Compared: New Apple Silicon Mac mini versus Intel Mac Mini

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited May 25
The new Apple Silicon-based Mac mini is an entry point into Apple's new processor ecosystem, but here's how exactly it compares to the old Intel-based model.

The new Mac mini with Apple Silicon M1
The new Mac mini with Apple Silicon M1


One of the things that Apple Silicon will have to do is to draw developers and users to the platform, and one way it can accomplish that is by offering itself as a reasonably-priced computing option. For many people needing a desktop-based Mac replacement or switching from Windows-based PCs, that option largely boiled down to the Mac mini.

Now Apple has increased the performance of the Mac mini by reworking it with an Apple Silicon M1 processor. And it's also lowered the entry-level price by $100.

As the smallest Mac Apple sells in terms of stature, as well as in pricing, the Mac mini is an attractive proposition, and one that can easily slot in to a user's existing computing environment if they are upgrading from an older model, or from a PC. It makes sense for one of Apple's first forays into Apple Silicon to be one that follows a similar path.

In fact, there has already been one Apple Silicon Mac mini in existence. The Developer Transition Kit Apple supplied to developers after WWDC effectively consisted of a Mac mini with a different processor inside, with the internals and rear panel switched out for different versions while keeping the same enclosure.

At the time, it was warned that the Developer Transition Kit would give hints for what to expect from the full-fat Apple Silicon experience, but production hardware would most probably change before its release.

Now, with the announcement of an Apple Silicon version, the first real comparisons can be made with the outgoing Intel model. We'll have to see what results we get from AppleInsider's real-world testing, but for now, Apple's specifications tell us a huge amount.

Apple Silicon Mac mini versus Intel Mac Mini - Specifications

Mac mini (Apple Silicon 2020)Mac mini (Intel 2018)
Starting price $699
Lowest Apple Silicon Mac mini prices
$799
Lowest Intel Mac mini prices
Dimensions (inches)1.4 x 7.7 x 7.71.4 x 7.7 x 7.7
Weight (pounds)2.62.9
ProcessorApple M1 8-core CPU8th-generation 3.6GHz 4-core Intel Core i3
8th-generation 3.0GHz 6-core Intel Core i5
8th-generation 3.2GHz 6-core Intel Core i7
Graphics8-core GPUIntel UHD Graphics 630
RAM8GB, 16GB8GB, 16GB, 32GB, 64GB
Networking802.11ax Wi-Fi 6 wireless networking
IEEE 802.11a/b/g/n/ac compatible, Bluetooth 5.0 wireless technology, 10/100/1000BASE-T Gigabit Ethernet
802.11ac Wi-Fi
Bluetooth 5.0
Gigabit Ethernet
Optional 10Gb Ethernet
Storage256GB, 512GB, 1TB, 2TB256GB (Core i3 and Core i7), 512GB, 1TB, 2TB
DisplayNoneNone
PortsHDMI 2.0, two USB 4/Thunderbolt 3, two USB-A, Ethernet, 3.5mm headphoneHDMI 2.0
Two USB 3 ports, Four Thunderbolt 3 ports, Ethernet, 3.5mm headphone

Apple Silicon Mac mini versus Intel Mac Mini - External appearance

The physical shape of the chassis may be more important with the Mac mini than in any other Mac. That's because while this devices works as an entry-level Mac for very many users, it's also routinely used in arrays where hundreds or even thousands of Mac mini machines are racked together.

Perhaps because of that, the Mac mini has largely kept the same general appearance over the years, and the new model retains exactly the same square and relatively thin lump of aluminium. It's fractionally lighter, though, at 2.6lbs instead of the 2018 Intel Mac mini's 2.9lbs.

The low-profile Mac, measuring 7.7 inches square and 1.4 inches thick, has rounded corners and bears the Apple logo on the top. All of the ports and connections are routed through the back panel of the Mac mini, leaving a quite polished and stark presence on the desktop.

This exploded view may be your only chance to see the insides of the new Mac mini as you can no longer open it to upgrade RAM
This exploded view may be your only chance to see the insides of the new Mac mini as you can no longer open it to upgrade RAM

Apple Silicon Mac mini versus Intel Mac Mini - Processors and memory

Apple offers the Mac mini with a choice of three Intel processors, with the base configuration consisting of an 8th-generation quad-core Intel Core i3. The Intel Core i3-8100B is clocked at 3.6GHz, but is unusual in the range that it doesn't include support for Turbo Boost or Hyperthreading, meaning the clock speed won't get any higher than that.

The middle-chip in the range is the Intel Core i5-8500B, a six-core chip with a base clock of 3GHz and a maximum clock sped of 4.1GHz under Turbo Boost, though it is limited to six threads due to a lack of Hyperthreading support. At the top end is the Intel Core i7-8700B, a six-core chip that supports both Turbo Boost and Hyperthreading, meaning it can generate 12 threads and can raise its clock speed from 3.2GHz to 4.6GHz.

The shared L3 cache starts from 6MB on the Core i3, rising to 9MB in the Core i5, then to 12MB in the Core i7.

In terms of memory, the Mac mini ships with a base configuration of 8GB, but that can be upgraded to 16GB, 32GB, or 64GB. Apple uses 2,666MHz DDR4 SO-DIMM memory in the Mac mini.

Where the 2018 Intel model offered three different processors, the new Mac mini with Apple Silicon M1 comes with just a single option, at least in this first release. It's perhaps not surprising that Apple has not come out with multiple versions for its initial release, but there are differences in the M1 processor used in other Apple Silicon devices.

The MacBook Air with Apple Silicon, for example, comes with an option that includes either a 7-core GPU or an 8-core one. The Mac mini offers solely the 8-core GPU, alongside the 8-core CPU, and the 16-core Neural engine.

Apple does not offer a point by point comparison between processors, preferring only to state that the CPU in the M1 is up to three times faster than the previous generation. For graphics, Apple says the new Mac mini is up to six times faster than its predecessor.

In terms of memory, the new Mac mini still ships with the same base configuration of 8GB, but that can be upgraded at time of order to 16GB. Apple previously used 2,666MHz DDR4 SO-DIMM memory in the Intel Mac mini, and also offered it in 32GB and 64GB configurations.

Now the RAM is what Apple calls unified memory, which it says provides faster performance. However, the RAM in the Mac mini is no longer upgradeable after purchase, which is a significant difference.

Apple Silicon Mac mini versus Intel Mac Mini - Comparing processor performance

According to Geekbench, the Intel Core i3-8100B achieves a single-core score of 972 points and a score of 3,351 for multi-core testing. The Core i5-8500B is reported as having scores of 1,055 for single-core and 4,659 for multi-core, and the Core i7-8700B offers respective scores of 1,167 and 5,694.

Initial results for the M1 in the MacBook Air reveal it to have Geekbench scores in the ballpark of 1,730 for the single-core testing and 7,500 for multi-core versions, with little likely deviation for the Mac mini once it undergoes benchmarking itself.

This indicates the M1 is a far more capable chip than even the highest-powered version offered in the old Mac mini. It will likely fare power users better than the MacBook Air too, as the Mac mini offers better thermal management in the form of a fan for cooling.

The new Mac mini driving a Pro Display XDR
The new Mac mini driving a Pro Display XDR

Apple Silicon Mac mini versus Intel Mac Mini - Graphics

The Mac mini relies on Intel UHD Graphics 630, the graphics processing unit integrated into the processors. Given the small size of the Mac mini's enclosure, there's no real option for Apple to include a traditional discrete graphics option, in the device, so, Apple has opted to use its own GPU design and include it in the M1 processor.

According to the GFXBench 5.0 results browser, Intel UHD Graphics 630 for desktop processors scores 1,454 onscreen frames in the Aztec Ruins Normal Tier, and 834 on the High Tier variant. By contrast, the Apple M1 manages 3,859 frames and 3,492 frames respectively, giving it a considerably comfortable lead over its predecessor.

Apple Silicon Mac mini versus Intel Mac Mini - Connectivity

The old Mac mini offers a plethora of rear connections, starting with a quartet of Thunderbolt 3 ports, as well as a pair of USB-A 3.0 ports, an HDMI 2.0 output, and a 3.5mm headphone jack.

On the networking side, it also offers 802.11ac Wi-Fi and Bluetooth 5.0 support for wireless connectivity, as well as Gigabit Ethernet for physical networking. Apple also includes an optional upgrade for 10Gbps Ethernet.

All the ports on the 2020 Mac mini
All the ports on the 2020 Mac mini


The new Mac mini with Apple Silicon M1 matches most of this -- and beats some of it. It provides the faster Wi-Fi 6, or 802.11ax, for example, plus Thunderbolt/USB 4 ports.

Where it arguably falls down is in the number of ports. The new Mac mini has only two USB 4 ports with support for Thunderbolt 3 instead of four Thunderbolt 3 with USB support. It does, though, come with two USB-A ports.

Apple Silicon Mac mini versus Intel Mac Mini - Storage

Apple again offers the Mac mini starting with a storage option of a 256GB SSD in one base configuration, with upgrades to 512GB, 1TB, and 2TB of storage. The other configuration starts from 512GB and has the same 1TB and 2TB options.

This effectively boils down to both configurations having the same 256GB to 2TB storage capacity range. The previous Intel Mac mini had different options, with the Core i3 and Core i7 versions able to be configured to have 256GB of storage.

Apple Silicon Mac mini versus Intel Mac Mini - User upgradability

Upgrading the Mac mini has changed over the years, and not always for the better. While earlier models allowed users to change the storage drive for a higher capacity, or to move from mechanical hard drives to SSDs, the new Mac mini with Apple Silicon M1 removes even the ability to upgrade the RAM.

Apple has traditionally always priced RAM far higher than other suppliers, so the ability to add more after purchase was significant in making the Mac mini affordable. That ability to add RAM later also meant that users could keep improving the performance of their machine as it aged.

Apple Silicon Mac mini versus Intel Mac Mini - Pricing

Apple starts the new Mac mini with Apple Silicon M1 at $699 in the lowest-priced configuration. This gets you 8GB RAM and 256GB storage. Upgrading to the now maximum 16GB adds $200 to the price.

Similarly, moving up from the base 256GB to 512GB also takes $200. The 1TB version is yet another $200. Going from the base 256GB all the way up to 2TB storage adds $800 to the price.

The new Mac mini fits neatly below a display, as usual.
The new Mac mini fits neatly below a display, as usual.

Comparing Apple with Intel

The new Mac mini is far faster than the old Intel model. Unusually for Apple, it's also actually cheaper. That combination, especially the extremely improved performance, is enough to show just why Apple has made the move to Apple Silicon.

There is the issue that you can no longer upgrade the RAM in the Mac mini. That means it's probably a better bet, in the long term, to spend $899 and buy the version with the most RAM already installed.

Whether you do that or not, though, in every way that we can yet measure, the new Mac mini is an extremely substantial upgrade to the old one.

Update: November 14 3:00pm ET - Added data on initial benchmark results for the M1.


Keep up with AppleInsider by downloading the AppleInsider app for iOS, and follow us on YouTube, Twitter @appleinsider and Facebook for live, late-breaking coverage. You can also check out our official Instagram account for exclusive photos.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 48
    One thing not addressed yet is display connectivity. The M1 Mac mini says that is supports up to a 6K/60 display over TB, and a 4K/60 over HDMI. However, as someone with a pair of 4K TB monitors, I can't use the HDMI port and would have to use the TB ports. In the past, the 6K/60 limitation was due to bandwidth limitations of TB3, but if these are TB4, and the GPU so upgraded, then I'm hoping that it will support dual TB 4K displays, otherwise I can't use any oft he M1 devices (both laptops only support a single external display).

    In fact, this article should probably be updated to note that the external display support has gone down a little, especially when comparing the laptops (my 2019 MBP supports dual 4K/60 and the built in display all at once).
    watto_cobrajdb8167
  • Reply 2 of 48
    But but but the haters said Apple is greedy and won't lower prices!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 48
    I'd like to see actual benchmark results, especially for graphics performance, including against a mac mini with an egpu with a reasonable card in it, like a vega64 or something. Saying the integrated graphics are 6 times faster than the previous intel one is fine, but that isn't a particularly high bar when you're removing any option of more powerful gpu technology which the previous one had. The new integrated gpu is competing (from a performance perspective) against the fastest gpu you could get in an egpu box that was supported by the previous model. I doubt the new model is actually faster than that, but it may well be fast enough to beat a moderate egpu setup, and without the expense, meaning a win for Apple. Or maybe it isn't and people will wait longer to upgrade until performance catches up to what they're leaving behind. Or switch platforms.
    StrangeDaysdavgregstevenoz
  • Reply 4 of 48
    beeble42 said:
    I'd like to see actual benchmark results, especially for graphics performance, including against a mac mini with an egpu with a reasonable card in it, like a vega64 or something. Saying the integrated graphics are 6 times faster than the previous intel one is fine, but that isn't a particularly high bar when you're removing any option of more powerful gpu technology which the previous one had. The new integrated gpu is competing (from a performance perspective) against the fastest gpu you could get in an egpu box that was supported by the previous model. I doubt the new model is actually faster than that, but it may well be fast enough to beat a moderate egpu setup, and without the expense, meaning a win for Apple. Or maybe it isn't and people will wait longer to upgrade until performance catches up to what they're leaving behind. Or switch platforms.
    Are eGPU setups no longer supported under Apple Silicon? I was under the impression that they were.
    seanj
  • Reply 5 of 48
    "Now the RAM is what Apple calls unified memory ..."

    Unified memory was invented and named by Nvidia - back in 2013 - and is a widely known and used technology. So their options for calling it something else were a bit constrained. 
    OutdoorAppDeveloper
  • Reply 6 of 48
    Sounds good 

    I’m interested 

    But I’m getting that Gen 1 nervous feeling. I felt like the wool was being pulled over my eyes today. 

    Lots of random benchmarks tossed about. 6x 8x faster than something vaguely described but not specified. 

    kind of already feel best to sit back and wait here. At least until reviews are out, ideally Gen 2? Maybe they will update more frequently now 
    watto_cobrastevenoz
  • Reply 7 of 48
    kkqd1337 said:
    Sounds good 

    I’m interested 

    But I’m getting that Gen 1 nervous feeling. I felt like the wool was being pulled over my eyes today. 

    Lots of random benchmarks tossed about. 6x 8x faster than something vaguely described but not specified. 

    kind of already feel best to sit back and wait here. At least until reviews are out, ideally Gen 2? Maybe they will update more frequently now 
    The comparisons were generally to the previous version of that product (excepting how "best selling Windows PC" comparisons which have always been useless). So "6x faster GPU" on the Mac mini  was in comparison to the Intel Mac mini that you would have bought yesterday.

    This is also why the MBA and Mac mini had comparably higher gains than what got mentioned for the MBP, since the MBP was already using 10th gen Intel chips, whereas the Mac mini was on 8th, and the MBA was on the i3 platform.
    CheeseFreezewatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 48
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 2,054member
    beeble42 said:
    I'd like to see actual benchmark results, especially for graphics performance, including against a mac mini with an egpu with a reasonable card in it, like a vega64 or something. Saying the integrated graphics are 6 times faster than the previous intel one is fine, but that isn't a particularly high bar when you're removing any option of more powerful gpu technology which the previous one had. The new integrated gpu is competing (from a performance perspective) against the fastest gpu you could get in an egpu box that was supported by the previous model. I doubt the new model is actually faster than that, but it may well be fast enough to beat a moderate egpu setup, and without the expense, meaning a win for Apple. Or maybe it isn't and people will wait longer to upgrade until performance catches up to what they're leaving behind. Or switch platforms.
    Without the eGPU support this feels unfinished.   More like 0.8 version.   And why can’t they have 32 or 64 GB RAM .   Step backwards.   Are they trying for it to be no so successful.
    razorpit
  • Reply 9 of 48
    Interested in the Mac mini. Want to mount it to my LG Ultrafine 23.7" display. Any suggestions for a mount or would a hefty amount of velcro do the job?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 48
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,023member
    k2kw said:
    beeble42 said:
    I'd like to see actual benchmark results, especially for graphics performance, including against a mac mini with an egpu with a reasonable card in it, like a vega64 or something. Saying the integrated graphics are 6 times faster than the previous intel one is fine, but that isn't a particularly high bar when you're removing any option of more powerful gpu technology which the previous one had. The new integrated gpu is competing (from a performance perspective) against the fastest gpu you could get in an egpu box that was supported by the previous model. I doubt the new model is actually faster than that, but it may well be fast enough to beat a moderate egpu setup, and without the expense, meaning a win for Apple. Or maybe it isn't and people will wait longer to upgrade until performance catches up to what they're leaving behind. Or switch platforms.
    Without the eGPU support this feels unfinished.   More like 0.8 version.   And why can’t they have 32 or 64 GB RAM .   Step backwards.   Are they trying for it to be no so successful.
    Why on earth would anyone buy a $700 entry level computer and then spend at least $1,000 to add an eGPU. 
    tmaydewmewatto_cobraDetnatorraybo
  • Reply 11 of 48
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,023member

    djfriar said:
    One thing not addressed yet is display connectivity. The M1 Mac mini says that is supports up to a 6K/60 display over TB, and a 4K/60 over HDMI. However, as someone with a pair of 4K TB monitors, I can't use the HDMI port and would have to use the TB ports. In the past, the 6K/60 limitation was due to bandwidth limitations of TB3, but if these are TB4, and the GPU so upgraded, then I'm hoping that it will support dual TB 4K displays, otherwise I can't use any oft he M1 devices (both laptops only support a single external display).

    In fact, this article should probably be updated to note that the external display support has gone down a little, especially when comparing the laptops (my 2019 MBP supports dual 4K/60 and the built in display all at once).
    Yeah you’re going to have to explain why you can’t use two 4K monitors with a machine that clearly supports two 4K monitors. And that explanation can’t start with “my monitors are TB monitors” because that’s not a valid reason. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 48
    mindwaves said:
    Interested in the Mac mini. Want to mount it to my LG Ultrafine 23.7" display. Any suggestions for a mount or would a hefty amount of velcro do the job?
    Here are a couple of Brands that you might consider and they have different sizes. DO NOT "Velcro" it to the display, the Mini is not a Apple TV...

    I've used both Brands in my Salamander Designs AV cabinetry to save a shelf.

    HumanCentric Adjustable Small... https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077T994P4?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share

    HIDEit Uni-XS Mount - Adjustable... https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01J6I4DZE?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share


    watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 48
    Maybe the better comparison is to the Intel NUC. I know it is what I ended up going for instead of a mini when Apple Silicon was announced...
  • Reply 14 of 48
    jvmbjvmb Posts: 59member
    flydog said:
    k2kw said:
    Without the eGPU support this feels unfinished.   More like 0.8 version.   And why can’t they have 32 or 64 GB RAM .   Step backwards.   Are they trying for it to be no so successful.
    Why on earth would anyone buy a $700 entry level computer and then spend at least $1,000 to add an eGPU. 
    Apple only sells two desktop computers without a built in monitor. The Mac Mini and the Mac Pro. So if you want to get a Apple desktop with an RX580, you either get a Mac Mini for $800 and an eGPU for $450 or you can buy a Mac Pro for $6,000. 

    Both the 21.5” and 27” iMacs are more expensive and have a slower GPU.
    davgregjdb8167razorpit
  • Reply 15 of 48


    k2kw said:
    beeble42 said:
    I'd like to see actual benchmark results, especially for graphics performance, including against a mac mini with an egpu with a reasonable card in it, like a vega64 or something. Saying the integrated graphics are 6 times faster than the previous intel one is fine, but that isn't a particularly high bar when you're removing any option of more powerful gpu technology which the previous one had. The new integrated gpu is competing (from a performance perspective) against the fastest gpu you could get in an egpu box that was supported by the previous model. I doubt the new model is actually faster than that, but it may well be fast enough to beat a moderate egpu setup, and without the expense, meaning a win for Apple. Or maybe it isn't and people will wait longer to upgrade until performance catches up to what they're leaving behind. Or switch platforms.
    Without the eGPU support this feels unfinished.   More like 0.8 version.   And why can’t they have 32 or 64 GB RAM .   Step backwards.   Are they trying for it to be no so successful.
    I think they don’t want it to eat into their higher end desktop sales. By limiting the memory(for now) they are keeping it consumer oriented. 
    After the iMac and iMac Pro get Apple Silicon we will probably see more upgrades. Hopefully we will start to see much more regular upgrades now to the mini. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 48
    djfriar said:
    beeble42 said:
    I'd like to see actual benchmark results, especially for graphics performance, including against a mac mini with an egpu with a reasonable card in it, like a vega64 or something. Saying the integrated graphics are 6 times faster than the previous intel one is fine, but that isn't a particularly high bar when you're removing any option of more powerful gpu technology which the previous one had. The new integrated gpu is competing (from a performance perspective) against the fastest gpu you could get in an egpu box that was supported by the previous model. I doubt the new model is actually faster than that, but it may well be fast enough to beat a moderate egpu setup, and without the expense, meaning a win for Apple. Or maybe it isn't and people will wait longer to upgrade until performance catches up to what they're leaving behind. Or switch platforms.
    Are eGPU setups no longer supported under Apple Silicon? I was under the impression that they were.
    AI wrote that eGPUs are not supported. In my opinion the phrase "no longer supported under Apple Silicon" is inaccurate because they never were supported under Apple Silicon. Of course, they may be supported some day. Just not at launch.
    watto_cobraraybo
  • Reply 17 of 48

    k2kw said:
    beeble42 said:
    I'd like to see actual benchmark results, especially for graphics performance, including against a mac mini with an egpu with a reasonable card in it, like a vega64 or something. Saying the integrated graphics are 6 times faster than the previous intel one is fine, but that isn't a particularly high bar when you're removing any option of more powerful gpu technology which the previous one had. The new integrated gpu is competing (from a performance perspective) against the fastest gpu you could get in an egpu box that was supported by the previous model. I doubt the new model is actually faster than that, but it may well be fast enough to beat a moderate egpu setup, and without the expense, meaning a win for Apple. Or maybe it isn't and people will wait longer to upgrade until performance catches up to what they're leaving behind. Or switch platforms.
    why can’t they have 32 or 64 GB RAM .   ?
    That's an easy question to answer. Because it would double or quadruple the size/price of the M1 chip. The RAM is embedded on the CPU. That probably reduces the system's space usage and increases its speed. I'm not sure if you are aware that a new CPU architecture may change the memory requirements for apps (I'm speculating, but that could be why Apple thinks 8GB RAM is enough.) But I also think Apple could have handled this a little better explaining why the change. We'll find out soon enough.
    watto_cobrarazorpit
  • Reply 18 of 48

    kkqd1337 said:
    Sounds good 
    Maybe they will update more frequently now 
    That's an excellent hypothesis. That's going to be one of the benefits of Apple Silicon. Apple has been pretty aggressive in updating iPhones and iPads with update A-series processors. No reason to think it will be different for Apple Silicon Macs.
    watto_cobraStrangeDaysrazorpit
  • Reply 19 of 48
    k2kw said:
    beeble42 said:
    I'd like to see actual benchmark results, especially for graphics performance, including against a mac mini with an egpu with a reasonable card in it, like a vega64 or something. Saying the integrated graphics are 6 times faster than the previous intel one is fine, but that isn't a particularly high bar when you're removing any option of more powerful gpu technology which the previous one had. The new integrated gpu is competing (from a performance perspective) against the fastest gpu you could get in an egpu box that was supported by the previous model. I doubt the new model is actually faster than that, but it may well be fast enough to beat a moderate egpu setup, and without the expense, meaning a win for Apple. Or maybe it isn't and people will wait longer to upgrade until performance catches up to what they're leaving behind. Or switch platforms.
    Without the eGPU support this feels unfinished.   More like 0.8 version.   And why can’t they have 32 or 64 GB RAM .   Step backwards.   Are they trying for it to be no so successful.
    I thought about this as I was also bothered by the 16gb limit. In theory the benefit of an SoC may lead to memory being so fast that the ‘swapping’ in case of no more free memory may not be so much of a problem as before, and therefore less memory could be fine. 

    This is just a theory; this is a multitasking platform after all, with multiple apps running fully at the same time (as opposed to iOS/iPadOS where multitasking works differently). Curious about the benchmarks!
    watto_cobrarazorpit
  • Reply 20 of 48
    I'm just tired of mysterious crashes that happen on all my Intel-based Macs (with NO apps installed on the Mac.) Yes, I've reinstalled the OS many times. Yes I checked the logs. Yes, I took my Macs to the Apple Genius Bars for diagnostic troubleshooting and they found nothing wrong. So I'm eager to try Apple Silicon Macs.
    razorpit
Sign In or Register to comment.