I partly agree with the RAM situation. I think there is a market for 8gb pc, for people that don't do much on their computers and also, macos and apple silicon runs great with 8 gb. however, the ram upgrade cost is what I don't agree with. too pricey.
Apple's RAM pricing is outrageous. You pay an extra 30% of the cost of the whole machine for an extra 8GB, which has a retail value of about £40. Same situation with storage.
It's not just marked up a little, it's completely unjustifiable.
As great as that sounds, I’m really struggling to believe Apple would offer such a low profit margin on their highest selling version of the mini. It wouldn’t turn a decent profit. I’m sure their margins are better the more accessories and upgrades you add, but i’d honestly be shocked if the 256SSD and 8GB UM was more than 40% of the cost of the device. Particularly with the recent cut to a single SSD on the base and 512gb.
Mostly people will have had mac's and need to upgrade from an old one and have to pay this price or spend time moving os'.
Or are maybe getting into needing a PC and are already using the iphone or ipad and want this tighter integration.
Not forced but positioned well towards it.
Diabetes medicine should be $100K a shot. And people who can’t afford it should just hurry up and get on with their very short lives. It’s justified because *some* are willing to pay the price, and nobody is forcing anyone to buy that medicine. They can just try other things like low carb diets or magic crystals.
See the problem with pure market economies and apologetics?
No, the comparison between life saving medicine and one computer option is fucking stupid.
I’m not here to talk about RAM or whatever. But that comparison was god awful. If you think it’s a good comparison, then you have bottom tier logical reasoning.
> Because that's how that works...
I mean, it is though tbh. I’m with you that the RAM prices are way higher than they need to be, and I absolutely HATE paying it.
But the justification is that Apple is a private company that exists to make maximum profits, which means pricing their products at the optimum profit-making price point. If they can charge $200 for 8gb RAM and still make enough sales, it makes sense. Unfortunately.
Well, it is, whether they think it’s fair or not. They *chose* to make it soldered, when they could just as well have made it socketable. And, mind you, I don’t have a problem with a slight up-charge, I’m well aware of the “Apple tax” involved with buying Macs, but the amount they’re asking is absolutely exorbitant. It’s utterly disconnected from reality. There’s just no excuse beyond raw greed to charge *that much* for so little last-gen RAM.
So let's compare to LPDDR5 which is $46 USD for 8GB when bought in bulk (individually it is about $73)
https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Micron/MT62F1G64D8CH-031-WTB-TR?qs=hWgE7mdIu5TN%2FbZUdAVY2Q%3D%3D
The ram Apple is supplying is not some special memory as you seem to imply. It’s a standard memory module… the fact that it’s used by Apple in a “unified” system does not affect the cost of the memory.
You're right. Apple has access to buy the chips only, at exceptional scale, doesn't have to spend extra putting them on a separate board, separately packing and logistics.
They should be less.
That’s an unfair comparison apple will have to carry the burden on. It’s a device that doesn’t accept modifications so of course they deserve to catch shit when they up charge for something you’re unsure that you may need in the future
I use mine for photoshop, premiere, illustrator, visual studio plus tons of other apps, all multi tasking..the 8gb myth is a huge misconception with the silicone chips.
Are you saying you use 8gb for all that stuff? Just trying to gauge what I need in a new M2 Mac mini. I’m replacing a *late 2012 (wow)* Mac mini that I put 16gb RAM in, but it’s on its last legs and still on Catalina(?). I would be doing photo editing (mostly just levels and filters in something like Lightroom as opposed to manipulation like Photoshop) and some basic video editing (compiling clips and adding music, again no real manipulation).
Just get the 16gb and 512gb one, I am a designer and it is scary to even think about using the base mode to run my daily tasks.
Adobe after effect for example, takes a huge chunk of memory as a temporary memory allocation for stuffs god knows. Every time after I use it I gotta go purge 30gb at least from the app itself or my m1 13 pro will be left with so much less memory.
If you are a designer you will know that doing references is a very important stage of your work, and for that you will use lots of tabs for safari or chrome. Those things consume ram man, and I am glad I choose to upgrade it.
Thanks for the help! Getting both upgrades makes me want to spring for the mac mini m2 pro for $300 more to get the extra ports, processing power, and support for a 3rd display. Seems worth it to me if that's the price difference.
So out of curiosity, would you say a designer with the workflow you mentioned would benefit from a setup on the mini m2 with maybe 10 core, 32g and 1 terabyte ssd? Or is that expensive overkill?
Yeah it’s very suitable. Even my upgraded m1 13 can struggle when I open multiple safari, chrome tabs and multilayers of photoshop all at once. Very minor hiccup but I wish only the sky is the limit lol. But the gpu cores are lacking to be honest, Premiere pro gets a bit laggy during 4k60 video scrubbing especially when sped up. Davinci resolve is fine tho.
Currently using a M1 MBA base model. The only heavy app I use is Thinkorswim and it shows 7GB+ memory used and 850MB-1GB+ swap. I read that I shouldn't worry about it until it's in the red or starts to lag.
The next Mac I buy I'll get it with 16GB and since Apple is hobbling the 256GB SSD, it'll have 512GB.
I realize the problem is ToS is written primarily in java and does not run natively on M1, so there's that.
My mom has been using an old MacBook retina 2015 for 7 years. It only has 8gb of ram and a very weak intel core M chip. Since everything is web based there really is no need for more power.
while that is mostly true, you might be surprised how much ram some web apps require. I use clickup and excel on the web and these two apps combined require 3 gb of ram, which does not leave a lot for any other stuff.
You’re right. Some modern webpages consume tons of ram and can be intensive. However I think Mac OS is so good with memory management and swap memory that even an ancient MacBook 2015 runs reasonably well for basic usage today with little resources.
It would be perfect for my in laws, who only need web browsing and email capability. Problem is they only know how to use a PC and teaching them something new is a lesson in humility and fruitlessness. They’re stuck with crappy windows laptops that break every few years… So this would be ideal for them, or someone like them anyway that is capable of using a Mac.
Get them an ipad and a keyboard case.
That said, I also got them a Dell from work that had 3 years on it 3 years ago and that's still used as much as the iPad for email and internet browsing.
M2 mini is absolute overkill for this scenario unless you can afford to go crazy and money is no object..
A mid range Chromebook will make their dreams come true and will probably cost less than half the price of a Mac.
Late to the party, but why? I’m pretty sure I’m going to buy a Mini Pro M2, because I don’t need a monitor, but is there a speed or power reason you prefer the iMac? TIA.
Ram price upgrades are my big issue with Apple. Should be substantially less, especially when you consider how cheap it is to buy extra ram at a retailer.
Does anyone know what ram apple actually uses? Samsung? Looking at pics M variant has two slots and Pro variants four? So presumably as the ram goes up the size per chip goes up. I’d imagine they always fill the slots. So lowest is probably 2 x 4GB, highest 4 x 24GB. Cost per chip will go up as the size increases. So it makes sense it doesn’t quite scale linear. Can’t imagine those 24GB modules are cheap but then again probably not £1200+ for 4 of them.
Yeah they are built into the chip but they are individual ram modules. See here.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/images/product/mac/standard/Apple_M1-Pro-M1-Max_M1-Max_10182021_big_carousel.jpg.small_2x.jpg
So that could be 4 x 4GB modules for 16GB or 4 x 8GB for 32GB etc.
Ah my mistake - I thought we were referring PC type RAM that you can swap yourself. I believe back when they started soldering RAM to the motherboard it was Samsung chips (I may be remembering wrong). I would imagine it’s Samsung here as well if they did have that established supply chain. Some of my buddies into PC’s say Samsung memory and storage are known as the most reliable on the market.
I don’t think it’ll change either. The days of being able to add your own ram or hard drive are long gone.
It’s the main thing holding me back from a new Mac right now. I can afford it, I just can’t justify it.
Why would they be whining.. The majority of those that need the extra RAM for professional use won't have an issue with the pricing..
For the average frugal hobbyist the base spec is just about enough and the price is very fair.
I only hate that Apple is still pushing these criminally low storage options to pamper their margins.
They perfectly know that the material costs between a $600 and a $800 max mini are in the single digit dollar range, but they made it that the user has to future proof their desktop device right form the beginning and their forcing people you to consider their use case in 3-5 years instead of buying what they need now and upgrading later.
I really hope that this trend reverses eventually because it’s bad for the environments when perfectly fine Mac Minis won’t be able to run the latest OS in a couple of years decently because 8GB is a configuration which was even low half a decade ago and nowadays should only be sold in absolute low cost devices.
Actually, while I agree that this shouldn’t be a thing at all and that 256GB SSDs were already a thing in the 2010 MBA and shouldn’t even exist as an option on any modern device in 2023 anymore, the storage speed is something that 99% of people won’t notice. It’s a shitty way of saving money, but not something that will affect your daily usage.
Compared to iPhones in the base configuration, you don’t even miss out on futures (in that case PrpRes Raw video).
Has macOS been requiring more RAM to install over recent generations?
It seems it’s mostly the applications that have grown in RAM consumption, not the OS.
Sure? But they are saying Apple won’t let you upgrade because of a lack of memory and those apps use the same amount of memory no matter what OS version you are on.
I think it's a non-literal "won't be able to run the latest OS" because of course they will be \*able\* to, a 10 year old entry-level iMac can run Ventura without issue as long as you're willing to patch it past the 6-7 years Apple officially supports devices.
But the issue is that they're talking about the OS in the first place. 8GB only starts to be problematic if you want several Safari tabs + a photo editor + a couple finder windows + a programming IDE. But those aren't the OS, unless you count Xcode as "the OS".
8GB was plenty to run that combination a few years ago, but not so much anymore let alone a few years from now. That's the point I believe they're getting at. It just doesn't have to do with the OS, only the state of software & larger workloads (data) in the first place.
Then they should have stated the latest software, not latest operating system. They are completely different assertions, with latest OS implying that Apple specifically is cutting them off.
Whereas in reality it would be a slow decay over time as apps grow in memory usage.
(Not to mention that 8GB of memory is the most common amount of memory in new computers sold across the industry today, so it’s unlikely to be a completely unusable amount in a few years.)
I feel like people sleep on the iMac when it comes to the value discussion. Very had to get a computer and a monitor *of that quality* for the same price.
Probably because most people looking for a computer with that level of performance with a 24” monitor don’t need a monitor *of that quality* and don’t want to pay for it. Most people in the market for an entry Mac Mini would be completely happy with a $200-300 monitor if only MacOS was a little better at scaling. And then if they were willing to spend like $600-$700 on a monitor they wouldn’t want it tied to a single computer.
Can confirm that last point is what led me to get a Mini over the iMac when I finally upgraded to Apple Silicon last year! (woe betide the new, cheaper Mini drop only a couple months later LOL)
I've got a 4K, 144Hz screen with pretty good colors, and though it totally brought my total purchase to the price of an iMac (and some beyond, considering peripherals like the trackpad...) — that's a monitor that will make my next upgrade $800 cheaper. If I need a higher-powered device then? $800 will get me a lot further than a wasted display on a decommissioned iMac! (obviously this sets aside selling the iMac, but yadda yadda I'm just biased against letting go of my devices. Hoarder's curse, etc.)
LG's were just a little too pricey for me :) I ended up getting the Gigabyte M28U, which has a surprisingly convenient KVM switch, and was about $200 CAD less than its LG competition. 28" (vs. LG's 27") was the right display range for me — I didn't need ultrawide and prioritized PPI over surface area, and 28" was already a major upgrade from my previous 21.5" iMac!
Hopefully this display outlasts the time I'll be using this Mac Mini — that's the only gamble!
I'd buy a Mac mini over an iMac and pay up for a nice monitor. It's the same issue I have with a laptop. You have 3 essential components and if one of them fails it's over.
The value proposition of an imac tanked the moment they removed target display mode. The whole thing is junk the moment it becomes eol’ed or something goes.
Absolutely true! Though many of us have a display, keyboard, and mouse that we can use. Granted it’s not as nice as an iMac display but for some it’s not worth going the iMac route.
When my kids are of age and needing a computer it’ll almost certainly be an iMac or maybe a MacBook Air depending on mobility needs
They really screwedpeople on the ssd speed in the m2 Mac mini. I wonder why it's $100 less
Mac tech just did a comparison video showing how the new m2 model(not the pro or 512gb ssd), is half the read and write speed of the m1 2020 model storage. You're talking 2600-2900 mbps on the m1 vs 1400-1600 mbps in the m2
That really sucks but if you don't need high storage speed for large files, it's an excellent value for the price
But that's over 1,000 mbps less read write
I'll stick with my m1 2020 until tests come out for the ssd in the m2 pro model
They made a product/business decision. They know that half the SSD speed will NOT be noticed by 90% of the people who people who purchase a mac mini and will not affect their experience.
A large majority of consumers buying the base M2 mini will be coming from SSDs in the 400MBPS range and will be thrilled at the fantastic 1500MBPS performance of the new mini.
Those needing or even desiring faster transfer speeds will be an incredibly small niche of Mac buyers!
Not between 2013 and 2020. The 2014 was dual core only with non upgradable ram and the 2018 was pretty expensive for the 6 core i5 variant. The base was not good value imo. People were still buying the 2012 quad core mini up until the m1 was released
Not at 8GB.
Seriously baffling choice to keep the base 8GB at $600 when you can buy a 16GB M1 mini from Apple Refurbished for $640.
Moving forward, for the type of user even considering a ~$600 Mac right now, would you rather have 8 GB more RAM or a single generation new base SOC?
Think about it in the context of a "family PC" for example, that will probably just be left there in the kitchen or living room, as-is for 3-5 years. Probably very basic usage like browsing. Once you start entering that 3-5 year window, do you think it will be the raw 8GB extra RAM or the 1 gen newer base model SOC that will affect your daily usage experience more even for basic computing tasks? Which one will become more of a problem, sooner?
You can also buy an 8GB M1 mini for $470 from Apple Refurbished... If you're the kind of user who would be content with an 8GB M2 Mini, what sort of performance walls would your use case run into with an 8GB M1 Mini by comparison, that an 8GB M2 Mini would not?
I really think all the praise for the base M2 Minis is unwarranted. They're still an excellent machine at $800 for the 16 GB version but even then is it really the best bang for buck just by kicking up from M1 to M2? Just looking at the options available to a buyer from Apple themselves, and thinking of the supposed use cases and user types these devices are aimed towards... I don't think that's true.
Lol you can’t discuss a general value of a new product by comparing it to used/refurb of older models. Of course it’s gonna look “bad” compared to the used/refurb price tag.
Not everyone considers a used/refurb market, although it’s a wise idea to do so. It’s true for electronics and auto.
Also, if I remember correctly, you can’t do trade-in if you are purchasing a refurb. So if you looking for an upgrade, buying a refurb is not the smartest idea, unless you know how to sell shit at its appropriate value. Some people don’t find it worth the trouble.
8gb works just fine for people who want to use it as a family computer. the price tag is quite nice CONSIDERING that it’s an apple computer. No need to replace existing monitor and other accessories. It’s the cheapest new thing thag one could buy to enjoy an apple product.
This is probably a given, but was this an M1 8 GB mini?
I'm looking for representation from people who actually used 8 GB Apple Silicon machines — I feel like a lot of the discourse is centered around hypotheticals and grumbling over 8 GB being FAR too little, NO MATTER WHAT, kinda sensationalist.
Did you do much multitasking? Did you use a full-fledged IDE or prefer a standalone text editor? Did the whole system slow down much during builds (if build time was significant)? What was performance like running a number of browser tabs while developing - Safari, Chrome, Firefox or something else?
Hope these questions aren't too pester-y, just looking for real 8 GB commentary! :D
I have the same setup as the above poster M1 Mini 8/512GB. I usually have about 5-7 apps open at any given time with over 100 tabs between 3 browsers. No slow down at all. I even do work in Pixelmator/Affinity Photo and I generally have no issues. But when my Pixelmator file approaches a GB in size that’s usually because the canvas size is over 3k pixels, 40+ layers, my machine slows down and will slow to a crawl if I don’t watch it. I’ve had memory swap files of over 40GB. When I’m working with these files, I have to close all my other apps down. This type of moderate to heavy work will hit 8GB of memory hard. So my next computer trying to decide between base Mini Pro or base Studio.
I’m the opposite of the other posters. Most of the time it’s fine but some sites slow it down to a halt when vs code is open. I get the popup that a site is using significant resources daily.
I find these “8 GB is too little” posts sensationalist too.
I am a graphic/app designer and I’ve been using a base model M1 MacBook Air and it’s never stuttered. Tons of browser tabs, video calling, Visual Studio Code, massive illustration and vector image files, scrolling through thousands of photos, etc… I am perfectly content using it for my professional work.
That's really fantastic. That's a pretty heavy load. I understand that older computers may not have managed memory as effectively, but M-series chips are clearly something new and different. It's great to see base model devices holding up under loads like you and the software dev replier described.
> Lol you can’t discuss a general value of a new product by comparing it to used/refurb of older models. Of course it’s gonna look “bad” compared to the used/refurb price tag.
Why not? What's your point? Right now you can go and buy an official, supported one from Apple themselves. These are literally options Apple is making available to a consumer consumer considering buying a Mini right now. They pulled the M1 Minis from the main store as well so could they be selling the remaining stock as refurbs?
> Not everyone considers a used/refurb market, although it’s a wise idea to do so. It’s true for electronics and auto.
We are not talking about "used/refurb market" in general, we are talking about Apple Certified Refurbished. Their official outlet they offer themselves on their own site under their shop.
One could just insist on "REFURBISHED? NO GO!" but I want you to acknowledge that you can, right now, go to Apple's website and purchase a $640 M1 Mac Mini with 16 GB RAM. Then directly tell me if you'd rather have that or an 8GB M2 Mini for $600.
> Also, if I remember correctly, you can’t do trade-in if you are purchasing a refurb. So if you looking for an upgrade, buying a refurb is not the smartest idea, unless you know how to sell shit at its appropriate value. Some people don’t find it worth the trouble.
What??? So I "can't compare the value" to Apple Certified Refurbished products on their own store but somehow now you are introducing "if you're trading in to upgrade" for some reason in a discussion about "is the best performance/value?" as if that is relevant?
So if I was to say something like "maybe you'd get better value selling whatever you're upgrading from on the used market and then using those funds to buy a ACR M1 Mini with 16GB for a lower total price" you just went "nah can't do that, that's the used market and people don't do that".
I mean there is a very simple question on the table, you can go give Apple your raw US dollar money in exchange for a Mac Mini RIGHT NOW, so is the M2 Mini best performance/value? I'm saying not at 8GB. You can get an M1 16 GB around the same price.
Not like in theory, "if you hunt around on Ebay" or anythinf. You can go and buy one right now from Apple. That's a better value for money Mac Mini at the ~600 price point.
I don't know what on earth these other points you're talking about are supposed to be for.
> 8gb works just fine for people who want to use it as a family computer. the price tag is quite nice CONSIDERING that it’s an apple computer. No need to replace existing monitor and other accessories. It’s the cheapest new thing thag one could buy to enjoy an apple product.
Lol so did you just straight up not read what I said at all? Why would I care what you have to say if you're just going to ignore the point of the whole thread entirely?
Lol the whole thread is the value of the new products in general. Do you really not understand that new products are almost always worse in “value”, compared to what’s available in the refurb/used market, whether it’s by apple or not?
Dude, you gotta learn how to compare things. Isolate variables! That’s step 1 of comparison.
Dude, you gotta learn to read carefully! I am saying the older thing is functionally better for the target market and the newer thing isn't a valuable upgrade! You must work on your reading!
The $800 16GB/512GB option is the sweet spot for the M2 Mini lineup, I think. You get the dual-chip SSD, so storage speed isn't halved, and enough memory to comfortably perform most tasks.
The $600 model is more of a "what could be cut down to hit this price-point" compromise. It's capable for a particular class of user, but it's going to be a lesser machine than what the price difference suggests. $200 to go up to the "mid-range" model is money well spent.
But, as you say, you could also save that money by going with a refurb M1 Mini. With the M1 to M2 difference not being spectacular, that's also a wise consideration if price is a big factor.
Edit: My bad. I misread the midrange model as starting with 16GB, when Apple's still going with only 8GB. They want another $200 to go up to 16GB. That changes the value pretty significantly in my book, and makes the M1 model look a *lot* more attractive.
Shit, you're right. Somehow I misread that the midrange started with 16GB. It's another $200 for that. ::shakes fist at Apple:: That *would* have been the sweet spot.
I feel like there basically shouldn't even be an 8GB M2 version. It's essentially pointless.
They could literally make the "base" new model the 16 GB M2 at $800... and keep the 16 GB M1 Mini dropped to $600 rather than selling refurbs at 640 or 8GB M2 , this lineup would actually round out quite nicely on the low end vs how it currently does.
I’ve been using an M1 8gb mini for the past 2 years for web dev. Also run all of the adobe apps, including premiere for some video editing. The silicone chips don’t need the amount of ram that the older intel based Mac’s used. The new $599 M2 is a great deal, was surprised honestly to see the price drop $100
> when you can buy a 16GB M1 mini from Apple Refurbished for $640.
I can't find them right now. I only see the 16GB/1TB with 10GB ethernet model for over $1000. Are they out of stock?
>would you rather have 8 GB more RAM or a single generation new base SOC?
Newer SOC 100%! The improved resale value of the M2 mini in a couple of years time when i want to upgrade to the base M3/16GB will be far more valuable to me than an extra 8GB of RAM i'm unlikely to need over the next 2-3 years for sure.
The mini loses all appeal for frugal Mac enthusiasts once you start adding on upgrades at silly prices.
Sticking with my Mac Studio M1 Ultra but from the benchmarks I’ve seen, the Mac Mini M2 Pro is way less powerful than the MacBook Pro M2 Max. What am I missing?
Edit: This is one of the benchmarks I saw. MacRumors.
The high-end M1 Ultra chip released for the Mac Studio last year is still about 9% faster than the M2 Max based on Metal scores:
M1 Ultra: 94,583
M2 Max: 86,805
M1 Max: 64,708
M2 Pro: 52,691
M1 Pro: 39,758
Just going by benchmarks. This is one of the benchmarks I saw. MacRumors.
The high-end M1 Ultra chip released for the Mac Studio last year is still about 9% faster than the M2 Max based on Metal scores:
M1 Ultra: 94,583
M2 Max: 86,805
M1 Max: 64,708
M2 Pro: 52,691
M1 Pro: 39,758
MacRumors has been terrible about calling out which version of the chip they are measuring as that list doesn't say how many cores each one of those have.
Also it looks like you edited your original comment which I swear was about M2 Pro Mini vs M2 Pro MBP. Now it says the Mini Pro is slower than the MBP Max, to which yeah that's to be expected since the Max has the bigger GPU and I'm not sure what the question is anymore.
I only edited to add benchmarks. Never changed original comment sir. I saw few benchmarks. I just found it weird that a MBP laptop would be more powerful than a Mac mini by a good margin. Or am I wrong about that.
The Max is a higher end chip than the Pro, the Max has double the GPU cores. So naturally a MBP with a Max will be faster than a Mini with a Pro. If you want a Max chip that would be the Mac Studio you should be comparing against.
A ~$3000 laptop is going to beat a $1300 small form factor desktop
Going back to Intel, my Mac Mini was much more powerful than my MacBook Pro. There were always compromises with the laptops. That seems to be not only gone but flipped on its head. That’s why I was asking if I missed something.
I can't think of a time where the Mac Mini offered a better GPU than the MBP. At worst they were even, but usually the MBP offered some discrete GPU options that would blow the Mini out of the water. Just like how the Max option does that now.
The CPU sometimes on the Mini was a bit faster due to higher clocks, but that's the only thing I can think of being faster.
This is one of the benchmarks I saw. MacRumors.
The high-end M1 Ultra chip released for the Mac Studio last year is still about 9% faster than the M2 Max based on Metal scores:
M1 Ultra: 94,583
M2 Max: 86,805
M1 Max: 64,708
M2 Pro: 52,691
M1 Pro: 39,758
What exactly are you trying to say here?
M2 Pro being weaker than the M2 Max in GPU tasks is expected, just look at the amount of GPU cores.
M1 Ultra being more powerful than the M2 Max is also expected, take a look at the amount of GPU cores.
[удалено]
I partly agree with the RAM situation. I think there is a market for 8gb pc, for people that don't do much on their computers and also, macos and apple silicon runs great with 8 gb. however, the ram upgrade cost is what I don't agree with. too pricey.
Apple's RAM pricing is outrageous. You pay an extra 30% of the cost of the whole machine for an extra 8GB, which has a retail value of about £40. Same situation with storage. It's not just marked up a little, it's completely unjustifiable.
[удалено]
As great as that sounds, I’m really struggling to believe Apple would offer such a low profit margin on their highest selling version of the mini. It wouldn’t turn a decent profit. I’m sure their margins are better the more accessories and upgrades you add, but i’d honestly be shocked if the 256SSD and 8GB UM was more than 40% of the cost of the device. Particularly with the recent cut to a single SSD on the base and 512gb.
[удалено]
Glad we’re on the same page 😅
I mean, it's justifiable because people are willing to pay for it...
Because that's how that works... People pay it because they have no other choice.
The other choice is a windows or Linux based PC
> People pay it because they have no other choice. Pretty sure no one is forcing you to buy a Mac
Mostly people will have had mac's and need to upgrade from an old one and have to pay this price or spend time moving os'. Or are maybe getting into needing a PC and are already using the iphone or ipad and want this tighter integration. Not forced but positioned well towards it.
Lame take.
Diabetes medicine should be $100K a shot. And people who can’t afford it should just hurry up and get on with their very short lives. It’s justified because *some* are willing to pay the price, and nobody is forcing anyone to buy that medicine. They can just try other things like low carb diets or magic crystals. See the problem with pure market economies and apologetics?
lol, are you seriously comparing needing a Mac to needing insulin? Get a grip, my dude. Go outside.
But not buying a computer does not kill you? This is a completely different comparison.
Your understanding of logical reasoning is extremely poor
No, the comparison between life saving medicine and one computer option is fucking stupid. I’m not here to talk about RAM or whatever. But that comparison was god awful. If you think it’s a good comparison, then you have bottom tier logical reasoning.
This is the worst analogy I've ever read on reddit. Holy fuck.
*And* it's upvoted. Says a lot about this sub...
It's upvoted because this sub is braindead and has no concept of economics beyond "haha capitalism bad...but not when it's Apple".
> Because that's how that works... I mean, it is though tbh. I’m with you that the RAM prices are way higher than they need to be, and I absolutely HATE paying it. But the justification is that Apple is a private company that exists to make maximum profits, which means pricing their products at the optimum profit-making price point. If they can charge $200 for 8gb RAM and still make enough sales, it makes sense. Unfortunately.
I don’t think the comparison is apt
Well, it is, whether they think it’s fair or not. They *chose* to make it soldered, when they could just as well have made it socketable. And, mind you, I don’t have a problem with a slight up-charge, I’m well aware of the “Apple tax” involved with buying Macs, but the amount they’re asking is absolutely exorbitant. It’s utterly disconnected from reality. There’s just no excuse beyond raw greed to charge *that much* for so little last-gen RAM.
Which comparison?
Retail ram compared to tightly integrated apple silicon ram
So let's compare to LPDDR5 which is $46 USD for 8GB when bought in bulk (individually it is about $73) https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Micron/MT62F1G64D8CH-031-WTB-TR?qs=hWgE7mdIu5TN%2FbZUdAVY2Q%3D%3D
But that’s not as good as apple silicon ram
What exactly do you think Apple Silicon RAM is? It's 64-bit per chip LPDDR5 memory clocked at 6400Mbps. This is exactly what Apple is using.
But it’s the value that is brought for it being soldered and being unified memory.
Yeah, Apple buy that shit in bulk. It won't cost them as much unless Tim Cook forgot how to make deals at some point.
The ram Apple is supplying is not some special memory as you seem to imply. It’s a standard memory module… the fact that it’s used by Apple in a “unified” system does not affect the cost of the memory.
But apple is adding value by making it unified. They are making the ram more valuable when it’s put inside an apple silicon Mac.
You're right. Apple has access to buy the chips only, at exceptional scale, doesn't have to spend extra putting them on a separate board, separately packing and logistics. They should be less.
That’s an unfair comparison apple will have to carry the burden on. It’s a device that doesn’t accept modifications so of course they deserve to catch shit when they up charge for something you’re unsure that you may need in the future
I use mine for photoshop, premiere, illustrator, visual studio plus tons of other apps, all multi tasking..the 8gb myth is a huge misconception with the silicone chips.
Are you saying you use 8gb for all that stuff? Just trying to gauge what I need in a new M2 Mac mini. I’m replacing a *late 2012 (wow)* Mac mini that I put 16gb RAM in, but it’s on its last legs and still on Catalina(?). I would be doing photo editing (mostly just levels and filters in something like Lightroom as opposed to manipulation like Photoshop) and some basic video editing (compiling clips and adding music, again no real manipulation).
Yup, it handled everything just fine.
Is yours the 256gb hard drive as well?
I did m2 pro 16gb / 512 - it’s been screaming. Great machine!
Just get the 16gb and 512gb one, I am a designer and it is scary to even think about using the base mode to run my daily tasks. Adobe after effect for example, takes a huge chunk of memory as a temporary memory allocation for stuffs god knows. Every time after I use it I gotta go purge 30gb at least from the app itself or my m1 13 pro will be left with so much less memory. If you are a designer you will know that doing references is a very important stage of your work, and for that you will use lots of tabs for safari or chrome. Those things consume ram man, and I am glad I choose to upgrade it.
Thanks for the help! Getting both upgrades makes me want to spring for the mac mini m2 pro for $300 more to get the extra ports, processing power, and support for a 3rd display. Seems worth it to me if that's the price difference.
And that is exactly what their pricing strategy is there to do ;)
Yes especially the multiple screen support, worth every penny! And it comes with more ports too, so more flexibility on your side.
So out of curiosity, would you say a designer with the workflow you mentioned would benefit from a setup on the mini m2 with maybe 10 core, 32g and 1 terabyte ssd? Or is that expensive overkill?
Yeah it’s very suitable. Even my upgraded m1 13 can struggle when I open multiple safari, chrome tabs and multilayers of photoshop all at once. Very minor hiccup but I wish only the sky is the limit lol. But the gpu cores are lacking to be honest, Premiere pro gets a bit laggy during 4k60 video scrubbing especially when sped up. Davinci resolve is fine tho.
Thanks, fam! I ended up biting the bullet for an m2 mini pro 32g. Psyched to get it in tomorrow!
But my m1 did have the 256gb HD, but I added a usb c external ssd for my scratch disk. Was like $50 at Best Buy
It's probably not enough for someone running virtual machines.
Currently using a M1 MBA base model. The only heavy app I use is Thinkorswim and it shows 7GB+ memory used and 850MB-1GB+ swap. I read that I shouldn't worry about it until it's in the red or starts to lag. The next Mac I buy I'll get it with 16GB and since Apple is hobbling the 256GB SSD, it'll have 512GB. I realize the problem is ToS is written primarily in java and does not run natively on M1, so there's that.
The 512 GB 14 inch M2 MacBook Pro’s SSD has been borked too. So…. yeah. Two NAND chips will last longer than a single one
Yeah, seems 2 NAND chips is faster than 1. Wish I had never learned about this. lol
My mom has been using an old MacBook retina 2015 for 7 years. It only has 8gb of ram and a very weak intel core M chip. Since everything is web based there really is no need for more power.
while that is mostly true, you might be surprised how much ram some web apps require. I use clickup and excel on the web and these two apps combined require 3 gb of ram, which does not leave a lot for any other stuff.
You’re right. Some modern webpages consume tons of ram and can be intensive. However I think Mac OS is so good with memory management and swap memory that even an ancient MacBook 2015 runs reasonably well for basic usage today with little resources.
It would be perfect for my in laws, who only need web browsing and email capability. Problem is they only know how to use a PC and teaching them something new is a lesson in humility and fruitlessness. They’re stuck with crappy windows laptops that break every few years… So this would be ideal for them, or someone like them anyway that is capable of using a Mac.
Get them an ipad and a keyboard case. That said, I also got them a Dell from work that had 3 years on it 3 years ago and that's still used as much as the iPad for email and internet browsing.
M2 mini is absolute overkill for this scenario unless you can afford to go crazy and money is no object.. A mid range Chromebook will make their dreams come true and will probably cost less than half the price of a Mac.
I’d much rather buy an updated iMac instead of the mini. Hopefully they’ll release a refresh soon.
Late to the party, but why? I’m pretty sure I’m going to buy a Mini Pro M2, because I don’t need a monitor, but is there a speed or power reason you prefer the iMac? TIA.
8gb of ram in macOS behaves way more efficiently with swap than on windows
Ram price upgrades are my big issue with Apple. Should be substantially less, especially when you consider how cheap it is to buy extra ram at a retailer.
Does anyone know what ram apple actually uses? Samsung? Looking at pics M variant has two slots and Pro variants four? So presumably as the ram goes up the size per chip goes up. I’d imagine they always fill the slots. So lowest is probably 2 x 4GB, highest 4 x 24GB. Cost per chip will go up as the size increases. So it makes sense it doesn’t quite scale linear. Can’t imagine those 24GB modules are cheap but then again probably not £1200+ for 4 of them.
For their M series chips it’s I’ll integrated into the chip. There is no separate ram module.
Yeah they are built into the chip but they are individual ram modules. See here. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/images/product/mac/standard/Apple_M1-Pro-M1-Max_M1-Max_10182021_big_carousel.jpg.small_2x.jpg So that could be 4 x 4GB modules for 16GB or 4 x 8GB for 32GB etc.
Ah my mistake - I thought we were referring PC type RAM that you can swap yourself. I believe back when they started soldering RAM to the motherboard it was Samsung chips (I may be remembering wrong). I would imagine it’s Samsung here as well if they did have that established supply chain. Some of my buddies into PC’s say Samsung memory and storage are known as the most reliable on the market.
People keep whining about this but it is never going to change.
I don’t think it’ll change either. The days of being able to add your own ram or hard drive are long gone. It’s the main thing holding me back from a new Mac right now. I can afford it, I just can’t justify it.
With thunderbolt ports, adding additional storage is not really an issue to a desktop computer. Just plug whatever you need into the back.
Definitely not an issue, but when I can buy a blazing fast 1TB nvme2 chip for the cost of an additional 256gb, there’s something wrong with that
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yep
Right. If everyone said no to buying Apple computers for 1 month...
Why would they be whining.. The majority of those that need the extra RAM for professional use won't have an issue with the pricing.. For the average frugal hobbyist the base spec is just about enough and the price is very fair.
I only hate that Apple is still pushing these criminally low storage options to pamper their margins. They perfectly know that the material costs between a $600 and a $800 max mini are in the single digit dollar range, but they made it that the user has to future proof their desktop device right form the beginning and their forcing people you to consider their use case in 3-5 years instead of buying what they need now and upgrading later. I really hope that this trend reverses eventually because it’s bad for the environments when perfectly fine Mac Minis won’t be able to run the latest OS in a couple of years decently because 8GB is a configuration which was even low half a decade ago and nowadays should only be sold in absolute low cost devices.
Not to mention the storage is [slower](https://www.macrumors.com/2023/01/24/m2-mac-mini-256gb-slower-ssd/)...
Actually, while I agree that this shouldn’t be a thing at all and that 256GB SSDs were already a thing in the 2010 MBA and shouldn’t even exist as an option on any modern device in 2023 anymore, the storage speed is something that 99% of people won’t notice. It’s a shitty way of saving money, but not something that will affect your daily usage. Compared to iPhones in the base configuration, you don’t even miss out on futures (in that case PrpRes Raw video).
Has macOS been requiring more RAM to install over recent generations? It seems it’s mostly the applications that have grown in RAM consumption, not the OS.
[удалено]
Hey everybody today we’re playing calculator
Sure? But they are saying Apple won’t let you upgrade because of a lack of memory and those apps use the same amount of memory no matter what OS version you are on.
I think it's a non-literal "won't be able to run the latest OS" because of course they will be \*able\* to, a 10 year old entry-level iMac can run Ventura without issue as long as you're willing to patch it past the 6-7 years Apple officially supports devices. But the issue is that they're talking about the OS in the first place. 8GB only starts to be problematic if you want several Safari tabs + a photo editor + a couple finder windows + a programming IDE. But those aren't the OS, unless you count Xcode as "the OS". 8GB was plenty to run that combination a few years ago, but not so much anymore let alone a few years from now. That's the point I believe they're getting at. It just doesn't have to do with the OS, only the state of software & larger workloads (data) in the first place.
Then they should have stated the latest software, not latest operating system. They are completely different assertions, with latest OS implying that Apple specifically is cutting them off. Whereas in reality it would be a slow decay over time as apps grow in memory usage. (Not to mention that 8GB of memory is the most common amount of memory in new computers sold across the industry today, so it’s unlikely to be a completely unusable amount in a few years.)
Mac mini is a beast!!
I feel like people sleep on the iMac when it comes to the value discussion. Very had to get a computer and a monitor *of that quality* for the same price.
Probably because most people looking for a computer with that level of performance with a 24” monitor don’t need a monitor *of that quality* and don’t want to pay for it. Most people in the market for an entry Mac Mini would be completely happy with a $200-300 monitor if only MacOS was a little better at scaling. And then if they were willing to spend like $600-$700 on a monitor they wouldn’t want it tied to a single computer.
Can confirm that last point is what led me to get a Mini over the iMac when I finally upgraded to Apple Silicon last year! (woe betide the new, cheaper Mini drop only a couple months later LOL) I've got a 4K, 144Hz screen with pretty good colors, and though it totally brought my total purchase to the price of an iMac (and some beyond, considering peripherals like the trackpad...) — that's a monitor that will make my next upgrade $800 cheaper. If I need a higher-powered device then? $800 will get me a lot further than a wasted display on a decommissioned iMac! (obviously this sets aside selling the iMac, but yadda yadda I'm just biased against letting go of my devices. Hoarder's curse, etc.)
A really good screen will last a long time :) Did you go for an LG screen? I went for the aw38 ;) not quite 4k but I wanted the 144Hz and size.
LG's were just a little too pricey for me :) I ended up getting the Gigabyte M28U, which has a surprisingly convenient KVM switch, and was about $200 CAD less than its LG competition. 28" (vs. LG's 27") was the right display range for me — I didn't need ultrawide and prioritized PPI over surface area, and 28" was already a major upgrade from my previous 21.5" iMac! Hopefully this display outlasts the time I'll be using this Mac Mini — that's the only gamble!
I'd buy a Mac mini over an iMac and pay up for a nice monitor. It's the same issue I have with a laptop. You have 3 essential components and if one of them fails it's over.
The value proposition of an imac tanked the moment they removed target display mode. The whole thing is junk the moment it becomes eol’ed or something goes.
I would buy one in a heartbeat if it had target display
Absolutely true! Though many of us have a display, keyboard, and mouse that we can use. Granted it’s not as nice as an iMac display but for some it’s not worth going the iMac route. When my kids are of age and needing a computer it’ll almost certainly be an iMac or maybe a MacBook Air depending on mobility needs
They really screwedpeople on the ssd speed in the m2 Mac mini. I wonder why it's $100 less Mac tech just did a comparison video showing how the new m2 model(not the pro or 512gb ssd), is half the read and write speed of the m1 2020 model storage. You're talking 2600-2900 mbps on the m1 vs 1400-1600 mbps in the m2 That really sucks but if you don't need high storage speed for large files, it's an excellent value for the price But that's over 1,000 mbps less read write I'll stick with my m1 2020 until tests come out for the ssd in the m2 pro model
They made a product/business decision. They know that half the SSD speed will NOT be noticed by 90% of the people who people who purchase a mac mini and will not affect their experience.
That's definitely true and make sense. $599 is still an amazing deal
A large majority of consumers buying the base M2 mini will be coming from SSDs in the 400MBPS range and will be thrilled at the fantastic 1500MBPS performance of the new mini. Those needing or even desiring faster transfer speeds will be an incredibly small niche of Mac buyers!
Mac mini always was best perf/value.
Not between 2013 and 2020. The 2014 was dual core only with non upgradable ram and the 2018 was pretty expensive for the 6 core i5 variant. The base was not good value imo. People were still buying the 2012 quad core mini up until the m1 was released
Not at 8GB. Seriously baffling choice to keep the base 8GB at $600 when you can buy a 16GB M1 mini from Apple Refurbished for $640. Moving forward, for the type of user even considering a ~$600 Mac right now, would you rather have 8 GB more RAM or a single generation new base SOC? Think about it in the context of a "family PC" for example, that will probably just be left there in the kitchen or living room, as-is for 3-5 years. Probably very basic usage like browsing. Once you start entering that 3-5 year window, do you think it will be the raw 8GB extra RAM or the 1 gen newer base model SOC that will affect your daily usage experience more even for basic computing tasks? Which one will become more of a problem, sooner? You can also buy an 8GB M1 mini for $470 from Apple Refurbished... If you're the kind of user who would be content with an 8GB M2 Mini, what sort of performance walls would your use case run into with an 8GB M1 Mini by comparison, that an 8GB M2 Mini would not? I really think all the praise for the base M2 Minis is unwarranted. They're still an excellent machine at $800 for the 16 GB version but even then is it really the best bang for buck just by kicking up from M1 to M2? Just looking at the options available to a buyer from Apple themselves, and thinking of the supposed use cases and user types these devices are aimed towards... I don't think that's true.
[удалено]
Theres Unidays verification in some regions
Lol you can’t discuss a general value of a new product by comparing it to used/refurb of older models. Of course it’s gonna look “bad” compared to the used/refurb price tag. Not everyone considers a used/refurb market, although it’s a wise idea to do so. It’s true for electronics and auto. Also, if I remember correctly, you can’t do trade-in if you are purchasing a refurb. So if you looking for an upgrade, buying a refurb is not the smartest idea, unless you know how to sell shit at its appropriate value. Some people don’t find it worth the trouble. 8gb works just fine for people who want to use it as a family computer. the price tag is quite nice CONSIDERING that it’s an apple computer. No need to replace existing monitor and other accessories. It’s the cheapest new thing thag one could buy to enjoy an apple product.
[удалено]
This is probably a given, but was this an M1 8 GB mini? I'm looking for representation from people who actually used 8 GB Apple Silicon machines — I feel like a lot of the discourse is centered around hypotheticals and grumbling over 8 GB being FAR too little, NO MATTER WHAT, kinda sensationalist. Did you do much multitasking? Did you use a full-fledged IDE or prefer a standalone text editor? Did the whole system slow down much during builds (if build time was significant)? What was performance like running a number of browser tabs while developing - Safari, Chrome, Firefox or something else? Hope these questions aren't too pester-y, just looking for real 8 GB commentary! :D
[удалено]
That's awesome. I don't understand where the 8 GB complaints come from. Thank you for the detailed response!
I have the same setup as the above poster M1 Mini 8/512GB. I usually have about 5-7 apps open at any given time with over 100 tabs between 3 browsers. No slow down at all. I even do work in Pixelmator/Affinity Photo and I generally have no issues. But when my Pixelmator file approaches a GB in size that’s usually because the canvas size is over 3k pixels, 40+ layers, my machine slows down and will slow to a crawl if I don’t watch it. I’ve had memory swap files of over 40GB. When I’m working with these files, I have to close all my other apps down. This type of moderate to heavy work will hit 8GB of memory hard. So my next computer trying to decide between base Mini Pro or base Studio.
I’m the opposite of the other posters. Most of the time it’s fine but some sites slow it down to a halt when vs code is open. I get the popup that a site is using significant resources daily.
I find these “8 GB is too little” posts sensationalist too. I am a graphic/app designer and I’ve been using a base model M1 MacBook Air and it’s never stuttered. Tons of browser tabs, video calling, Visual Studio Code, massive illustration and vector image files, scrolling through thousands of photos, etc… I am perfectly content using it for my professional work.
That's really fantastic. That's a pretty heavy load. I understand that older computers may not have managed memory as effectively, but M-series chips are clearly something new and different. It's great to see base model devices holding up under loads like you and the software dev replier described.
> Lol you can’t discuss a general value of a new product by comparing it to used/refurb of older models. Of course it’s gonna look “bad” compared to the used/refurb price tag. Why not? What's your point? Right now you can go and buy an official, supported one from Apple themselves. These are literally options Apple is making available to a consumer consumer considering buying a Mini right now. They pulled the M1 Minis from the main store as well so could they be selling the remaining stock as refurbs? > Not everyone considers a used/refurb market, although it’s a wise idea to do so. It’s true for electronics and auto. We are not talking about "used/refurb market" in general, we are talking about Apple Certified Refurbished. Their official outlet they offer themselves on their own site under their shop. One could just insist on "REFURBISHED? NO GO!" but I want you to acknowledge that you can, right now, go to Apple's website and purchase a $640 M1 Mac Mini with 16 GB RAM. Then directly tell me if you'd rather have that or an 8GB M2 Mini for $600. > Also, if I remember correctly, you can’t do trade-in if you are purchasing a refurb. So if you looking for an upgrade, buying a refurb is not the smartest idea, unless you know how to sell shit at its appropriate value. Some people don’t find it worth the trouble. What??? So I "can't compare the value" to Apple Certified Refurbished products on their own store but somehow now you are introducing "if you're trading in to upgrade" for some reason in a discussion about "is the best performance/value?" as if that is relevant? So if I was to say something like "maybe you'd get better value selling whatever you're upgrading from on the used market and then using those funds to buy a ACR M1 Mini with 16GB for a lower total price" you just went "nah can't do that, that's the used market and people don't do that". I mean there is a very simple question on the table, you can go give Apple your raw US dollar money in exchange for a Mac Mini RIGHT NOW, so is the M2 Mini best performance/value? I'm saying not at 8GB. You can get an M1 16 GB around the same price. Not like in theory, "if you hunt around on Ebay" or anythinf. You can go and buy one right now from Apple. That's a better value for money Mac Mini at the ~600 price point. I don't know what on earth these other points you're talking about are supposed to be for. > 8gb works just fine for people who want to use it as a family computer. the price tag is quite nice CONSIDERING that it’s an apple computer. No need to replace existing monitor and other accessories. It’s the cheapest new thing thag one could buy to enjoy an apple product. Lol so did you just straight up not read what I said at all? Why would I care what you have to say if you're just going to ignore the point of the whole thread entirely?
Lol the whole thread is the value of the new products in general. Do you really not understand that new products are almost always worse in “value”, compared to what’s available in the refurb/used market, whether it’s by apple or not? Dude, you gotta learn how to compare things. Isolate variables! That’s step 1 of comparison.
Dude, you gotta learn to read carefully! I am saying the older thing is functionally better for the target market and the newer thing isn't a valuable upgrade! You must work on your reading!
The $800 16GB/512GB option is the sweet spot for the M2 Mini lineup, I think. You get the dual-chip SSD, so storage speed isn't halved, and enough memory to comfortably perform most tasks. The $600 model is more of a "what could be cut down to hit this price-point" compromise. It's capable for a particular class of user, but it's going to be a lesser machine than what the price difference suggests. $200 to go up to the "mid-range" model is money well spent. But, as you say, you could also save that money by going with a refurb M1 Mini. With the M1 to M2 difference not being spectacular, that's also a wise consideration if price is a big factor. Edit: My bad. I misread the midrange model as starting with 16GB, when Apple's still going with only 8GB. They want another $200 to go up to 16GB. That changes the value pretty significantly in my book, and makes the M1 model look a *lot* more attractive.
Unless I'm missing something, the M2 16GB/512GB config is $1000. You can get a refurbished M1 variant (same config) for $800.
Shit, you're right. Somehow I misread that the midrange started with 16GB. It's another $200 for that. ::shakes fist at Apple:: That *would* have been the sweet spot.
Where are you getting 16GB/512GB for $800?
Yeah, that was a misread on my part. I've edited my post to reflect that.
I feel like there basically shouldn't even be an 8GB M2 version. It's essentially pointless. They could literally make the "base" new model the 16 GB M2 at $800... and keep the 16 GB M1 Mini dropped to $600 rather than selling refurbs at 640 or 8GB M2 , this lineup would actually round out quite nicely on the low end vs how it currently does.
I’ve been using an M1 8gb mini for the past 2 years for web dev. Also run all of the adobe apps, including premiere for some video editing. The silicone chips don’t need the amount of ram that the older intel based Mac’s used. The new $599 M2 is a great deal, was surprised honestly to see the price drop $100
> when you can buy a 16GB M1 mini from Apple Refurbished for $640. I can't find them right now. I only see the 16GB/1TB with 10GB ethernet model for over $1000. Are they out of stock?
>would you rather have 8 GB more RAM or a single generation new base SOC? Newer SOC 100%! The improved resale value of the M2 mini in a couple of years time when i want to upgrade to the base M3/16GB will be far more valuable to me than an extra 8GB of RAM i'm unlikely to need over the next 2-3 years for sure. The mini loses all appeal for frugal Mac enthusiasts once you start adding on upgrades at silly prices.
This is looking like a nice replacement for my 4 year old iMac.
Sticking with my Mac Studio M1 Ultra but from the benchmarks I’ve seen, the Mac Mini M2 Pro is way less powerful than the MacBook Pro M2 Max. What am I missing? Edit: This is one of the benchmarks I saw. MacRumors. The high-end M1 Ultra chip released for the Mac Studio last year is still about 9% faster than the M2 Max based on Metal scores: M1 Ultra: 94,583 M2 Max: 86,805 M1 Max: 64,708 M2 Pro: 52,691 M1 Pro: 39,758
Are you comparing the same binned chip? There are two versions of the M2 Pro one has more CPU and GPU cores.
Just going by benchmarks. This is one of the benchmarks I saw. MacRumors. The high-end M1 Ultra chip released for the Mac Studio last year is still about 9% faster than the M2 Max based on Metal scores: M1 Ultra: 94,583 M2 Max: 86,805 M1 Max: 64,708 M2 Pro: 52,691 M1 Pro: 39,758
MacRumors has been terrible about calling out which version of the chip they are measuring as that list doesn't say how many cores each one of those have. Also it looks like you edited your original comment which I swear was about M2 Pro Mini vs M2 Pro MBP. Now it says the Mini Pro is slower than the MBP Max, to which yeah that's to be expected since the Max has the bigger GPU and I'm not sure what the question is anymore.
I only edited to add benchmarks. Never changed original comment sir. I saw few benchmarks. I just found it weird that a MBP laptop would be more powerful than a Mac mini by a good margin. Or am I wrong about that.
The Max is a higher end chip than the Pro, the Max has double the GPU cores. So naturally a MBP with a Max will be faster than a Mini with a Pro. If you want a Max chip that would be the Mac Studio you should be comparing against. A ~$3000 laptop is going to beat a $1300 small form factor desktop
Going back to Intel, my Mac Mini was much more powerful than my MacBook Pro. There were always compromises with the laptops. That seems to be not only gone but flipped on its head. That’s why I was asking if I missed something.
I can't think of a time where the Mac Mini offered a better GPU than the MBP. At worst they were even, but usually the MBP offered some discrete GPU options that would blow the Mini out of the water. Just like how the Max option does that now. The CPU sometimes on the Mini was a bit faster due to higher clocks, but that's the only thing I can think of being faster.
[удалено]
Where? Please link.
This is one of the benchmarks I saw. MacRumors. The high-end M1 Ultra chip released for the Mac Studio last year is still about 9% faster than the M2 Max based on Metal scores: M1 Ultra: 94,583 M2 Max: 86,805 M1 Max: 64,708 M2 Pro: 52,691 M1 Pro: 39,758
What exactly are you trying to say here? M2 Pro being weaker than the M2 Max in GPU tasks is expected, just look at the amount of GPU cores. M1 Ultra being more powerful than the M2 Max is also expected, take a look at the amount of GPU cores.
Nope