For my work office, and it is much more powerful than the Mac Studio M2 that I have at home.

Some background: when I started my new job (we're no longer in Florida!), I ordered a 32GB, 16" MBP M2 as my office computer. It went home with me every night until I could purchase a home machine. My primary home use is Lightroom/Photoshop and auxiliary programs for my photography addiction. I thought a fully loaded Mac Mini M2 would be sufficiently powerful, but it didn't have enough ports for the external drives I used, so I went with a Mac Studio. The only problem is that I went cheap and only got it with 32GB memories. I find that I'm constantly running low on memory even with relatively low LR/PS work. And those programs are becoming increasingly demanding with generative AI.

Fast forward, I still found myself bringing home the MBP almost every day mainly because my wife gets upset when I come home and go straight to my home office to finish up work. The MBP allows me to finish up my tasks while keeping her company. So, I decided that I needed a dedicated office machine. I didn't need much power (MS Office Suite, Zoom, Teams, Internet browsers), so I seriously considered the iMac M4, which provides plenty of power for office work. However, I couldn't get past the 24" screen. Yes, it's more real estate than the 16" MBP, but I'd rather have two 32" screens rather than a 32 and 24, and two 32" screens plus the 24" takes up too much desk space.

So, I settled on the Mac Mini with two 32" external monitors. But with AI and the potential to take the Mini home on occasion, I opted for 64MB of ram plus the upgraded CPU (14/20/16). I suspect that this machine will run circles around my Mac Studio especially using generative AI editing, and large photo merges. I may be tempted to switch the home computer with my work computer.

This is a long ways from the days when I'd purchase Mac Pro towers because the iMac--much less Mac Mini at the time--were woefully underpowered.

I just want to say LEADER!

No self-Leadering (it can make you blind and out hair on your palms).

But I’m delighted to give you an M4 Pro 64GB of RAM Mac Mini L*E*A*D*E*R!!!

Quote
anonymouse1
No self-Leadering (it can make you blind and out hair on your palms).

But I’m delighted to give you an M4 Pro 64GB of RAM Mac Mini L*E*A*D*E*R!!!

Sorry, just overly excited.





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2024 08:52AM by Billybob.

Pre-miniLeader!

I’m surprised you’re running out of memory w/32gb, but some apps are just greedy.
Anyhow, it funny you’re shuffling the machines around, I think I would do the same.
At any rate, I’ll make sure I have a leader for you when the machine arrives.
<>

LEADER

---

Quote
rich in distress
I’m surprised you’re running out of memory w/32gb, but some apps are just greedy.
Anyhow, it funny you’re shuffling the machines around, I think I would do the same.
At any rate, I’ll make sure I have a leader for you when the machine arrives.
<>

Agreed. I wonder whether it's some of the utilities and apps I use. Path Finder is always near the top, and Safari is a memory hog. The worst, however, is Lightroom. Even when it's idle, open in the background, the memory usage continues to rise (which is why I almost always close it when I'm not using it).

Nice post. I have a studio machine at work and was wondering whether the M4 Mini Pro model might be actually faster.

Sekker,

The CPUs might be faster but I bet the Studio and its GPUs would have superior graphics capabilities. Depends on the model Studio, though. Bet the Studio has superior cooling between a big honkin' heat sink and a bigger fan, too.

Robert

Quote
Robert M
Sekker,

The CPUs might be faster but I bet the Studio and its GPUs would have superior graphics capabilities. Depends on the model Studio, though. Bet the Studio has superior cooling between a big honkin' heat sink and a bigger fan, too.

Robert

Could be true. But the fact that we are even comparing at all is amazing progress for the historically underpowered mini . All thanks to Apple silicon.

Sekker,

Yups! One of the reasons I bought a 2019 iMac 27" 5K for my home and for my office was because it wasn't remotely cost effective to go a Mini combined with an external 4K display. Once upgraded, the Mini combined with a quality display would've been way more expensive than the iMac. Not worth it despite my aversion to all-in-one desktop machines.

'course, the irony is over the last two weeks, I replaced one of those iMacs with a top of the line late 2018 Mac Mini and a 27" 4K display. The mini actually has faster processors, more RAM and an internal 1TB SSD. In one score, the iMac is slightly superior. In another score, the Mini is superior. So, in the end, when it comes to performance, they're actually close enough to each other that the differences aren't noticeable.

From Geek Bench:

Single processor

Late 2018 Mac Mini Intel Core i7-8700B @ 3.2 GHz (6 cores): 1431
Early 2019 iMac Intel Core i5-9600K @ 3.7 GHz (6 cores): 1483

Multi-core

Mac mini (Late 2018): 5598
Early 2019 iMac: 5453

Neither machine is listed under OpenGL or Metal.

Obviously, M series machines blow the doors off both of them - lol! And, based on the differences between the the Mac Mini and the iMac and my renewed aversion to all-in-one desktop machines, I can say without a I'd go with either a Mini or a Studio combined with a nice display over _any_ iMac. Based on specs, I'd actually consider the Mini M4 over the current Studio since I'm neither a graphics or video pro or gamer.

Robert



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2024 12:12PM by Robert M.

Quote
sekker
Nice post. I have a studio machine at work and was wondering whether the M4 Mini Pro model might be actually faster.

I'm looking forward to seeing the benchmarks. I have the base Studio (12/30/16) versus the upgraded M4 Pro Mini (14/20/16). It strikes me that the M4 improvements and faster memory should give the Mini an advantage in all but the most graphic-intensive tasks. But Robert M points are well taken. The Studio with its bigger heat sink is likely to throttle back a lot less often, and the increased use of AI makes those extra GPUs very attractive.

Bring on the benchmark tests!

OT:
Not being familiar with Path Finder, I goog’d it. Since the second hit is from MacUpdate.com, I’m very suspicious of the app. I would kill it with fire.
Lightroom is a hog, but that’s what everybody loves about it…

Quote
rich in distress
OT:
Not being familiar with Path Finder, I goog’d it. Since the second hit is from MacUpdate.com, I’m very suspicious of the app. I would kill it with fire.
Lightroom is a hog, but that’s what everybody loves about it…

On Path Finder--not gonna happen unless you can recommend an equally capable Finder replacement. The program is over 20 years old, and I've used it the majority if not most of that time. I abhor using the Finder like the plague, so I'd prefer to deal with a memory hog than have to rely solely on the Finder for file management.

Alternatively, are there ways to free up memory? Currently, Activity Monitor is in the yellow with 28.75GB out of 32GB used. I closed Path Finder at least 90min ago and the biggest task is using 2.43GB (Google Chrome). If I shut down Chrome and Safari, I'll likely free up memory, but that is a hassle.

Is there any benchmarking showing the performance of the M4 vs the M2 Max/Ultra?

Leader!

l'll probably be ordering a Mac Mini M4 in the next month or so. Thinking that it will probably be the $799 16GB/512GB

Will be replacing a 12 year old computer.

Quote
Robert M
Sekker,

The CPUs might be faster but I bet the Studio and its GPUs would have superior graphics capabilities. Depends on the model Studio, though. Bet the Studio has superior cooling between a big honkin' heat sink and a bigger fan, too.

Robert

Not only that — memory throughput speed is VASTLY superior on the Studio.

---

It is what it is.

Quote
rich in distress
OT:
Not being familiar with Path Finder, I goog’d it. Since the second hit is from MacUpdate.com, I’m very suspicious of the app. I would kill it with fire.
Lightroom is a hog, but that’s what everybody loves about it…

PathFinder has been around a LONG time and is completely legit.

---

It is what it is.

N-OS,

Agreed. Path Finder is a solid app. Key, though, is obtaining it from a reputable source, i.e. the publisher.

[www.cocoatech.io]

Robert



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2024 04:14PM by Robert M.

I’ve used ForkLift and liked it, but can’t recommend on principle. The Finder is the OG.
Chrome is another known resource hog. There are many reports around about it, zero-day exploits, etc. Not for me.
I believe Safari’s tab groups help to unload memory and resources for pages that are not on the current group, but since the majority of my browsing happens on iPad, I’ve never corroborated my beliefs.
And Distraction Control is another great feature. There are webpages that get my iPad hot to the touch. Activate DC and click on ads and similar elements, problem solved.

[www.apple.com]

I can’t imagine what 40 tabs would do to a machine…
Good luck!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2024 09:18PM by rich in distress.

Quote
rich in distress
I’ve used ForkLift and liked it, but can’t recommend on principle. The Finder is the OG.
Chrome is another known resource hog. There are many reports around about it, zero-day exploits, etc. Not for me.
I believe Safari’s tab groups help to unload memory and resources for pages that are not on the current group, but since the majority of my browsing happens on iPad, I’ve never corroborated my beliefs.
And Distraction Control is another great feature. There are webpages that get my iPad hot to the touch. Activate DC and click on ads and similar elements, problem solved.

[www.apple.com]

I can’t imagine what 40 tabs would do to a machine…
Good luck!

Useful information. I'll give Forklift and Qspace a try. Path Finder has been good to me, but it has enough flaws for me to try other options.

And Safari--40 tabs? I way too often have a window with over 100 tabs! No reason for this. I almost never come back to those old tabs. I just need to be more disciplined with my browsing.

Quote
Billybob
And Safari--40 tabs? I way too often have a window with over 100 tabs! No reason for this. I almost never come back to those old tabs. I just need to be more disciplined with my browsing.

I wouldn't worry too much about being disciplined since, from what I recall from the advertisements, Tab has only one calorie.