so the difference between a 5 minute render compared to 8 minutes has never been a concern.

Only time you’ll need more RAM is if you start adding lots of effect plugins, motion trackers, text layers. This is were 16GB would be beneficial and save having to convert clips to ProRes when the going gets touch if you end up using some crazy difficult 10bit camera codec.

 

[Loi84]

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?

FCP runs just fine with 8GB RAM. The important stuff like 4K playback in timeline, curves/grading/LUTS are all super smooth with no dropped frames.

Export time (the least important bit) is the only place you will see any noticeable difference. I never wait for an export and usually grab a coffee, answer email etc so the difference between a 5 minute render compared to 8 minutes has never been a concern.

Only time you’ll need more RAM is if you start adding lots of effect plugins, motion trackers, text layers. This is were 16GB would be beneficial and save having to convert clips to ProRes when the going gets touch if you end up using some crazy difficult 10bit camera codec.

Thanks both. This is helpful.
Likely no heavy tasks in parallel. And no fancy effects in FCP - at least in beginning. Who know where the journey goes :-D.

Would games benefit from 32gb at all?

I certainly want to hang on to the machine until Apple no longer officially supports it. Don't want to create more waste than necessary...

 

[foo2]

Thanks both. This is helpful.
Likely no heavy tasks in parallel. And no fancy effects in FCP - at least in beginning. Who know where the journey goes :-D.

Would games benefit from 32gb at all?

I certainly want to hang on to the machine until Apple no longer officially supports it. Don't want to create more waste than necessary...

For games, the answer used to be: get 8GB; nothing else matters.

For Baldur’s Gate 3, the publisher has explicitly said 16GB is required to bump up the graphics.

So if you game, 16GB might be the smart choice.

32GB is not needed nor useful for games. Just can’t see it.

For gaming, the Pro’s 60% more GPU cores does help.

 

[deanmadonia]

For those of you deciding on the configuration of your m2 Pro Mac Mini, are you going with 16GB or 32GB and why?

Got the m2 pro min with 16 and 500hd

 

[Che Castro]

$400 to go from 16gb ram to 32gb is crazy

 

[foo2]

$400 to go from 16gb ram to 32gb is crazy

What's the price on the Wintel side to go from 16GB to 32GB of 200GB/s RAM?

 

[gusping]

What's the price on the Wintel side to go from 16GB to 32GB of 200GB/s RAM?

On a separate note, I wonder how the price of LPDDR5-6400 used in the M2 line-up compares to the balls to the wall stuff you can use with Intel 12th and 13th gen CPUs. Either way, $400 is a significant amount of money to go to 32GB RAM.

 

[Chancha]

On a separate note, I wonder how the price of LPDDR5-6400 used in the M2 line-up compares to the balls to the wall stuff you can use with Intel 12th and 13th gen CPUs. Either way, $400 is a significant amount of money to go to 32GB RAM.

200GB/s is just a feature while the 32GB is the product. The way that memory is used, obviously the amount matters more than most of the rest of its other properties. Apple knows this, which is why they charge that much for upgrades, conversely keeping the base models’ price down to look cheaper.

But yes with RAM at least the unified memory architecture is something you pay for. But their SSD upgrade on the other hand is a straight rip off with no technical justification.

 

[foo2]

On a separate note, I wonder how the price of LPDDR5-6400 used in the M2 line-up compares to the balls to the wall stuff you can use with Intel 12th and 13th gen CPUs. Either way, $400 is a significant amount of money to go to 32GB RAM.

I think the advantage is that Apple uses the DDR5/6400 in quad-channel configuration (vs. dual-channel in the current Intel 12th/13th gen iterations), which means speed is essentially doubled; I see no other way to quote 200GB/s from DDR5/6400 RAM, based on this: https://www.softwareok.com/?seite=faq-This-and-That-or-Other&faq=74. That would also make sense, then, that Apple has the Ultra and Max (at 400GB/s) with a lowest memory of 32GB (so they use the same chips, just more of them, in eight channel configuration.)

DDR5 data transfer rates: (from 2020)​

DDR5 4800: 38.4 GB / s
DDR5 5200: 43.2 GB / s
DDR5 6000 48,0 GB / s
DDR5 6400: 51.2 GB / s
DDR5 7000 56,0 GB / s

(Above are per-channel speeds)

We can argue RAM speed isn't important; for most things, it isn't, but for an integrated GPU, it's critical, which is, I believe, why Apple doubles RAM speed when they bump the GPU cores, else those cores will be RAM starved.

 

[gusping]

I think the advantage is that Apple uses the DDR5/6400 in quad-channel configuration (vs. dual-channel in the current Intel 12th/13th gen iterations), which means speed is essentially doubled; I see no other way to quote 200GB/s from DDR5/6400 RAM, based on this: https://www.softwareok.com/?seite=faq-This-and-That-or-Other&faq=74. That would also make sense, then, that Apple has the Ultra and Max (at 400GB/s) with a lowest memory of 32GB (so they use the same chips, just more of them, in eight channel configuration.)

DDR5 data transfer rates: (from 2020)​

DDR5 4800: 38.4 GB / s
DDR5 5200: 43.2 GB / s
DDR5 6000 48,0 GB / s
DDR5 6400: 51.2 GB / s
DDR5 7000 56,0 GB / s

(Above are per-channel speeds)

We can argue RAM speed isn't important; for most things, it isn't, but for an integrated GPU, it's critical, which is, I believe, why Apple doubles RAM speed when they bump the GPU cores, else those cores will be RAM starved.

Interesting. I didn't know it was in a quad channel configuration. I am curious where Apple goes on the GPU side. It seems they are massively limited by going down the SoC route and will struggle to compete with the mid-range of Nvidia, let alone the top end. But what do I know!

 

[Basic75]

For those of you deciding on the configuration of your m2 Pro Mac Mini, are you going with 16GB or 32GB and why?

If I were looking to buy an M2 Mac mini I would either consider a 16GB M2 or a 32GB M2 Pro. The reasoning is simple, if I need the power of the M2 Pro chances are I'll need more RAM, too. Perhaps not today, but probably in 5 years.

 

[foo2]

If I were looking to buy an M2 Mac mini I would either consider a 16GB M2 or a 32GB M2 Pro. The reasoning is simple, if I need the power of the M2 Pro chances are I'll need more RAM, too. Perhaps not today, but probably in 5 years.

Why would you spend extra now for a potential benefit 5 years down the road?

My recommendation to anyone who will listen: buy enough computer for a year or two or three, then sell and get the latest. Apple is constantly innovating and offering new and better products at better pricing; spending 200% of a $value for minor benefit today in the hopes of keeping a product for longer (rather than spending 100%, a normal $value, and keeping it a shorter time) doesn't make financial sense to me.

 

[Basic75]

Why would you spend extra now for a potential benefit 5 years down the road?

Because I have seen this "potential" benefit manifest itself often enough in the form of additional years of usable computer. For example the people that got a decade of casual or slightly-more-than-casual use out of a 2012 MacBook Air. Those that upgraded to 8GB of course, not those that stuck with the 4GB baseline. Planned obsolescence through RAM scarcity is hardly a good idea. Chasing the greatest and latest for its own sake is a first-world pastime that is rarely justified objectively.

 

[Basic75]

Apple is constantly innovating and offering new and better products

It is precisely some of these "innovations" - soldered RAM - that made some degree of future-proofing at purchase time necessary in order to prevent heaps of computers prematurely ending as trash!

 

[foo2]

Because I have seen this "potential" benefit manifest itself often enough in the form of additional years of usable computer. For example the people that got a decade of casual or slightly-more-than-casual use out of a 2012 MacBook Air. Those that upgraded to 8GB of course, not those that stuck with the 4GB baseline. Planned obsolescence through RAM scarcity is hardly a good idea. Chasing the greatest and latest for its own sake is a first-world pastime that is rarely justified objectively.

It all depends on how much more you’d spend. For example if one agrees a $499 mini is perfectly usable, I think it is silly to spend more on ram to ‘future proof’ for 40 percent of the purchase price.

Different story on a $2500 computer and a similar $200 outlay.

 

[Basic75]

It all depends on how much more you’d spend. For example if one agrees a $499 mini is perfectly usable, I think it is silly to spend more on ram to ‘future proof’ for 40 percent of the purchase price.

Thank Apple for it's completely ridiculous RAM prices.

 

[foo2]

It is precisely some of these "innovations" - soldered RAM - that made some degree of future-proofing at purchase time necessary in order to prevent heaps of computers prematurely ending as trash!

That (not doing what Apple did) would give slower ram (100gb/s vs 200gb/s and 400gb/s), larger case. Are those trade offs worthwhile?

Apple didn’t think so. And given most people don’t upgrade their machines once bought, it’s hard to get too excited for the target market.

I’m not completely disagreeing with you, I just think most people are better off buying what they need and then selling and upgrading once the time comes, rather than pouring more money into the initial purchase.

 

[foo2]

Thank Apple for it's completely ridiculous RAM prices.

What’s the going rate on 200gb/s ram on the pc side ?

 

[Basic75]

What’s the going rate on 200gb/s ram on the pc side?

I believe you are trying to say that a PC can't do 200GB/sec to system RAM for the same price, but that comparison is flawed. The GeForce 3000 series have up to five times that amount just for the GPU, and as for the CPU you can choose up to 8 RAM channels.

 

[foo2]

Interesting. I didn't know it was in a quad channel configuration. I am curious where Apple goes on the GPU side. It seems they are massively limited by going down the SoC route and will struggle to compete with the mid-range of Nvidia, let alone the top end. But what do I know!

It’s not terrible for those five (do we have six yet?) tier 1/2 games that are made for AS. Performance is decent and graphics aren’t bad. I have Baldurs Gate 3 on a base MM2P and it’s not bad. It doesn’t give my 6900 in an i5 any competition but it’s fully playable, far, far better than any Intel graphics.

It’s also tiny, with the mini case being smaller than the 6900 card, using 1/4 to 1/8 the power.

It all depends on expectations. I do think that as Europe veers closer to energy crisis mode, and costs increase, that Apple has a near lock on a very interesting niche of the market.

 

[foo2]

I believe you are trying to say that a PC can't do 200GB/sec to system RAM for the same price, but that comparison is flawed. The GeForce 3000 series have up to five times that amount just for the GPU, and as for the CPU you can choose up to 8 RAM channels.

Fully agree. But then you are in a big, noisy case. What market is the mini to you? What are the limits or the criteria? In order to meet Apple’s, that was the design decision.

 

[Basic75]

Fully agree. But then you are in a big, noisy case. What market is the mini to you? What are the limits or the criteria? In order to meet Apple’s, that was the design decision.

You were questioning my assertion that Apple's RAM prices are ridiculous and asked for PC prices. Let's get back to Apple. What's so special about the RAM chips that Apple uses? They are standard DDR5 chips, and they buy truckloads of them. No reason that RAM should be more expensive in Apple computers except capitalism.

 

[gusping]

It’s not terrible for those five (do we have six yet?) tier 1/2 games that are made for AS. Performance is decent and graphics aren’t bad. I have Baldurs Gate 3 on a base MM2P and it’s not bad. It doesn’t give my 6900 in an i5 any competition but it’s fully playable, far, far better than any Intel graphics.

It’s also tiny, with the mini case being smaller than the 6900 card, using 1/4 to 1/8 the power.

It all depends on expectations. I do think that as Europe veers closer to energy crisis mode, and costs increase, that Apple has a near lock on a very interesting niche of the market.

I don't game on my Mac (have an RTX 4090 pc which covers that), but I am positively surprised but the amount of people I read about online who do (even if it is light gaming). Let's hope Apple can start to build some momentum and get more games ported over.

Performance certainly is amazing for the power usage, no denying that. And as you say, the Intel graphics on my 2018 i7 mini are.... non-existent, to say the least. I don't need much power for my daily computer (currently a 2018 mini) and hence the Mac mini is fantastic. However, I just wish Mac minis didn't have display support issues and other bugs, some of which have been around for years and never fixed, but let's not go down that route otherwise I'll get banned. lol

 

[IngerMan]

And as you say, the Intel graphics on my 2018 i7 mini are.... non-existent, to say the least

I have the 2018 i7 and with my eGPU it runs pretty well. The iGPU on 2018 2020 MM is pathetic. With that addition I have keeps me from upgrading. I would like a 2023 MM Pro, but I don’t need a 2023 MM. My eGPU specs are over the M2 MM and only 15% less than the 10 core MM Pro.

 

[foo2]

You were questioning my assertion that Apple's RAM prices are ridiculous and asked for PC prices. Let's get back to Apple. What's so special about the RAM chips that Apple uses? They are standard DDR5 chips, and they buy truckloads of them. No reason that RAM should be more expensive in Apple computers except capitalism.

Quad channel. And in the Max, 8x channel. That simply doesn’t exist on the PC side (at least, I haven’t seen it). We can discuss and debate _why_ that’s important but the fact is it’s present and adds engineering and supply costs, as having more channels significantly increases RAM quality requirements & motherboard quality requirements.