Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
In 2009 I purchased a 2007 model Mac mini (1.83 GHz C2D) for $599 and that thing was a dog from day one.
This bottom tier M2 mini for $599 is such a superior machine
 
  • Like
Reactions: mr_jomo
Really?
It makes perfect sense to me, I don’t know a single person who’s hoping to use a basic M2 that can’t even go past 2 TB of storage… But somehow wants to use it for 8K content.
You don't need a M2 pro to just play 8K content. No way I would use it for editing said content, but would make an awesome HTPC. Many of us also have 4K120 screens and once you get used to 120hz, 60hz feels sluggish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SFjohn
Agreed. Seeing the same grinning faces smeared over the poster frames of YouTube "reviews" is grating to my nerves as well. It's the height of vanity. And just like cable news was to PBS NewsHour, YouTube tech reviews are choking out real journalism in favor of glitzy shallow look-at-me "reviews".
Almost as bad as the ubiquitous, insipid Memojis.
 
I attached a reference article above that explains how performance is reduced with example images. I think this will help those that don't understand the resolution conundrum for many that use Macs.
I'm not talking about visual performance I'm talking about system performance, I work with 3d apps and when I select any resolution that is not screen native or 2x it's a lag beachball fest
 
I'm not talking about visual performance I'm talking about system performance, I work with 3d apps and when I select any resolution that is not screen native or 2x it's a lag beachball fest
Completely agree with your statement. If you read the article, it touches on that without getting into detail. It mentions that it reduces GPU performance. I originally attached an article explaining the reason for that and how it could be a big problem for some with regard to system performance, but was not sure readers wanted to get into those details.
 
Last edited:
dude you don't understand how macOS scaling works. any resolution that is not 2x sucks and uses a lot of resources, QHD looks great? without subpixel rendering? ok...
Yes QHD (1440p) looks great 27" since it's 110ppi so no issues with scaling. The issue happens when people want to cheap out and want 4K resolution in 27".
 
See a lot of reviews for the 12C M2 Pro but nothing much for the 10C M2 Pro.

Bit of a situation here is that I have a 14" M1 MacBook Pro but it spends 99.9% of its time stuck to the Studio Display and used as a desktop machine. I figured I'd skip the risk of breaking it and owning a battery to degrade by swapping it out for a base model M2 Pro Mini.

Initial indications from what I can see is that the performance gain is around 15% for single core which is what matters for me (photoshop / single threaded Go compilation).

Not sure if it's worth the switch. On the fence! Thoughts?
 
See a lot of reviews for the 12C M2 Pro but nothing much for the 10C M2 Pro.

Bit of a situation here is that I have a 14" M1 MacBook Pro but it spends 99.9% of its time stuck to the Studio Display and used as a desktop machine. I figured I'd skip the risk of breaking it and owning a battery to degrade by swapping it out for a base model M2 Pro Mini.

Initial indications from what I can see is that the performance gain is around 15% for single core which is what matters for me (photoshop / single threaded Go compilation).

Not sure if it's worth the switch. On the fence! Thoughts?
Get aldente for your machine, lock it at 60% charge, drain the battery down to that level and then profit. Keeping your battery at around 50-60% charge will definitely prolong it's lifespan. Wish Macos had this capability built in like cheaper windows laptops do. And no, the macos battery saver is pitiful as all it really does is keep it at 80% until the morning and will then gleefully charge it back up to 100%.
 
Yes QHD (1440p) looks great 27" since it's 110ppi so no issues with scaling. The issue happens when people want to cheap out and want 4K resolution in 27".
I've used a 27" 1440 monitor with native resolution and the text and ui were absolutely horrible without sub pixel rendering, sadly macOS high Sierra was the last OS that supported it entirely. since Mojave and up I really can't use a Mac without a 2x scaling. even the ridicloulus 27" 4K (looks like 1080p) is way way better at any ppi
 
  • Like
Reactions: i486dx2-66
I've used a 27" 1440 monitor with native resolution and the text and ui were absolutely horrible without sub pixel rendering, sadly macOS high Sierra was the last OS that supported it entirely. since Mojave and up I really can't use a Mac without a 2x scaling. even the ridicloulus 27" 4K (looks like 1080p) is way way better at any ppi
Any articles that show the "ui were absolutely horrible without sub pixel rendering"?
 
It's probably in the eye of the beholder. I regularly use a 1440p 27" monitor with my 2018 Macbook Pro and it looks clean and crisp to me. However, I don't do detailed graphical editing either. I'm a dev so I look at text all day.
This is one of those things. 1440p 27" looks nice. Until you get a retina display. Then everything looks like poop.

4k 27" is a horrible compromise.
 
Shame the Studio Ultra isn't shown in that roundup. Gotta say though, Apple's been churning out some winners. Buy what you need when you need it because "future proofing" seems like a pipe dream at least for a few more generations.
 
Agreed. Seeing the same grinning faces smeared over the poster frames of YouTube "reviews" is grating to my nerves as well. It's the height of vanity. And just like cable news was to PBS NewsHour, YouTube tech reviews are choking out real journalism in favor of glitzy shallow look-at-me "reviews".
I dare one of these YouTubers to post a video with a thumbnail that doesn't include their face with a fake expression.
 
Nothing. The Mini Pro can't support thee ASD which is what I currently run. If I were starting fresh I might go with a set of displays the Mini Pro could support vs Studio
What? Why can’t the M2 Pro mini support the Apple studio display? On check out in the online Apple Store you actually get asked if you want to buy an ASD as an accessory for the Mini.
 
Ordered a M2 Pro Mini 10c/16GB/1TB to replace my well aged 2013 27” i5 iMac. Will be my first Mini and my first AS machine. I’m pretty excited to get it but I’m nervous about the 3rd party monitor situation and my lack of knowledge regarding scaling, dpi, and resolutions. I ordered a LG 34BK95U-W 5K/2K to go with it, I hope it will work without a hitch. 🤞🏻
 
I was leaning toward that too, but I think I'll wait to see if/when retailers discount the Mac mini M2 Pro.
I couldn’t quite justify the additional $300 for my 12 yo’s first Mac - which is 100% intended as a Steam gaming box. ;)

Depending on your needs and budget, $300 more for a 512/16 config + M2 Pro, is super enticing - esp. should you find any price drops down the road. Keep us posted.
 
This! I don’t do video editing and I guess a lot of people need a Mac for different tasks. I’m tired of all these “for video/photo editing” reviews. I want a M1 / M2 comparison and some thoughts on the usefulness for the average joe.
Yeah, the point is that if the computer can handle video editing well, it’s easily going to handle everything else. You don’t need a video analyzing the M2 performance of an Excel spreadsheet 🤦🏻‍♂️
 
Thats… that’s the Studio.
What on earth would be the point of putting that same chip in the mini?
Right but I don't understand. If the Apple silicon is so much more energy efficient / less heat generation, why do we need something the side of three mac mini's intel version to support 64gb? While I'm on it, why does the macbook pro also need to be so much thicker, heavier than the Intel one? Its no longer an apple-to-apple comparison either.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.