Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac mini M4 - about to buy one, which model, external hard drive and which monitor? (UK based)
- Thread starter wozwebs
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Best value is base m4, next depending on what you need is the m4 pro base. Upgrading base m4 model is very bad value due to 2xprice per upgrade tier vs m4 pro upgrades.
External ssd is best route for storage, even just making it your boot-drive.
Testing the base m4, it is a very punchy little machine. The 24gb m4 pro is ofc better, IF you actually use it to do creative tasks like big file photo manipulation or 3d/heavyish editing.
M4 pro falls waaaaaay behind the m4 max in heavy stuff. IF you are at all doing heavy files/heavy 3d work. Yes the synthetic benchmarks show that m4 pro is good, but when I pull in a 3d animated usdz file and duplicate it. m4 pro taps out around 35 instances at 25frames in motion, m4 max is not sweating at all with over 70 instances doing like 70 frames sec… It is that good… The perf divide is a chasm…
I suspect the main culprit to be the memory bandwidth speed.
IF you are at all a pro, the macbook pro 16inch m4 max base beats the mini so bad that I am currently out of the market to buy a mac mini m4 pro any spec. I can’t justify the performance hit for the same price mac mini m4 pro 48gb/1tbssd when a m4 max mac studio will be 64gb/1tbssd AND a m4 max for same price as the m4 pro mac mini upgraded…
The mac mini m4 pro is a very tempting deal, but after actually testing. M4 max is the real cpu for pro work.
External ssd is best route for storage, even just making it your boot-drive.
Testing the base m4, it is a very punchy little machine. The 24gb m4 pro is ofc better, IF you actually use it to do creative tasks like big file photo manipulation or 3d/heavyish editing.
M4 pro falls waaaaaay behind the m4 max in heavy stuff. IF you are at all doing heavy files/heavy 3d work. Yes the synthetic benchmarks show that m4 pro is good, but when I pull in a 3d animated usdz file and duplicate it. m4 pro taps out around 35 instances at 25frames in motion, m4 max is not sweating at all with over 70 instances doing like 70 frames sec… It is that good… The perf divide is a chasm…
I suspect the main culprit to be the memory bandwidth speed.
IF you are at all a pro, the macbook pro 16inch m4 max base beats the mini so bad that I am currently out of the market to buy a mac mini m4 pro any spec. I can’t justify the performance hit for the same price mac mini m4 pro 48gb/1tbssd when a m4 max mac studio will be 64gb/1tbssd AND a m4 max for same price as the m4 pro mac mini upgraded…
The mac mini m4 pro is a very tempting deal, but after actually testing. M4 max is the real cpu for pro work.
Last edited:
apostolosdt
macrumors 6502
I don't want to spoil the party, but Mini, never mind the configuration, is not a pro machine---Studio and Pro are. The fact that Mini specs cover most users' requirements does add a pro status. Look, for instance, at the M4's memory bandwidth: best value is 3 times slower than Ultra M1's.
I have also ordered a base Mini M4; it is 5X5-inch wide and weighs less than my little film camera. I'm going to carry it along wherever I travel to (and I'm not much fond of laptops!). Plus a tiny T7. 😆😆
Seriously now, it's rather awkward to change expensive pro machines every now and then. So, I cling to my Studios (Mac Pros in the past) for as long as I can and only follow the Apple hardware innovations thru base Minis.
My two cents.
I have also ordered a base Mini M4; it is 5X5-inch wide and weighs less than my little film camera. I'm going to carry it along wherever I travel to (and I'm not much fond of laptops!). Plus a tiny T7. 😆😆
Seriously now, it's rather awkward to change expensive pro machines every now and then. So, I cling to my Studios (Mac Pros in the past) for as long as I can and only follow the Apple hardware innovations thru base Minis.
My two cents.
What a BAD advice!!!
256GB is totally fine as you can use external HDD and save tons of money. Shouting to get more is a waste of money and frankly not a good advice.
RAM upgrades is good. I actually did the same, bought the base but bumped the RAM to 24GB.
256GB is totally fine as you can use external HDD and save tons of money. Shouting to get more is a waste of money and frankly not a good advice.
RAM upgrades is good. I actually did the same, bought the base but bumped the RAM to 24GB.
Specs are not everything, worfklow is. You can easily do some pro work on M4 Mini without issues now.
Maya runs great, Blender too, UE seems to be decent etc.
This argument that only Studio and Pro is for real 'pro' work is outdated and doesn't work.
Few years ago those pros were using Intel machines or M1 studios. Now that computing power is exceeded with just M4 Mini which tells you exactly that you can use it for pro work.
Maya runs great, Blender too, UE seems to be decent etc.
This argument that only Studio and Pro is for real 'pro' work is outdated and doesn't work.
Few years ago those pros were using Intel machines or M1 studios. Now that computing power is exceeded with just M4 Mini which tells you exactly that you can use it for pro work.
apostolosdt
macrumors 6502
Well, one thing I absolutely agree about with you is that specs are not good guidelines, only the workflow is.
My areas, as regards computers, are scientific computation and photography. When Mini arrives, I will post my first impressions (although, I doubt there are many here employing Minis for science projects.)
LIke I mentioned in another post, I usually first-test a new machine by running some demanding terminal bc calculations; such runs test the CPUs capabilities. I am curious what an M4 will do.
Last edited:
Sorry but that is wrong-headed thinking. When specifying a new box "without issues now" is not what is relevant. We build boxes for a future life cycle because each new box will only be used in the future ~5 years. Today is just past history in the Mac tech world that has grown steadily for 40 years.
Computing power increased every year of those 40 Mac years. Each increase for 40 years did not mean that the lowest end's increasingly powerful new Macs magically became best choice solutions for what you describe as "real 'pro' work." Even though yes, low end Macs have always been capable of performing such work, the low end is now and always has been constrained in ways like RAM, memory bandwidth, heat removal, i/o, etc. that make its usage for real 'pro' work generally bad decision making.
Sure low end will work today [albeit constrained by RAM and memory bandwidth], but is it the ideal build for a chosen life cycle? Some choose 5-10 year life cycles and high-spec hardware and others choose 1-3 year life cycles and low-spec hardware. Personally I have found spending my computing life using high-spec hardware to be far more effective for my workflows. YMMV.
M4 basic, pro and max chip CPU performances have been tested and reported. The higher end versions far outperform as regards "CPUs capabilities." Most workflows get more complex than just CPU performance, however.
I concur. My photography class this semester uses M1 iMacs with 16GB and they're only slightly slower than my M3 Max MBP with 36GB RAM for the assignments we do. Of course, I'm not a professional photographer but as a hobbyist/enthusiast that experiments with DxO PhotoLab, Photoshop, Lightroom, Affinity Photo, and Final Cut Pro/Davinci Resolve for basic family home video edits, even my M1 Macbook Air with 16GB didn't really struggle. I think a base M4 Mini with 16GB is a fairly capable machine for the majority of uses.
Another Roon user!
I bought a used M1 mini base a couple of years ago for exactly the same purpose. Perfect for the use case.
Rychiar
macrumors 601
I'm a photographer and work with very large photos and also do layered designs for large vehicle wraps and the m4 mini base model impresses the hell out of me. I got it as a stop gap machine til the new studio homes out but at the moment I Don't see the need to upgrade. if minis. stay this good it might be better to just trade up to a new mini every coulple years. AS it is I sold my mini m3 for $350 and bought this one for $499
dotnet
macrumors 68000
Exactly. Sticking expensive plumage onto the M4 mini in the hope of making it last 7-8 years is just folly (but exactly what Apple wants you to do). For the price of said plumage you'll get a two generations newer mini in two years' time.
JPack
macrumors P6
Get the Ultrasharp 32-inch 6K. With newsletter coupons and cashback, you should be able to get for well under $2,000. Not all monitors have to be curved. The cheap ones based on VA panels tend to be curved to make up for restrictive viewing angles.
For the memory and storage, don’t upgrade them. The best value from Mac mini is the base config. The moment you add to it, the value is gone. Think about the Mac mini owners who added RAM or storage to their M1/M2 hoping it would last longer. The M4 model blows that math out the water.
Run macOS from the internal storage and save user created files on external SSD.
Dell Ultrasharp 32 6k Monitor - U3224KBA | Dell UK
Dell UltraSharp 32-inch 6K Monitor with IPS Black panel technology featuring exceptional color, contrast & detail across a wide viewing angle. View on Dell.com.
www.dell.com
For the memory and storage, don’t upgrade them. The best value from Mac mini is the base config. The moment you add to it, the value is gone. Think about the Mac mini owners who added RAM or storage to their M1/M2 hoping it would last longer. The M4 model blows that math out the water.
Run macOS from the internal storage and save user created files on external SSD.
256 is working fine for me for now on my M4. Eden my M1 256 was enough. Never used even more than half. Not many apps needed for basic web and email, etc. The rest go on an external.
Not necessarily. Computing power has exceeded. But programs and file sizes have exceeded too so it evens out.
Pics and videos are becoming more hi-res / hi-def every day. So file size increases. And programs to edit the hi res / def stuff are therefore more demanding also. And more CPU intensive. So it evens out.
It’s not folly, I get 7-8 year use of my Macs. If you sticking to base models for anything other than generic use, chances are you are forced to upgrade every 3 years.
You don’t need to upgrade if you are on M2. I have 64 GB M1 Max, I am not getting an m4 MBP. The base model is good for generic use, my family shares an m2 mba base model. No need to upgrade that either.Get the Ultrasharp 32-inch 6K. With newsletter coupons and cashback, you should be able to get for well under $2,000. Not all monitors have to be curved. The cheap ones based on VA panels tend to be curved to make up for restrictive viewing angles.
Dell Ultrasharp 32 6k Monitor - U3224KBA | Dell UK
Dell UltraSharp 32-inch 6K Monitor with IPS Black panel technology featuring exceptional color, contrast & detail across a wide viewing angle. View on Dell.com.www.dell.com
For the memory and storage, don’t upgrade them. The best value from Mac mini is the base config. The moment you add to it, the value is gone. Think about the Mac mini owners who added RAM or storage to their M1/M2 hoping it would last longer. The M4 model blows that math out the water.
Run macOS from the internal storage and save user created files on external SSD.
If you upgrade every 3 years, stick to lower end, if you need something to get work done, buy what you need.
Depends on what category one falls under. I look it at this way.
Basic generic use: base model is excellent value.
FOMO tech enthusiasts: don’t spend money on upgrades if you gotta upgrade every 1-3 years. Folks who want to upgrade from M1/M2/M3.
Professional use: I use my Macs for 5 year professionally. I max out on RAM and processor. I have plenty of expandable storage.
Value in each of category changes drastically. For pro use, my 5 k MBP pays itself in a week or two at most. Low end doesn’t cut it. If you are generic users, price is important. If you are FOMO upgraders, cost of additional storage and RAM doesn’t make it appealing.
There is some context for this issue that needs to be considered.
First off, it's been reported Apple Intelligence didn't work when booting off an external drive. Then there was talk of moving the home folder to the external drive.
There have been other discussions about hassles involving using external drives while counting on 256GB not to fill up. As an example of what sort of hassles can come up:
Dropbox removing external disk support for Mac users
dropboxforum.com
https://www.dropboxforum.com › ... › Storage Space
Feb 14, 2023 — Unfortunately, there is no workaround on this as changing the location of your Dropbox folder is no longer
In another thread I read of some hassles with using an external drive as the Mac's boot drive (not that it couldn't be done, just that some run into little aggravations). Sadly, some software and/or services are biased toward internal storage for content.
None of this excludes the role of external SSD storage. One can boost internal storage from 256 to 512GB without paying to jack it all the way up to a terabyte or more.
dotnet
macrumors 68000
Yes, but you're still spending less overall, while enjoying a much faster (presumably) Mac for the second half of that stint.
How am I spending less. I spend 5k every 5 years comparing to upgrading ever 2 years spending 4-5 k:
76Nico
macrumors newbie
You can still have Dropbox on an external drive. On my 2018, I had to move my folder from (1TB) internal as I was about to join a 2TB folder. To do that I uninstalled Dropbox and deleted the folder then reinstalled Dropbox and was given the option to have the folder on my external drive. I’m now on an M4 and transferred settings etc from the 2018 and Dropbox is still on my external.