In what world is the 8 core M2 “more or less” like an M1 Pro with 12 CPU cores? Not to mention the GPU core count, large RAM limits, and more display stream. Yes, the M2 is a very nice process and a good upgrade to the M1 but it is like a 4-cylinder car and the Mac Pro is a like an 8-cylinder car.
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.
We will never have a pro chip mac mini
- Thread starter Worlrl
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You didn't include a link, but I assume you meant this:Addendum:
Here's Intel's page for the 4980HQ chip you have listed as being in your 2014 MacBook Pro
If you search the sheet for PCI you can see the revision is version 3. It also says it offers 16 lanes from the CPU. IIRC Apple dedicated 8 lanes to graphics on those models (but may have been 16) and used the remaining CPU lanes for I/O like the Thunderbolt controller, USB, etc. And used the chipset provided lanes for the SSD. I could be misremembering the layout there but in any case, the Intel ARK page here at least provides some evidence for you that the CPU provides PCIe 3.0 lanes. As for lane allocation you can see the x# lane count in System Information under Graphics (at least for what's assigned the GPU)
Intel® Core™ i7-4980HQ Processor (6M Cache, up to 4.00 GHz) - Product Specifications | Intel
Intel® Core™ i7-4980HQ Processor (6M Cache, up to 4.00 GHz) quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.
www.intel.com
It's confusing b/c, on the one hand, it says the PCIe Expansion options are v. 3.0 (and my MBP's GT 750M GPU is indeed PCIe 3.0) but, on the other, that the bus speed is 5 GT/s, which limits it to v. 2.0 speeds.
source for above table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI_Express
Last edited:
Probably the IO bridge (South Bridge) is limited to PCIe 2.0 speeds. Also bear in mind that x4 of the PCIe lanes on the CPU are reserved and dedicated for the DMI to the South Bridge.You didn't include a link, but I assume you meant this:
Intel® Core™ i7-4980HQ Processor (6M Cache, up to 4.00 GHz) - Product Specifications | Intel
Intel® Core™ i7-4980HQ Processor (6M Cache, up to 4.00 GHz) quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.
It's confusing b/c, on the one hand, it says the PCIe Expansion options are v. 3.0 (and my MBP's GT 750M GPU is indeed PCIe 3.0) but, on the other, that the bus speed is 5 GT/s, which limits it to v. 2.0 speeds.
View attachment 2018362
View attachment 2018361
View attachment 2018365
source for above table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI_Express
I'm still torn between taking the plunge and getting a Mac Studio with the M1 Max chip (configured with a 1 TB SSD) or waiting for a Mac Mini with what would presumably be the M2 Pro configured with 32 GB of RAM and a 1 TB SSD. The price difference would still be noticeable. (As I've said, it's likely they'd come out with the M2 Pro for alongside the Mac Mini M2 refresh, to replace that higher-end Intel Mini.)
My take is that an M2 Pro Mini can be 1,499 or a bit less, so, at least $500 less than the entry level Mac Studio and just right to fill the existing gap in the desktop space.
After all it has no screen, no keyboard, no trackpad, no cameras, no mics and no battery, if you compare it to the 14” MBP M1 Pro.
I don't know whether there will be an M# Pro Mini or not. But I do agree with the following piece from dpreview.com concluding the lack of an M# Pro desktop represents a hole in Apple's line-up. Whether that hole is plugged with an M# Pro Mini, an M# Pro Studio, or not all, remains to be seen:
www.dpreview.com
Apple Mac Studio review: The Apple desktop we've been waiting for
For years, creatives have been asking Apple to release a mid-range standalone desktop tower that sits somewhere between the entry-level Mac mini and the unattainably expensive Mac Pro. With the Mac Studio, Apple has finally answered the call.
www.dpreview.com
My bad, it kinda read like you were saying the i3 Mac mini was still being offered by Apple...
Why? What do you have against the best selling headless desktop Apple has ever produced...?
Someone should've straightened the racks (second rack back, third shelf from the top, fourth and sixth Mac minis from the left) before taking this pic...!
As @theorist9 shows below, MacStadium still very much a not-in-the-past company...
Just one of many colocation server sites that extensively use Mac minis in their facilities...
Here's another up-and-coming host...! ;^p
Correct.
Apple’s aggressive product segmentation strategy would never allow for two different products in the same product category, desktop Mac computers, to be even remotely close to each other in specs and value.
Apple makes sure that performance, price and aesthetics are vastly different between devices in the same product category.
If not then we’d see options to upgrade Air M2s to M2 Pro chips, or iPad 9th Gens with upgrade options for M1 chips, iPhone SEs with the three camera array, etc.
A mini with a M1 Pro(or larger) chip was certainly a possibility before Mac Studio was announced.
But doing an mini with Pro chips post Mac Studio would only eat into Mac Studio sales.
If we get new minis in the next 1-2 years then it would only be equivalent to the upgrade we got in the new M2 Air -New external aesthetics and a few more ports. But very conservative upgrades to CPU and GPU performance, at best a little bit better than M2 Air but probably mainly due to a singular cooling fan in the M2 mini.
But no M1 or M2 Pro chips for the next mini.
In other words, Mac Studio is the “mini Pro”.
It’s just not going to be named mini Pro because Apple wants to differentiate between different product lines as much as possible. And because the regular, entry level mini is most likely staying in the lineup.
“Mac mini” is also associated with lower priced Macs and Apple doesn’t want to sell a powerful Mac mini at Mac mini prices.
That’s why we got Mac Studio instead of a mini Pro.
It’s just not going to be named mini Pro because Apple wants to differentiate between different product lines as much as possible. And because the regular, entry level mini is most likely staying in the lineup.
“Mac mini” is also associated with lower priced Macs and Apple doesn’t want to sell a powerful Mac mini at Mac mini prices.
That’s why we got Mac Studio instead of a mini Pro.
Last edited:
It’s faster at its base by 30% so it’s close.
In real life use you’ll see no difference is my guess, in heavy gpu uses like video edit maybe a little.
Even the normal m1 is close to the pro chip.
And also in single core uses it’s faster.
The CPU cores were claimed to be 18% faster. For multicore, 1.18*8=9.5 effective M1 cores. You’re right about single core, but that’s not doing much to equate the M2 with the M1 Pro.
The new mini will max out at 24gb so it doesn't step on studio sales
Haha oh wow. I hate when that happens. I've sent too many emails forgetting to attach the things I claim to attach tooYou didn't include a link, but I assume you meant this:
Intel® Core™ i7-4980HQ Processor (6M Cache, up to 4.00 GHz) - Product Specifications | Intel
Intel® Core™ i7-4980HQ Processor (6M Cache, up to 4.00 GHz) quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.
It's confusing b/c, on the one hand, it says the PCIe Expansion options are v. 3.0 (and my MBP's GT 750M GPU is indeed PCIe 3.0) but, on the other, that the bus speed is 5 GT/s, which limits it to v. 2.0 speeds.
View attachment 2018362
View attachment 2018361
View attachment 2018365
source for above table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI_Express
- But yeah you got it.The bus speed specifically defines communication between the CPU and the logic board chipset. It's specifically the connection between, in this CPU's case, the integrated memory controller and the South Bridge chipset. The CPU may still have additional communication pathways that can operate at other speeds, such as the PCIe lanes it offers
This.
Otherwise, they would have discontinued it in November 2020. It's way more expensive, yet clearly slower.
Never say never. One thing I didn't get about the Mac Studio was why put the power supply inside the box where it needs cooling? Wouldn't using a brick like the iMac and the laptops yield a better solution with no extra cooling requirements? If they did that, they could make a Mac Mini Pro, it would have lots of extra cooling capacity (I mean, not for an Intel class thermal chip). It would also give up connectivity options with the small footprint, so there is that
Unless you re-compile them using Xcode. Of course the application with the low level assembler language stuff would have to be rewritten, but ARM is the future. There is a difference between apps that run on Apple Silicon and those optimized for Apple Silicon - big difference.
Same and I will wait till end of the year, lets se what else we get in like 4 months?
But I don’t think PC software compatibility is the selling point it was even 10 years ago, let alone 15 when Apple started the transition. In general, enterprise PCs have become more of a thin client to web based applications (and this has also become more of a thing in the consumer market, just substitute cloud service and Electron app for web based applications). Why? Things like easier continuous integration and continuous deployment, avoiding the native APIs (Win32, Win64, and .NET) and drawing on a larger pool of developers than you’d get from being a .NET shop, increased desktop/endpoint security (if all the software your users need is on the intranet cloud, they don’t need the ability to install software locally), ability to use cheaper endpoints. And for those users who need desktop Windows applications? You could always give them access to a virtualized Windows instance, via an HVD or similar. Even Microsoft has had to release the keys to the kingdom by open sourcing PowerShell, ASP.NET, .NetCore, and C# and porting them to Linux and macOS.
Me, as a digital artist and photo manipulation.. cant wait for an Mac Mini M1/M2 pro. I just want this mini with acces to 32gb and more GPU cores just for that extra bit of power.
I work in big files / illustrations in Photoshop, using texture brushes.. sometimes a lot of layers.. sometimes working in Blender.. I simply cant wait for that in between machine. I am not so interested in the Studio tbh. I am not in the need for a MAX. And the M basic is a bit to short. The Pro is a awesome CPU in between.
My daily setup now is a PC with a 6-core 6800, 32gb mem and a 1070gtx. Thise M1 pro and 32 unified memory with walk circles around my pc with 2 fingers in its nose
My 2 cents
I work in big files / illustrations in Photoshop, using texture brushes.. sometimes a lot of layers.. sometimes working in Blender.. I simply cant wait for that in between machine. I am not so interested in the Studio tbh. I am not in the need for a MAX. And the M basic is a bit to short. The Pro is a awesome CPU in between.
My daily setup now is a PC with a 6-core 6800, 32gb mem and a 1070gtx. Thise M1 pro and 32 unified memory with walk circles around my pc with 2 fingers in its nose
My 2 cents
Me, as a digital artist and photo manipulation.. cant wait for an Mac Mini M1/M2 pro. I just want this mini with acces to 32gb and more GPU cores just for that extra bit of power.
I work in big files / illustrations in Photoshop, using texture brushes.. sometimes a lot of layers.. sometimes working in Blender.. I simply cant wait for that in between machine. I am not so interested in the Studio tbh. I am not in the need for a MAX. And the M basic is a bit to short. The Pro is a awesome CPU in between.
My daily setup now is a PC with a 6-core 6800, 32gb mem and a 1070gtx. Thise M1 pro and 32 unified memory with walk circles around my pc with 2 fingers in its nose
My 2 cents
I say get your feet wet on Mac mini just get the one with 16 gig doing audio work!
No, the 16gb limit is a nog go period. Textured brushes, big canvas sizes in Photoshop and working in Blender from time to time.. Upgrading from my daily driver (the 6-core PC) is for the next 3-5 years. Going for a 16gb machine would be a big mistake.
The pro has double the performance cores, double the gpu cores, acces to 32gb mem and 200gb/s mem bandwidth. The Pro is an awesome sweetspot for people who want a bit more but are not in the Studio zone.
ps.. just an hour ago on youtube haha:
Last edited:
I second your stance on this. I'll add this: I prefer the Mini size / weight / form factor than the Studio's. I'm planning on having it attached to the back of the monitor for a minimal desktop setup with all the cabling hidden etc.
For me a M1 Pro / M2 Pro Mini would hit the perfect spot, both in terms of budget / performance, and it seems the high-end Intel model has to go soon.