Mac Studio/M1 Max vs 2018 Mac mini

[F-Train]

I have a 2018 Mac mini and I hope to purchase a Mac Studio/M1 Max at an Apple store this Friday. Out of curiosity, I thought that I'd compare the two computers on price. Configured the same, the price turns out to be identical.

However, like many others I saved money by installing my own RAM in my Mac mini, going from 8GB to 32GB (the limit is 64GB). On the other hand, I purchased an external graphics card and box (see signature) because I use Final Cut/DaVinci Resolve, and was also using the flight simulator X-Plane as part of getting a private pilot license. One reason that I'm purchasing a Mac Studio is that it should dispense with the need for external graphics.

I wonder how much longer the Intel Mac mini will remain in the Apple lineup.

 

[usagora]

When you say the price turns out to be the same, are you including your added costs for your own RAM and the external grpahics card/box to your 2018 Mac Mini? Because I didn't think that a 2018 Mac Mini would've cost $2000+ (the cheapest configuration for a Mac Studio) as purchased from Apple unless you paid Apple RAM and SSD upgrade prices. And of course it's hard to do an Apples-to-Apples comparison since the processor is completely different.

 

[F-Train]

@usagora The price of a 2018 Mac mini with the top CPU, 32GB of RAM and 512GB of storage is $1,999, exactly the same as the base Mac Studio/M1 Max. Additional RAM and storage are priced the same.

The 2018 Mac mini is cheaper if you install your own RAM. However, if you think you need an external GPU that cost offsets the saving. Obviously, the cost of a GPU varies depending on power.

 

[ixxx69]

At this point, Apple is keeping the 2018 around only for users who still require Intel but don't need MP 7,1. The price/value is kind of beside the point - for users that requires Intel, they'll pay for it. For users who don't require Intel, they should get an M1 mini or a Studio.

Apple has made clear that this is a transition period until it's all AS, so users who still require Intel will need to transition at some point, but keeping it in the lineup buys them time. Keeping it in the lineup is not about price points or filling in the lineup - it's only about Intel.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple eventually adds a more powerful mini, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they didn't anytime soon.

 

[F-Train]

@ixxx69

The very question that I raised in the first post was the future of the 2018 Mac mini

I don't think that the considerations from a consumer's perspective are as simple as you appear to think. Note that the M1 Mac minis max out at 16GB of RAM. The 2018 mini is an obvious option for people who want 32GB or 64GB of RAM but don't want to pay Apple for it. A 2018 mini with the standard CPU, standard 1GB Ethernet and 64GB of self-installed RAM is $1000 cheaper than a Mac Studio with 64GB of unified memory*. Based on discussions on this forum in 2018, I think that few buyers, including people editing photographs and straightforward video, added an external GPU.


* Based on 2018 Mac mini RAM pricing from OWC/Mac Sales.

 

[ixxx69]

@F-Train , what's the usage case for buying a new 2018 mini with DIY RAM upgrade, vs an M1 mini or Studio? (again, not including users who want an Intel CPU).

Who are you going to recommend the 2018 to instead of a M1 mini or a Studio?

 

[F-Train]

@F-Train , what's the usage case for buying a new 2018 mini with DIY RAM upgrade, vs an M1 mini or Studio? (again, not including users who want an Intel CPU).

Who are you going to recommend the 2018 to instead of a M1 mini or a Studio?

Someone who wants 32GB or 64GB of RAM and wants to save up to $1,000

It sounds like in your world $1,000 is small change.

I also think that it's obvious that there are uses where a 2018 Mac mini with 32GB/64GB of RAM would perform better than an M1 Mac mini, and indeed competitively with a Mac Studio, but for quite a bit less money. We're talking about a computer that was released just over three years ago. It's not exactly obsolete, unless you've bought the Kool-Aid hook, line and sinker.

 

[ixxx69]

"Someone who wants 32GB or 64GB of RAM" is not a usage case.

You know as well as I do that we see folks here every day saying they need 32GB of RAM to surf the web.

So, I'm wondering who these users are who need 32GB of RAM, but don't need a better GPU... and where $1,000 isn't small change... and don't care that their brand new computer isn't already on borrowed time for OS updates.

You're curious, and now I'm curious.

 

[F-Train]

@ixxx69

Who told you that Apple will soon pull the plug on operating system support for a computer that it released just over three years ago? I imagine that that would come as interesting news, both to ordinary individual and business purchasers of the Intel mini and to companies that use Intel Mac minis in code testing and server operations.

There are a lot of people who need plenty of CPU but whose GPU needs are limited. Just two examples... Software developers. Musicians/composers who work with a lot of tracks (e.g. with orchestral sample libraries), for whom 32GB of RAM is pretty much essential, and who can easily use 64GB. I said in the first post that I intend to purchase a Mac Studio. Because I use Logic Pro with orchestral sample libraries, the main issue that I'm wavering over is 32GB vs 64GB unified memory. There isn't a chance that I'd purchase an M1 Mac with 16GB of memory.

In the case of apps like Capture One/Photoshop and Final Cut/DaVinci Resolve, for most people pairing a 2018 Mac mini with an external GPU is in the nice to have category, not the necessary category. As someone who uses a 2018 Mac mini with an AMD RX Vega 56 external GPU, I'm speaking from hands-on personal experience. For most purposes, those apps are CPU intensive. That's why most of the people, I suspect the vast majority, who use a 2018 Mac mini with those apps don't have an external GPU.

 

[ixxx69]

@F-Train

Who told you that Apple will soon pull the plug on operating system support for a computer that it released just over three years ago?

That's how Apple rolls. See history of Apple.

There are a lot of people who need plenty of CPU but whose GPU needs are limited. Just two examples... Software developers. Musicians/composers who work with a lot of tracks (e.g. with orchestral sample libraries), for whom 32GB of RAM is pretty much essential, and who can easily use 64GB.

Software developers are going to want an M1 Mac. A software developer that needs more than 16GB of RAM can afford a Studio. If you're compiling such huge apps that you need 32GB+ of RAM, not only can you (or your company) afford a Studio, but you probably want the faster CPU in a Studio.

If you're a professional musician/composers who require more than 16GB of RAM, you can afford a Studio. And if you need 32GB of RAM for a DAW, you must be working on extremely complex recordings, and so you're going to want the faster CPU in a Studio. Audio production is CPU intensive.

In the case of apps like Capture One/Photoshop and Final Cut/DaVinci Resolve, for most people pairing a 2018 Mac mini with an external GPU is in the nice to have category, not the necessary category. For most purposes, those apps are CPU intensive. That's why most of the people who use a 2018 Mac mini with those apps don't have an external GPU.

If you're using Photoshop, and you need more than 16GB, you can afford a Studio. For anything but the most complex work, 16GB is an insane amount for PS. And if your work is that complex that you need 32GB for PS, you must be getting paid bank (or the company you work for is).

If you're a Final Cut/DaVinci Resolve user who needs more than 16GB, you're going to want a much faster CPU and GPU than the mini offers. Final Cut/Davinci make extensive use of GPU. And did I mention, if you need more than 16GB for that type of work, you can afford a Studio?

I sincerely don't mean to sound argumentative, so I'll drop it here and maybe someone else will take you up on this discussion. But my opinion is your vastly overestimating the users who actually need more than 16GB of RAM, but can't afford a Studio, and don't need anything more than a dated CPU and bare minimum GPU, and would rather buy a brand new mini, and then disassemble it to install their own RAM. Those types may be common on MacRumors, but they're like 3% IRL.

Best to you!

 

[F-Train]

ixxx39,

I think that your whole position comes down to the bizarre assertion that anybody who needs more than 16GB of RAM can afford a Mac Studio; ergo they should buy one, $1,000 is pocket change.

Apple's actual record of operating system support pulls the rug out from your assertion that it will soon pull support for a computer that it introduced just over three years ago and still sells. It's an extraordinary claim, and I'm unsurprised that it's based on nothing more than your own surmise. This is the kind of claim that starts unhelpful, specious rumours.