Apple Silicon M1 Mac mini review - speed today and a promise of more later

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 53
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,320administrator
    jimmydean said:
    Mike Wuerthele  said...

    We've thrown a LOT of software at Rosetta, including the four that I mentioned in the story, plus a really ancient one-trick pony photo cropping app that I think I'm the only licensed user of. It sucks if your app doesn't work, but nearly everything works, and works well, so I stick with my statement.

    FYI Mike,

    Their are a lot of registered users of Pixelmater Pro, and just because you don't know how to use it, properly, does not mean you should throw it under the bus here, not very professional.

    Ahahah!

    Alas, if I were so talented to use Pixelmator Pro. It is, instead, Easycrop, which I have just now learned is discontinued.
    Alex1N
  • Reply 22 of 53
    Mike, mia culpa, thanks
  • Reply 23 of 53
    The 16GB of RAM is a deal breaker for me.
    My 2020 iMac has 64GB of RAM which I figure will last for 5+ years.
    RAM handling is a bit different with Apple Silicon. While if you're hitting swap space on that 64GB often now, it won't help you, how the M1 is handling RAM basically leads to a "8GB is the new 16, and 16 is the new 32" situation.

    We'll see more with time. I don't expect the 16GB limit to remain on whatever comes after the M1.


    As someone working as a software developer/engineer/whatever since years before appleinsider.com existed, I can state with perfect certainty that if you need 32 GB RAM because of the size of your data, running it on 16 GB RAM and thinking you’ll get comparable performance as running it with 32 GB RAM defines “wishful thinking” because you’ll be swapping horribly, and you’ll be limited to I/O speed and latency for the swap drive.

    Where a fast SSD may make even 8 GB RAM seem much more efficient than you’d expect is where you have an application doing data processing in a linear address/array order, and the processing that’s done takes at least as much time as I/O for input and processed output data, as then that can be implicitly handled via the regular swap file, or more explicitly a memory-mapped file, which maps a file into main memory as needed in the virtual address space in a relatively small window of the physical memory address space.  As soon as you have applications following pointers in data structure in a random memory access pattern (this happens in the majority of applications the majority of the time, especially once there have been enough memory allocations and releases of memory) there isn’t an SSD currently available that’ll make 16 GB RAM remotely as efficient as having 32 GB RAM, as you’ve then taken what would (with enough RAM) be a compute-bound problem and translated it into an I/O-bound problem.
    williamlondonjimmydeanboboliciousmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 24 of 53
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,490member
    The 16GB of RAM is a deal breaker for me.
    My 2020 iMac has 64GB of RAM which I figure will last for 5+ years.
    64GB isn’t entry level, as these machines are, but that hasn’t stopped people from criticising these great first machines for lacking more advanced features.

    It really is getting annoying, isn't it? I just read an article where they were comparing an AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (w/ dedicated Nvidia GPU) desktop system against an M1 MacBook Air!? That AMD CPU runs at 105W under normal workload, while the CPU in the Air M1 runs at 10W.

    What I really want to see, is the M1 MacBook Air compared to other passively cooled laptops.

    I did find this page, written two weeks ago. In it, the author declares the Acer Spin 7 as the "Most Powerful Fanless Windows Laptop", so I thought I'd compare GB5 benchmarks with the Air...

    Acer, Intel Core i7-7Y75, Single: ~700 / Multi: ~1200
    Apple, M1, Single: ~1600 / Multi: ~7200

    And believe it or not, that Acer is actually capable of "handling several opened chrome tabs along with multitasking!"

    (To be fair, that page also lists the Acer Switch 7 which is a little more performant: Single: ~700 / Multi: ~2600)
    edited November 2020 williamlondonGG1Alex1NhmlongcoMplsPchiaroundaboutnowwatto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 53
    The RAM in the Late 2012 Mac Mini is upgradeable.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 53
    dewmedewme Posts: 3,946member
    The 16GB of RAM is a deal breaker for me.
    My 2020 iMac has 64GB of RAM which I figure will last for 5+ years.
    RAM handling is a bit different with Apple Silicon. While if you're hitting swap space on that 64GB often now, it won't help you, how the M1 is handling RAM basically leads to a "8GB is the new 16, and 16 is the new 32" situation.

    We'll see more with time. I don't expect the 16GB limit to remain on whatever comes after the M1.


    As someone working as a software developer/engineer/whatever since years before appleinsider.com existed, I can state with perfect certainty that if you need 32 GB RAM because of the size of your data, running it on 16 GB RAM and thinking you’ll get comparable performance as running it with 32 GB RAM defines “wishful thinking” because you’ll be swapping horribly, and you’ll be limited to I/O speed and latency for the swap drive.

    Where a fast SSD may make even 8 GB RAM seem much more efficient than you’d expect is where you have an application doing data processing in a linear address/array order, and the processing that’s done takes at least as much time as I/O for input and processed output data, as then that can be implicitly handled via the regular swap file, or more explicitly a memory-mapped file, which maps a file into main memory as needed in the virtual address space in a relatively small window of the physical memory address space.  As soon as you have applications following pointers in data structure in a random memory access pattern (this happens in the majority of applications the majority of the time, especially once there have been enough memory allocations and releases of memory) there isn’t an SSD currently available that’ll make 16 GB RAM remotely as efficient as having 32 GB RAM, as you’ve then taken what would (with enough RAM) be a compute-bound problem and translated it into an I/O-bound problem.
    I agree that if you have an application, or a collection of applications running concurrently, that you have verified through testing and profiling cannot run within its operational requirements without a full 32GB of memory, regardless of the nature of the paging medium, yes indeed, you'll need the full 32 GB. I will also say that if I were up against that kind of hard limit with zero wiggle room, I probably wouldn't be running that application on a 32 GB Mac mini to begin with. That represents a pathological use case with no engineering margin to account for the variabilities that are always present when using a general purpose, multiprocessing, time slice scheduled, shared resource computing system like Mac and macOS.

    In every instance that I've encountered with super tight memory constants I've reverted to using a custom, statically allocated, fixed block memory manager with custom defragmenter rather than the one provided by the operating system. My point here is only to say that if you truly need a certain memory capacity with zero tolerance you're not going to settle for any of the nondeterminism that a general purpose operating system like macOS introduces. macOS, like Windows, Unix, and Linux have way too much indeterminism to run them right up agaist a hard limit of any kind - not just memory capacity. 

    A more common approach, and one that is probably more indicative of Mac mini hosted solutions and what Mike is alluding to, would be to say that a particular app configuration runs optimally with a certain amount of memory available to the operating system but will run, perhaps sub-optimally, but not go belly up and crap itself, if the memory load-out is less than optimal. In fact, this is the overriding assumption about most every Mac (and Windows and Unix/Linux app) running an operating system that has virtual memory management, process isolation, paging, with RAM backed by secondary storage (slower), and with the process memory address space mapped independently of where it actually resides (RAM or disk).

    It remains to be seen how apps perform on the M1 versus Intel processors with various amount of memory and where memory requirements are variable versus being hard and fixed. You're right about the hard & fixed use cases, but I have a strong feeling that for the vast majority of apps that are tolerant of variability in the amount of physical RAM, which is almost all apps that are widely used. the Apple Silicon equipped Macs are going to run at comparable performance levels with less RAM and at better performance levels with the same amount of RAM as their Intel counterparts. I say this because Apple had total control over the use of ALL memory on its SoC and didn't have to defer to anyone else's design choices. Plus, when you're hit with paging, it's not like the old days of trading off nanoseconds for milliseconds, it's paging to SSDs that are orders of magnitude faster than hard disks.

    Only testing will reveal the truth, but I'm putting my chips on Apple Silicon coming out ahead. 

     


    seanjJWSCAlex1Nhmlongcochiamacplusplusroundaboutnowwatto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 53
    dewmedewme Posts: 3,946member
    cloudguy said:
    But, no pun intended, the failures are the edge cases, and compatibility is the norm.

    Yeah, no, that is not true at all. As predicted, lots of major apps are either running very slowly, frequently crashing or not running at all. 

    https://news.softpedia.com/news/it-s-not-only-milk-and-honey-terrible-app-experience-on-apple-silicon-531592.shtml

    https://www.extremetech.com/computing/317715-early-adopters-of-apple-m1-macs-should-be-cautious-about-compatibility

    https://mspoweruser.com/too-good-to-be-true-plenty-of-software-not-compatible-with-apple-m1-laptops/

    The initial reviewers were mostly "journalists who write about tech" types - including one who literally stated "who cares about Linux ... it is hard and practically nobody uses it" - who mostly rely on first party Apple software, browser stuff as well as software that Apple "helpfully" recommended. None of them applied a QA testing "let's see what works and what breaks" type of rigorous approach because that wasn't their background.

    Of course, I wouldn't expect Apple Insider to do such a thing ... but a lot of the folks at the alleged "independent tech-oriented sites" have egg on their faces right now. I have noted for years that when you read those sites, their "tests" of computing devices include video/photo editing (which virtually no one in the workforce outside of a few jobs/industries does) and they always compare everything to their MacBook Air/iMac/iPad/iPhone. But the first person to get the ball rolling was Patrick Moorhead. The guy doesn't like Apple much - so sue and boo him - but he is a tech consultant who regularly uses Macs for his job. He states:

     I have experienced application crashes in Microsoft Edge, Outlook, WinZip and Logitech Camera Control. I got installation errors with Adobe Reader XI, Adobe Acrobat Reader DC, a Samsung SSD backup application, and Xbox 360 Controller for Mac. I couldn’t even install Adobe Reader XI 11.0.10. The installer just sat there, and I had to hard reboot the entire system. Acrobat DC would not install either. Given how many incompatibilities the M1 chip is having, a samaritan has created a site called “Is Apple Silicon Ready” documenting incompatible apps."

    https://isapplesiliconready.com/

    Granted, this is to be expected. We are basically a week into the launch of both a new hardware stack and a new operating system version. However, I felt that I had to reply to the "the failures are the edge cases and compatibility is the norm" when major applications like the entire Intellij suite - used heavily for programmers/developers - and Adobe applications aren't working and Outlook is unreliable. No one should buy M1 Macs as their primary work machines right now, but as secondary machines for specific applications. 


    The bottom line is that NO application can claim full compatibility with Apple Silicon until the application owner has fully tested their app with Apple Silicon and certified it as "Apple Silicon Compatible." The same thing holds true for Apple's Rosetta technology - NO application owner can claim full compatibility with Rosetta until the application owner has fully tested their app with Apple Silicon and certified it as "Apple Rosetta Compatible." Anything less is wishful thinking, no matter how well intentioned.

    If Apple states that it believes a third party application is fully compatible with Apple Silicon or Rosetta, perhaps based on their extensive testing, this is not the same as the application owner saying the same thing. No matter what Apple does or observes in their testing, they never really know every possible execution path a third party application can take, not without access to all of the source code. This doesn't mean that Apple is wrong to say "we've tested such and such third party app on Apple Silicon/Rosetta and it seemed to work just fine." This is a nice gesture, but it's not certification of any sort and does not substitute for the word of the application owner.

    In Apple's defense, they've done a pretty good job so far considering the timeline that they followed from WWDC in June to now. A lot of things are working and working extremely well. Some things are broken and will require more work. This is typical for a Release 1.0 product, and quite amazing considering the timeline. They tried to pull their partners along quickly with development resources including easy access to development machines and OS builds.

    In defense of the third party app developers, WWDC wasn't that long ago, they still had their own product roadmaps to execute on, and it's not really clear to some of them how Apple Silicon makes THEIR lives any better. Sure, Apple's been nice enough, but there's still work that has to be done on their end and change is always challenging. This is unlike other WWDC launched initiatives where new features are served up for third parties to consider. This time they're being asked to run on a whole new platform. Rosetta takes some of the "surprise!" factor out of the change for some, and possibly most, third parties, but as we're seeing, it's not a 100% guarantee - and they're still asking "what's in this for me?" 

    Personally, I think we're way above the glass half-full line in general, but there are still some outliers and being past half-full is not the same as being full to the top. It'll just take more time.

    edited November 2020 Alex1Nmuthuk_vanalingamroundaboutnowwatto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 53
    GG1 said:
    I'm still using a 2012 Mini with 32GB RAM... But I think this new Mx family will make us rethink RAM. Perhaps 16GB in Mx is roughly the same as 32GB DDR4, as someone said above.

    I hope someone can chime in and add to this or correct me.
    Unfortunately I can't work on 'perhaps', now or in the future, and look to software developers for such recommendations.
    Increasing GPU reliance has shifted the goal posts as well, and while the M1 seems significantly more powerful, some apps recommend discrete GPU.
    The 2011 mini had such as an option, appropriate for its class at at the time, so I guess it is wait and see, again.
  • Reply 29 of 53
    cloudguy said:
    But, no pun intended, the failures are the edge cases, and compatibility is the norm.

    Yeah, no, that is not true at all. As predicted, lots of major apps are either running very slowly, frequently crashing or not running at all. 

    https://news.softpedia.com/news/it-s-not-only-milk-and-honey-terrible-app-experience-on-apple-silicon-531592.shtml

    https://www.extremetech.com/computing/317715-early-adopters-of-apple-m1-macs-should-be-cautious-about-compatibility

    https://mspoweruser.com/too-good-to-be-true-plenty-of-software-not-compatible-with-apple-m1-laptops/

    The initial reviewers were mostly "journalists who write about tech" types - including one who literally stated "who cares about Linux ... it is hard and practically nobody uses it" - who mostly rely on first party Apple software, browser stuff as well as software that Apple "helpfully" recommended. None of them applied a QA testing "let's see what works and what breaks" type of rigorous approach because that wasn't their background.

    Of course, I wouldn't expect Apple Insider to do such a thing ... but a lot of the folks at the alleged "independent tech-oriented sites" have egg on their faces right now. I have noted for years that when you read those sites, their "tests" of computing devices include video/photo editing (which virtually no one in the workforce outside of a few jobs/industries does) and they always compare everything to their MacBook Air/iMac/iPad/iPhone. But the first person to get the ball rolling was Patrick Moorhead. The guy doesn't like Apple much - so sue and boo him - but he is a tech consultant who regularly uses Macs for his job. He states:

     I have experienced application crashes in Microsoft Edge, Outlook, WinZip and Logitech Camera Control. I got installation errors with Adobe Reader XI, Adobe Acrobat Reader DC, a Samsung SSD backup application, and Xbox 360 Controller for Mac. I couldn’t even install Adobe Reader XI 11.0.10. The installer just sat there, and I had to hard reboot the entire system. Acrobat DC would not install either. Given how many incompatibilities the M1 chip is having, a samaritan has created a site called “Is Apple Silicon Ready” documenting incompatible apps."

    https://isapplesiliconready.com/

    Granted, this is to be expected. We are basically a week into the launch of both a new hardware stack and a new operating system version. However, I felt that I had to reply to the "the failures are the edge cases and compatibility is the norm" when major applications like the entire Intellij suite - used heavily for programmers/developers - and Adobe applications aren't working and Outlook is unreliable. No one should buy M1 Macs as their primary work machines right now, but as secondary machines for specific applications. 


    There were always going to be failures, and they were always going to come from the regular sources who have played fast and loose with Apple programming guidelines for all three hardware transitions -- Adobe, Microsoft, and et cetera. We've mentioned that we were expecting problems from them before, given history.

    We've thrown a LOT of software at Rosetta, including the four that I mentioned in the story, plus a really ancient one-trick pony photo cropping app that I think I'm the only licensed user of. It sucks if your app doesn't work, but nearly everything works, and works well, so I stick with my statement.

    A major app not working, doesn't make the statement not true. What bothers me more are some inconsistencies in the lists. For example, the Samsung SSD app was broken under Big Sur's release (not M1) for some, with the M1 taking it the rest of the way, and Outlook works fine here.

    In regards to the "No one should buy M1 Macs as their primary work machines right now," I'm not sure this is the case universally, and I did talk about this in the end of the review a bit. I am a strong proponent of letting other folks get flaming data for you, but the less you rely on Microsoft and Adobe, the less true this is.
    Roaring Apps is another compatibility site that may be of help to some: https://roaringapps.com/collections/list-of-apple-silicon-native-apps
  • Reply 30 of 53
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,437member
    mjtomlin said:
    The 16GB of RAM is a deal breaker for me.
    My 2020 iMac has 64GB of RAM which I figure will last for 5+ years.
    64GB isn’t entry level, as these machines are, but that hasn’t stopped people from criticising these great first machines for lacking more advanced features.

    It really is getting annoying, isn't it? I just read an article where they were comparing an AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (w/ dedicated Nvidia GPU) desktop system against an M1 MacBook Air!? That AMD CPU runs at 105W under normal workload, while the CPU in the Air M1 runs at 10W.

    What I really want to see, is the M1 MacBook Air compared to other passively cooled laptops.

    I did find this page, written two weeks ago. In it, the author declares the Acer Spin 7 as the "Most Powerful Fanless Windows Laptop", so I thought I'd compare GB5 benchmarks with the Air...

    Acer, Intel Core i7-7Y75, Single: ~700 / Multi: ~1200
    Apple, M1, Single: ~1600 / Multi: ~7200

    And believe it or not, that Acer is actually capable of "handling several opened chrome tabs along with multitasking!"

    (To be fair, that page also lists the Acer Switch 7 which is a little more performant: Single: ~700 / Multi: ~2600)
    It’s hard for a lot of people to get nuance. Everyone understands ‘the fastest,’ but the M1 isn’t claiming to be the fastest. Nor is it claiming to have the best graphics processor. It’s claiming to be a fast, efficient processor. No one is comparing that Acer laptop to a Ryzen 7 with an Nvidia GPU and comparing an M1 to them is not an appropriate comparison, either. 

    The M1 is an impressive first step for Apple and  the computers with it appear to be very capable machines for what they are. For the majority of laptop users they will be perfect. If you are editing video or editing large images, they’re probably not for you but Apple still has other higher-end machines available. 
    edited November 2020 williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 53
    bageljoeybageljoey Posts: 1,941member
    GG1 said:
    I'm still using a 2012 Mini with 32GB RAM... But I think this new Mx family will make us rethink RAM. Perhaps 16GB in Mx is roughly the same as 32GB DDR4, as someone said above.

    I hope someone can chime in and add to this or correct me.
    Unfortunately I can't work on 'perhaps', now or in the future, and look to software developers for such recommendations.
    Increasing GPU reliance has shifted the goal posts as well, and while the M1 seems significantly more powerful, some apps recommend discrete GPU.
    The 2011 mini had such as an option, appropriate for its class at at the time, so I guess it is wait and see, again.
    So what is the problem?  If you need a machine now, and you don’t think the new ASi machines will work for your use, buy an Intel Mac—they are still being sold and you know what they can do. 
    If you don’t need a new machine now, wait and see what shakes out with ASi...

    Why are people acting like Apple is putting them in some sort of compromising bind?
    MplsPFidonet127dewmewilliamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 53
    postulantpostulant Posts: 1,272member
    Any word on its battery life?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 53
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,490member
    GG1 said:
    I'm still using a 2012 Mini with 32GB RAM... But I think this new Mx family will make us rethink RAM. Perhaps 16GB in Mx is roughly the same as 32GB DDR4, as someone said above.

    I hope someone can chime in and add to this or correct me.
    Unfortunately I can't work on 'perhaps', now or in the future, and look to software developers for such recommendations.
    Increasing GPU reliance has shifted the goal posts as well, and while the M1 seems significantly more powerful, some apps recommend discrete GPU.
    The 2011 mini had such as an option, appropriate for its class at at the time, so I guess it is wait and see, again.

    The entry-level 2011 2.3GHz Mac mini did not have a discreet GPU option, only the 2.5GHz model did. Also, of course that system had a discreet GPU option, those integrated Intel graphics were absolutely awful and they were only used for lower-end systems.

    The GPUs are plenty fast in the M1. What really needs to happen is for developers to create native applications that are optimized to take advantage of Metal.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 53
    The size of the SSD is a big deal for me.  256GB runs out of space very easily.  512GB is the min for me nowadays.  
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 53
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,490member
    GG1 said:
    'One of the big problem areas for the Mac mini is that it is not possible to upgrade the components inside it at all.'

    Indeed a deal breaker for me too. 32GB is my minimum and expected to increase over time. 2011 mini still gets my vote for the most versatile mini ever offered, and still using it to this day. Hmmm 2011. Again.

    I can't understand the mac customer downsides to slotted ram and at least one extra internal storage slot, especially considering Apple's supposed environmental zeitgeist? I understand there might be a slight penalty in ram tuning speed and a few extra dollars for slots vs future expansion and upgrades ? I'd ask if a BTO option for an internal Time Machine backup drive might be compelling for even the most retail users, and in keeping with both performance and a minimalist design aesthetic ?

    Let the flames begin! :)

    ps. I applaud the return to clear anodized (more aesthetically consistent, durable and biodegradable/recyclable) for what that may be worth...
    pps. I'd appreciate too with the extra rear port space a Kensington lock slot - a true case of less being more...?
    I'm still using a 2012 Mini with 32GB RAM and was about to get a 2018 Mini, but I held off after seeing the initial M1 reviews. But I think this new Mx family will make us rethink RAM. Perhaps 16GB in Mx is roughly the same as 32GB DDR4, as someone said above.

    I'm no chip designer, but I wonder if the industry is moving to the same unified memory or at least memory-on-chip for vastly better performance (like High Bandwidth Memory technology), thus making "external" DDR4 or DDR5 the future dinosaur. The downside is HBM is not upgradable, as far as I understand (I've only seen HBM for GPUs; the Mx may be the first to use HBM for both CPU and GPU).

    I hope someone can chime in and add to this or correct me.

    I wouldn’t exactly say that is the case with the M1. If you’re working with extremely large files and/or data sets, then the more memory you have the more performant any system will be. But if you’re working with more processes (multitasking), the M1 memory management uses ML more effectively, and seems to be able to anticipate much quicker what might be needed next, so it handles memory more intelligently.

    But again, we all need to remember this SoC was not designed for heavy workloads, regardless of how impressive  it may appear to be. It was specifically designed to be extremely efficient.
    bageljoeyGG1watto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 53
    Hi there, great review BTW.  I currently use an EGPU (Radeon W5700) with my MBP. Will this EGPU: one - work and boost performance; and two - allow me to use more than 2 monitors through it with this M1 Mini?  Cheers, Marc
  • Reply 37 of 53
    bageljoeybageljoey Posts: 1,941member
    MarcDUB said:
    Hi there, great review BTW.  I currently use an EGPU (Radeon W5700) with my MBP. Will this EGPU: one - work and boost performance; and two - allow me to use more than 2 monitors through it with this M1 Mini?  Cheers, Marc
    At present, eGPUs do not work with M1 Macs. Thus, it would do nothing.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 53
    No mention in the review on how many displays the new M1 Mac Mini can drive. 

    I have a 2012 Mac Mini which I’m ready to upgrade from, but it’s currently driving 2 Apple Thunderbolt displays via the single TB2 connector on that model. Works great and I’d like to retain the displays but understand the new model could only handle one of these which is a dealbreaker for me. 

    Unless I’m wrong...?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 39 of 53
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,490member
    No mention in the review on how many displays the new M1 Mac Mini can drive. 

    I have a 2012 Mac Mini which I’m ready to upgrade from, but it’s currently driving 2 Apple Thunderbolt displays via the single TB2 connector on that model. Works great and I’d like to retain the displays but understand the new model could only handle one of these which is a dealbreaker for me. 

    Unless I’m wrong...?

    That is correct. Both the USB-C and HDMI ports only support a single display each.

    USB-C port supports: DisplayPort, Thunderbolt 2, DVI, or VGA displays
    HDMI port supports: HDMI or DVI displays
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 53
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    The 16GB of RAM is a deal breaker for me.
    My 2020 iMac has 64GB of RAM which I figure will last for 5+ years.
    RAM handling is a bit different with Apple Silicon. While if you're hitting swap space on that 64GB often now, it won't help you, how the M1 is handling RAM basically leads to a "8GB is the new 16, and 16 is the new 32" situation.

    We'll see more with time. I don't expect the 16GB limit to remain on whatever comes after the M1.

    These are really nice machines, I'm more impressed with my MBA, 16 GB everyday.    I would expect problems if I have a RAM heavy workload but that seldom happens.    It might be a mistake to call 8GB the new 16 GB, however many could do without 16 GB.    The real question is how many people with 64 GB of RAM on a Mini really hit swap space hard, if they do maybe they have the wrong machine.

    As for the Mini and its class of machines, are they really introductory machines any more?    I know of many corporate sites that have gone to Mini type computers, sadly mostly Lenovos, as the base model for much of the facility.    I just imagine what an uprated M series chip could do in a Mini, imagine 35 to 45 watts.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.