Is that it on the Mac mini for now?

[gavspen]

We were all hoping (well, some of us were) that there would be a new line of high end Mac minis that would replace the Intels, have more ports maybe, RAM, all that. Well we've had two Apple "events" recently and nothing much of interest in that department. They do seem to have upped the RAM....16 available now, used to be just 8, didnt it? Still paltry compared to the Intels....but that seems to be about it. Intels still for sale.

Are we done for this year then, do we think?

Gavin

[mikehalloran]

16 available now, used to be just 8, didnt it? Still paltry compared to the Intels....

Comparing discrete memory on the Intel Macs to integrated RAM on the M1 is not a valid comparison. Plenty of GeekBench and other comparisons online bear that out.

Back to your question, all of the armchair prophets who predicted new Minis and large iMacs with the M1 Pro or M1 Max chips this year are now saying, "Wait till next year". The fact that none of them knew the names of the new chips should give a clue as to their accuracy.

That said, prototypes of the large iMac and a new Mac Pro are known to exist. That a new Mini is coming soon may be wishful thinking—or not. We just don't know. And neither does anyone else.

Those who have the current M1 Mini are singing its praises as a DAW host. My only objection is the lack of onboard storage. I'm not interested in anything with less than 8TB and the Mini has never kept up with the iMac or MacBook Pro in that regard.

If, on the outside chance that a new iMac and a Mini were to come out with the M1 Max 64GB and 8TB onboard, it would depend on my monitor options which I would go with. Fortunately, I'm in the position of not needing either at the moment so I can wait.

[dix]

I'm not interested in anything with less than 8TB…

I’m curious why this is a priority for you. Wouldn’t external storage be fast enough for audio needs? The integrated storage dramatically increases the price of these new machines. I was hoping to keep cost down by keeping the onboard storage low.

[gavspen]

Mike, I dont understand what you mean when you say, "Comparing discrete memory on the Intel Macs to integrated RAM on the M1 is not a valid comparison", especially in light of your comment that you'd like to have 64gigs onboard.

Gavin

[dix]

I believe Mike is saying that the metric we use for determining how much RAM is needed on Intel Mac’s doesn’t apply to M1 Macs. Specifically, if I’m understanding Mike, M1s will need less. I’ve heard it floated that the integrated RAM on M1s is effectively double what Intel RAM numbers would be. So XXgb of integrated RAM could be thought of as much more by Intel standards. …a massive over simplification no doubt, but the point is M1 RAM is a different animal than Intel’s. 64gb of RAM probably wouldn't cut it for a lot of people's needs by Intel standards, but by M1 standards that amount should be plenty.

[HCMarkus]

I'm still holding out hope the M1 Pro/Max will be available in the Mini format in the not too distant future. It seems like a complete no-brainer for Apple to pull such a product together. Such a machine, as powerful as It would be, become in essence, the long-hoped-for "X-Mac".

I've been running my studio Mac 5,1 on 48 gigs of RAM and not seeing any disc swaps or excessive memory pressure when running DP. I'm pretty sure 32 gigs of RAM in an Apple Silicon Mac would run DP like a dream but, given the fact RAM in such Macs is not upgradeable post-purchase, would probably spring for 64GB.

As for storage, sure, it would be great to keep everything but backups on that speedy internal. I just don't think 8TB is anything like a necessity for most folks given the plethora of less expensive external options.

[gavspen]

I believe Mike is saying that the metric we use for determining how much RAM is needed on Intel Mac’s doesn’t apply to M1 Macs. Specifically, if I’m understanding Mike, M1s will need less. I’ve heard it floated that the integrated RAM on M1s is effectively double what Intel RAM numbers would be. So XXgb of integrated RAM could be thought of as much more by Intel standards. …a massive over simplification no doubt, but the point is M1 RAM is a different animal than Intel’s. 64gb of RAM probably wouldn't cut it for a lot of people's needs by Intel standards, but by M1 standards that amount should be plenty.

Ok, for RAM needed just to run apps well, but what about loading samples for VIs? Some stream from hard disk but is external storage fast enough for that?

[dix]

Ah. Good question. I'm not sure if only the integrated-storage will benefit from the integrated-memory's fast speeds, or if external drives with libraries would as well. ...it's possible I may have just answered my own question to Mike, above, re why he wanted so much integrated storage.

[gavspen]

Mike, you around? Care to comment on the RAM/storage questions? You clearly know a lot!

Gavin

[HCMarkus]

I think we are still learning about RAM requirements for the M1 series of SoCs. Many reports suggest they do just fine with less RAM than we are used to specifying for Intel CPU systems. Folks theorize that the integrated storage is fast enough to minimize the impact of disc swaps, and that is what is happening with the M1. SSD life concerns have been voiced by some, noting lots of wear on M1 systems storage, presumably due to swapping. A larger SSD means better NAND wear-leveling and longer life for that storage.

So, get as much RAM and storage as you can afford. That said, I'd weight spending towards RAM if necessary, as external storage is available, because what you buy in Apple RAM is all you'll ever have on an M1 system. Unfortunately, with the current M1 lineup, you can't get 64GB unless you pony up for the M1 Max, which includes more GPU horsepower than DAW operation requires.

[cuttime]

From posts I've seen in other forums, users who have large orchestral VI templates have had them stall, stutter and halt with 16 Gs of RAM on M1 machines. Logic seems to give better performance though, but the consensus seems to be that with large VI projects RAM is still RAM and you might just want to wait.

[Michael Canavan]

I'm willing to bet that within the next 5 months the M1 Max and Pro get used in a Mini and probably a mid tier iMac. Apple are going to have a more limited chip line than Intel, and that means we will likely see the same thing happen with the Max and Pro that happened with the M1, it being used in multiple machines, after initially being introduced in three devices, the M1 showed up again in the iMac and the iPad Pro. I see no logical reason for this trend to not extend to Apples mid tier line up.

[HCMarkus]

From posts I've seen in other forums, users who have large orchestral VI templates have had them stall, stutter and halt with 16 Gs of RAM on M1 machines. Logic seems to give better performance though, but the consensus seems to be that with large VI projects RAM is still RAM and you might just want to wait.

Makes sense, but I wonder if those users adjusted the sample pre-load down to the smallest size in Kontakt or whatever sampler engine they are running? Definitely the way to go when RAM is limited and storage is super fast...

[HCMarkus]

I'm willing to bet that within the next 5 months the M1 Max and Pro get used in a Mini and probably a mid tier iMac. Apple are going to have a more limited chip line than Intel, and that means we will likely see the same thing happen with the Max and Pro that happened with the M1, it being used in multiple machines, after initially being introduced in three devices, the M1 showed up again in the iMac and the iPad Pro. I see no logical reason for this trend to not extend to Apples mid tier line up.

Logical, yes, but we are talking Apple here. My concern is that Apple sees a Max Mini Pro as cannibalizing Mac Pro sales and withholds said Mini Pro from we, the thirsty masses.

Nah. You're right Michael. (written with hope)

[Michael Canavan]

I'm willing to bet that within the next 5 months the M1 Max and Pro get used in a Mini and probably a mid tier iMac. Apple are going to have a more limited chip line than Intel, and that means we will likely see the same thing happen with the Max and Pro that happened with the M1, it being used in multiple machines, after initially being introduced in three devices, the M1 showed up again in the iMac and the iPad Pro. I see no logical reason for this trend to not extend to Apples mid tier line up.

Logical, yes, but we are talking Apple here. My concern is that Apple sees a Max Mini Pro as cannibalizing Mac Pro sales and withholds said Mini Pro from we, the thirsty masses.

Nah. You're right Michael. (written with hope)

It's possible for sure, Apple in the past have been guilty of artificially creating tiers where there isn't any need to.
I'm just betting that the Mac Pro will use multiple M2's or whatever they call them, to differentiate from the regular line up.