The New Mac M1 Computers: Real World Performance

But don't expect miracles ... if you could do all that things with 699$ , then what would be the point to buy a more expensive mac later?

Take whatever fits your needs.

What remains to be seen is how arm based M1 macs address the ever growing need for ram. Many of us are confused as to how 16GB can be sufficient for high end tasks and as to whether the Arm based technology will ever have (or surely need?) 32, 64 and 128gb ram in pro hardware.

As I understand it M1 simply shuffles the overflow to its nvme drive, so actual need for RAM has not decreased one bit (although there ought to be some kind of hardware memory compression at play), data must still be put somewhere unless processing algorithms are reworked to have smaller memory footprint. The relatively high-speed interconnect to disk allows swapping without user noticing a very dramatic decrease in speed. In current state nvme drives cap out somewhere around 6-7 GB/s range which in relation to RAM access speed is still relatively slow, but much faster than swapping to 100MB/s hdd was in some times ago.

What remains to be seen is how arm based M1 macs address the ever growing need for ram. Many of us are confused as to how 16GB can be sufficient for high end tasks and as to whether the Arm based technology will ever have (or surely need?) 32, 64 and 128gb ram in pro hardware.

As I understand it M1 simply shuffles the overflow to its nvme drive, so actual need for RAM has not decreased one bit (although there ought to be some kind of hardware memory compression at play), data must still be put somewhere unless processing algorithms are reworked to have smaller memory footprint. The relatively high-speed interconnect to disk allows swapping without user noticing a very dramatic decrease in speed. In current state nvme drives cap out somewhere around 6-7 GB/s range which in relation to RAM access speed is still relatively slow, but much faster than swapping to 100MB/s hdd was in some times ago.

There are participants in the VI-Control forum who say that they're getting 16GB RAM M1 Macs and intend to test them against the 600GB BBC Orchestra sample library discussed 7 posts above. This will give a good indication of what's going on with RAM.

Owners of the BBC library have both a desktop version and a lighter version for use on laptops. The intention is to test both versions, the desktop version to find out at what point the computer goes tilt, and the laptop version to see if there's a performance improvement.

Unfortunately, these tests aren't imminent due to current delivery times for M1 Macs. In any event, I expect that we'll see tests with data that requires a lot of RAM, in this context or others, in the next few weeks.

This is crazy ... liking what I am hearing/seeing. The Pro version next year will probably be the thing to want. Maybe.

What remains to be seen is how arm based M1 macs address the ever growing need for ram. Many of us are confused as to how 16GB can be sufficient for high end tasks and as to whether the Arm based technology will ever have (or surely need?) 32, 64 and 128gb ram in pro hardware.

As I understand it M1 simply shuffles the overflow to its nvme drive, so actual need for RAM has not decreased one bit (although there ought to be some kind of hardware memory compression at play), data must still be put somewhere unless processing algorithms are reworked to have smaller memory footprint. The relatively high-speed interconnect to disk allows swapping without user noticing a very dramatic decrease in speed. In current state nvme drives cap out somewhere around 6-7 GB/s range which in relation to RAM access speed is still relatively slow, but much faster than swapping to 100MB/s hdd was in some times ago.

Swapping to disk is still no near fast enough compared to RAM speed. NVME in M1 based MACs is not 6-7GB/sec either.

It must be different architecture/approach with less data traveling I assume. If GPU and CPU can access same data from single point then this is already massive difference for apps like Resolve. I just don't know enough how this really works, so don't know for sure. Maybe there is some article which explains how new M1 chip exactly works?

Best comment from above video:
"Intel's new architecture : coffin lake "

Also this is very interesting:
"Apple Dec 2019: This $15,000 Mac Pro can transcode 30 mins of H265 in 30 mins.
Apple Nov 2020: This $1,000 Mac Mini can transcode 30 mins of H265 in 13 mins."

By using ARM's SIC architecture+ adding special handling for current formats easily outperforms Intel's RISC architecture which despite its complexity still can't handle video decoding at needed speeds. This may show how different approach changes things massively and may created new trend in design.

This is crazy ... liking what I am hearing/seeing. The Pro version next year will probably be the thing to want. Maybe.

I happen to use the 2018 Mac mini that he's talking about in that video, together with 64GB of RAM and an AMD Vega 56 external graphics card. If I could replace my Mini and graphics card with a 16GB M1, I'd like to, but that video is a long way from establishing what Max suggests. For one thing, he is just factually wrong when he says that Logic performance depends most entirely on CPU. If you're editing video, playing back and exporting some files doesn't tell you what you need to know, in particular, based on what he says himself, when the files are the new Canon files. If it's true that a 16GB RAM M1 Mini is equivalent to a 32GB RAM Intel Mini, that is indeed important, but I want to see that kind of assessment come from someone who doesn't share Max's tendency to get a little over excited

There is plenty other videos showing it. Not sure why people have such a hard time to believe in new M1.
There is video showing Logic using 1000 effects and 192 tracks if I remembered well (not sure if it's that lot as I don't use it) and still playing realtime on M1. Audio guy who tested it was shocked though

Pure performance is not even that important here, but performance/watt which puts Intel's so called mobile CPUs into real shame.

There is plenty other videos showing it. Not sure why people have such a hard time to believe in new M1.
There is video showing Logic using 1000 effects and 192 tracks if I remembered well (not sure if it's that lot as I don't use it) and still playing realtime on M1. Audio Huy who tested it was shocked though

Pure performance is not even that important here, but performance/watt which puts Intel's so called mobile CPUs into real shame.

I've seen that video. These are the same people who made a complete mess of their initial M1 video test, to the point where they essentially retracted the whole video. In the Logic test, their audio guy was using an 8GB RAM M1 and was drawing his comparison with his 2014 Mini, which he apparently uses for his audio work. That in itself tells you something about what kind of work he does. As for his "test", as a Logic user I couldn't get anything that was actually meaningful from it. For example, it told me zip about what happens when I load up dozens of tracks in Logic with virtual instruments.

Pure performance is indeed important if you have to get actual work done.

Well, for me there is work and there is home usage.
For work which makes money I don't touch things like Mac mini etc. It's all workstations.
I'm not really interested in these new machines as work machines (even if some tasks can be easily achieved with them). As home machines those even if 1st gen. M1 models are absolutely enough for next few years. They do exactly the same (and way more) as current Macbooks with one main so important for me difference - they are about silent (or purely silent). One thing which I really don't like with current models is fact that opening Chrome makes them going crazy with fan (and how quickly they get warm with any slightly bigger load). This is just unacceptable, but it's only half of the Apple fault. Main issue are these Intel's crappy, so-called laptops CPUs which really not designed for laptop usage. I'm not going to even mention i9 series as Apple (and not only Apple) should never put this into any of their laptops.

For work which makes money I don't touch things like Mac mini etc. It's all workstations.

My condolences.

I'm not sure what is bad about having performant hardware and software that can do pro level work that are affordable. Isn't that what technology aim to do - Better, Faster, Cheaper? If that becomes the reality in the next year or two, I think that will be a win-win for pros and home users alike. As an example, Resolve 9 to 11 was heavy, full for inefficient and dead code proliferating until someone must have woke up are look at the architecture and revamp the software in 12. Since then, Resolve dependencies on high-end GPU decreased and gain some efficiency in code with CUDA and Open CL, including ability to run (to some extend) on less capable computers that it could not with prior versions. I call this progress. Maybe the M1 is going the right direction - exposing the deficiencies of hardware from Intel (and possibly AMD) which can only improve from here on after.

For work which makes money I don't touch things like Mac mini etc. It's all workstations.

My condolences.

I have 0 problems with my supermicro workstations in racks- they run 24/7 for 3 years without a reboot and 1U can do same work as 10 Macs mini. So, thanks.

I'm not sure what is bad about having performant hardware and software that can do pro level work that are affordable. Isn't that what technology aim to do - Better, Faster, Cheaper? If that becomes the reality in the next year or two, I think that will be a win-win for pros and home users alike. As an example, Resolve 9 to 11 was heavy, full for inefficient and dead code proliferating until someone must have woke up are look at the architecture and revamp the software in 12. Since then, Resolve dependencies on high-end GPU decreased and gain some efficiency in code with CUDA and Open CL, including ability to run (to some extend) on less capable computers that it could not with prior versions. I call this progress. Maybe the M1 is going the right direction - exposing the deficiencies of hardware from Intel (and possibly AMD) which can only improve from here on after.

Absolutely nothing wrong with it as long as you don't expect too much.

Swapping to disk is still no near fast enough compared to RAM speed. NVME in M1 based MACs is not 6-7GB/sec either.

It must be different architecture/approach with less data traveling I assume. If GPU and CPU can access same data from single point then this is already massive difference for apps like Resolve. I just don't know enough how this really works, so don't know for sure. Maybe there is some article which explains how new M1 chip exactly works?

It is relatively slow as I wrote, not sure about the speed of nvme in mac, but there are currently nvme drives at that speed range available, Samsung 980 pro for example.

They have a unified memory where cpu and gpu memory is the same thing. It means no buffer copys from host to device and back. And due to this it is dependent on what the application is actually doing, whether it is very good or not so good. It prevents duplication but on the other hand it eats away ram by memory objects that could be stored only in gpu vram in regular architecture.

Also this is very interesting:
"Apple Dec 2019: This $15,000 Mac Pro can transcode 30 mins of H265 in 30 mins.
Apple Nov 2020: This $1,000 Mac Mini can transcode 30 mins of H265 in 13 mins."

If one does decode-encode in software, another using dedicated hardware chip, it isn't surprising. As long as the profiles that hardware chip supports fit ones workflow, it is a big win.

For work which makes money I don't touch things like Mac mini etc. It's all workstations.

My condolences.

I have 0 problems with my supermicro workstations in racks- they run 24/7 for 3 years without a reboot and 1U can do same work as 10 Macs mini. So, thanks.

I see that my attempt at humour didn't succeed. I'll be more direct. Your statement that "pure performance doesn't matter here" is wrong, and your suggestion that real professionals use workstations is also wrong.

It is obvious from this thread and elsewhere that film professionals are interested in these M1 computers and want to know how well they perform. One reason is that your workstation doesn't fit real well on one's lap in an airplane or train/subway car. Nor does it work real well if one travels, as I do, between two countries or widely separated geographic areas, a circumstance to which the Mac mini is well-suited.

This video, posted yesterday, features music made by a well-known full-time professional film composer. He used the BBC Symphony Orchestra digital library that I talk about earlier in this thread. As an owner of both the BBC library and a 2018 Mac mini, I am telling you for a fact that this can be done with Logic on an Intel Mac mini or MacBook laptop. No workstation required. The piece starts at 0:36:

The caveat is that one needs 64GB of RAM. It would be possible, but frustrating, to try to do this with 32GB of RAM, let alone 16GB. Max's statement that music production is about CPU, not RAM, is misinformed. His claim that a 16GB RAM M1 performs like a 32GB Intel, even if it turns out to be true, is not good enough for some purposes. This is also why the following dismissive comment, made by you in response to my post on Max's video, is rather wide of the mark: "Not sure why people have such a hard time to believe in new M1."

The caveat is that one needs 64GB of RAM. It would be possible, but frustrating, to try to do this with 32GB of RAM, let lone 16GB. This is why Max's claim that a 16GB RAM M1 performs like a 32GB Intel, even if true, is not good enough for some purposes. This is also why the following dismissive comment, made by you in response to my post on Max's video, is rather wide of the mark: "Not sure why people have such a hard time to believe in new M1."

You apply partial requirements of workstation into basic model of silent or almost silent machine designed for browsing internet. This is exactly my point, but you don't get it.
You need to wait for Apple laptop which can really have Pro in name, not like current models which use Pro word just as pure pr bulxxx. Then you can ask about 64GB of RAM as now your demand is very weak.

If I were going your way of thinking then I can prove that even Mac Pro compared to enterprise workstations is overpriced and underpowered toy and no one should buy it. Problem is that it's not necessarily true and more complex matter.

you don't get it.

Apparently not. I'm under the impression that computer mobility is a "thing", even among professionals. Indeed, this is the first time in several years that I've heard the old chestnuts that you're peddling.

By the way, if anyone is interested, Spitfire has very attractive pricing on that BBC Symphony library until the end of December. The library comes in two versions. The "Core" version is designed for people, including professionals like the film composer who wrote the music in the above video, who want to use it on a sub-64GB RAM laptop. The more RAM intensive Pro version includes Core as a subset library.

Maybe your impression is wrong.
Mobile machines will never be able to do what desktop can.
You seems to prefer to use hammer for every job then it's your choice. Just watch you fingers
It's exactly the same as trying to use one eg. NLE for every job and expecting it's going to perform on every task in optimal way.

It is interesting to see people want to either make the M1 Mac's do everything or not up to doing anything. No in between approach. If they could do everything then Apple has just replaced all their product line. Do you really think they believe that? After looking at lots of YouTube stuff my conclusion is that they work very well for some things and the MacBook Air would make a great travelling computer. Edit while away using a USB drive for storage anyway, maybe just cuts and when back home transfer to the studio machine ( PC or Mac your choice ) to finish and render to your choice format. Also in real benchmarks against the latest AMD CPU's they do not do well. They do not have the RAM or power to play games and the render speed is limited to the hardware codecs as well as the fixed quality they provide. AMD can share GPU VRAM with the current 5000 CPU's though not sure what software can take advantage of this yet and NVIDIA will do this too shortly. It is not a stretch for AMD to do exactly what the M1 does but with x86 parts. Yes it will consume more power but likely a lot more performance too.

I do not travel so have no interesting in moving from my Threadripper which even with my old 1080Ti can match what I have seen from the M1 and can render really fast too.

2021 will be an interesting year I think

Just a small comment. CPU/GPU mobile performance itself is about meaningless. Put this into some body and then we can talk about performance and user experience. What is the laptop name/model based on AMD CPU which we can compare to M1 Air then?

It is interesting to see people want to either make the M1 Mac's do everything or not up to doing anything. No in between approach.

No wonder if Apple is creating an image of new minicomputer being able to topple anything and everything ever invented in "the pc world". All those hyperbolic numbers weren't invented by "pc people" in dusty suits doing Excel on green crt screens, but came from Apple's own presentation and hype. I'm observing this all as a quality entertainment where "Ooh, 5K$ werksteishen owners are all crying over their pc-s now because M1 leaves them to dust" intervenes with "why are you comparing it with a 1.5K pc, it is a portable cheapy-cheapy travel puppy, leave it alone!" at the blink of an eye.

Maybe your impression is wrong.
Mobile machines will never be able to do what desktop can.
You seems to prefer to use hammer for every job then it's your choice.

A Mac mini is a desktop computer. I'll tell you again. It is perfectly possible to make the music in the video seven posts up with a 64GB RAM Mac mini. It could also be done with a 64GB RAM MacBook, although an external monitor with more screen real estate would be highly desirable.

It would be helpful if you would spend less time telling me that I'm ignorant, while indulging in broad generalisations, and more time addressing the substance of what I'm saying. Some of us are interested in what these M1 computers can and can't do, what the limits are and what they imply about future iterations. Workstations, let alone looking down your nose at professionals, students and hobbyists who care about mobile computing, have nothing to do with what is being discussed in this thread.

Just a small comment. CPU/GPU mobile performance itself is about meaningless. Put this into some body and then we can talk about performance and user experience. What is the laptop name/model based on AMD CPU which we can compare to M1 Air then?

I do not think I mentioned an AMD mobile unit only that the technology of combining RAM with CPU and GPU ( which AMD do now with their current packaging technology may even mean a socketed part) was maybe likely in the future. Not sure if everyone has seen this

. As he mentions Apple have pitched the mini as a desktop part so has to then compete in this area not just mobile. As also mentioned the power consumption is amazing for the performance. But it does not compete on the desktop for pure performance as pitched by Apple marketing. For price and power use it is clearly great. At first I thought the mini was great but now feel the Air is the best choice in combination with a full machine in the studio. Really an addition to the main editor equipment not a substitute. If the Mini had upgradable memory and ability to use eGPU then it may be different. But it doesn't.

Well- this is exactly the point, but many can't get it. They want them to do ALL- replace HP Z workstation basically.
I will repeat the same- current M1 machines are basic models for internet browsing. They happen to perform well (specially in some tasks) which is great and makes them even more interesting. They are not workstations though by any meaning. They may never get 64GB RAM either as for 90% of their usage it's not needed at all (even 32GB may be overkill).
Do you really think Mac mini is a workstation (I'm sure you don't)? It says in the name- MINI. It's basic desktop model for internet browsing same as other 2 laptops- just not mobile. As for desktop it's rather low end performing machine, but with 2 specific points- small size and noise.
All of this only stronger shows that there is huge potential in new design and if Apple can scale M1 into performance processor then new (pro/workstation) machines may be really great.
I will also repeat- pure performance is not that important here (those are low performance machines at the end), but performance per watt is something to really put attention to. This doesn't apply to mobile only at all. It goes all the way to supercomputers where one of the design limitation is power delivery/consumption. Not sure if it's still true, but last time I read latest top supercomputer was 3x faster than its predecessor and it was based on ARM architecture.
In the meantime we have 3 nice home machines which are quiet and very powerful as for home needs. 1st time ever they may actually justify their high cost. That's abut all for me, but I can see internet is full of fantasies

I'm not sure if M1 machines need eGPU as then CPU will be the weak point. It could help a bit specially in apps like Resolve, but definitely no so much as for current models. They are well better balanced now than current models which rely on very weak Intel GPU.

Apple have pitched the mini as a desktop part so has to then compete in this area not just mobile. As also mentioned the power consumption is amazing for the performance. But it does not compete on the desktop for pure performance as pitched by Apple marketing. For price and power use it is clearly great. At first I thought the mini was great but now feel the Air is the best choice in combination with a full machine in the studio. Really an addition to the main editor equipment not a substitute.

Apple has not marketed the M1 Mac mini, or the laptops, as computers suitable for high-end professional film editing or music production, and nobody in his right mind thinks that they are.

People like Marques Brownlee and Dave Lee, whose videos are linked on the first page of this thread, heard the same Apple presentation as everyone else. Not only do they not suggest otherwise, they have sensible things to say about the limits of these machines and why it's wise for many people to wait for the next iterations.

People like Max Yuryev are focusing on others who are making YouTube videos. Indeed, he talks specifically in the video linked above about the needs of fellow YouTubers. For that audience, he may well be right that these M1 computers are an adequate, cost-effective option, although note that he is talking about the 16GB RAM Mac mini, not the 8GB version that was the subject of the video in your link.

Well- this is exactly the point, but many can't get it. They want them to do ALL- replace HP Z workstation basically.

There is not a single post in this thread, or in any of the videos that have been discussed*, that says that.

All you're saying is that the straw man that you've invented isn't as smart as you are. No surprise there.


* With the exception of the video that you posted yourself, which you used to make a claim about Logic performance that that video does not substantiate.

There are other videos/comments out there which mention it a lot.
If you prefer to focus just on videos in this thread (which you made 70% post in) then you may as well keep further discussion just with yourself. Then you can entirely focus on lack of 64GB of RAM and BBC Symphony. Have fun

Apple have pitched the mini as a desktop part so has to then compete in this area not just mobile. As also mentioned the power consumption is amazing for the performance. But it does not compete on the desktop for pure performance as pitched by Apple marketing. For price and power use it is clearly great. At first I thought the mini was great but now feel the Air is the best choice in combination with a full machine in the studio. Really an addition to the main editor equipment not a substitute. If the Mini had upgradable memory and ability to use eGPU then it may be different. But it doesn't.

As noted three posts up, Apple is not in fact marketing these computers to do high-end professional film and music production.

I think that the important point is that Apple chose its biggest selling computers for stage one of this rollout of ARM computers. Re the Mac mini in particular...

Historically, Apple sold the Mac mini as a server and as an inexpensive, entry-level desktop. Many people thought that Apple was so committed to laptops in the lightweight space, especially the Air, that the 2014 mini might be the last of the line, outside minis that might be made for commercial server operations.

The 2018 mini was a surprise. It could be significantly more expensive than previous minis, but it also offered, as options, a quite capable processor, replaceable RAM up to 64GB, the ability to use an external graphics card and up to 2TB of internal storage. This was a different animal from previous minis, and it was popular with people who wanted a small footprint and reasonable mobility, as well as more power than past minis had offered. On price, fully spec'd it was also a less expensive option than other Mac desktops, except for the iMac, which in 2018 was overdue for an update. It should be noted that Apple has since updated its iMac line.

The 2020 M1 Mac mini is in line with pre-2018 minis except that the new chip offers more power. It is unclear right now whether it has a performance or other advantages over the M1 MacBooks. I would be looking to someone like AnandTech, rather than YouTube, for an answer to that question. I expect that the answer is coming soon.

I might add that I have both a 2014 Mac mini and a 2018 mini.

Apple has not marketed the M1 Mac mini, or the laptops, as computers suitable for high-end professional film editing or music production, and nobody in his right mind thinks that they are.

Then why all the discussion on this forum started by you. Also I did not say high end desktop I said desktop which they did say and as such have to be compared to other desktops with 8 cores as they pitch. They were the ones who were pitching the performance unconstrained so they now have to take the comparisons unconstrained. For the price and power consumption the M1 products are wonderful but the Mini does not compete with normal desktops for the normal person who would play games and do normal work. For the same price as Mac Mini M1 8G, base model I could get an AMD Ryzen5 3600 6 core with GTX1660, 16G RAM and 480G SSD. That is just a little less performance on single core performance at stock clock, the M1 has a 15% gain single core but the 3600 has a 25% advantage for multicore and with a GPU that will play games just fine. Also fully upgradable for CPU, GPU, RAM and SSD. Yes its bigger and uses more power but I think a better deal for desktop.

Apple has not marketed the M1 Mac mini, or the laptops, as computers suitable for high-end professional film editing or music production, and nobody in his right mind thinks that they are.

Then why all the discussion on this forum started by you. Also I did not say high end desktop I said desktop which they did say and as such have to be compared to other desktops with 8 cores as they pitch. They were the ones who were pitching the performance unconstrained so they now have to take the comparisons unconstrained.

To answer your question, I started this thread because there is a lot of interest in what these M1 computers can do and what they mean for the future.

One of the posts on the first page of this thread quotes a professional filmmaker, posting in another thread on this very forum, who says that he is interested in using one of these computers for mobile editing. If the thread now runs two pages and counting, and already has 2400 views, it's because other people who use Blackmagic cameras are also interested in whether these computers can solve practical filmmaking problems.

If you want to recommend other computers, preferably specific models, on the ground that they offer the same performance and are better value for money, go for it. This would be more useful than rants, as in the video that you posted and your own comments, about how Apple markets its products. Amusingly, the guy who made the YouTube video that you posted, after his lengthy venting about Apple, winds up recommending the M1 8GB Mac mini

Please read carefully what I have said in my posts. I do not view my comments as a rant. Just my opinion.
1) I think these M1 products are great for price and performance. Especially for Apple.
2) like the video I posted I am not an Apple fan, in fact have never owned Apple products of any type.
3) this is a Blackmagic forum so I assume people here are interested in editing and the products for that interest.
4) So if we are talking about the Mac M1 products it has to be associated with editing in mind ?
5) from a general computer point of view I gave my opinion. There are lots of PC's that beat the Mini performance for multicore performance. Unlike Apple one can design one for your own needs from parts. No need to buy a fixed model.

To re state I think the MacBook Air would be wonderful for travel with the ability to transfer a drp file to a more powerful machine at base to finish edit and render. Best of both worlds I think. But without the ability to upgrade I think the Mini is a dead end and there are better options for PC as I mentioned. Maybe future versions will have upgrade capabilities and ability to use eGPU etc. I look forward to the next year.

Without thinking about editing just normal computing and game playing then a Windows PC will be cheaper and faster. Accepting the fact that the PC will be physically bigger and consume more power. Games need both high performance CPU and GPU with lots of RAM neither are in these Mac M1 products. Everything can do email and WEB browsing so I do not think these attributes should even be on any list. Running Office is also possible now on anything. Even my $200 Android phone can do that.

like the video I posted I am not an Apple fan, in fact have never owned Apple products of any type...

There are lots of PC's that beat the Mini performance for multicore performance. Unlike Apple one can design one for your own needs from parts. No need to buy a fixed model.

I think the MacBook Air would be wonderful for travel...

without the ability to upgrade I think the Mini is a dead end and there are better options for PC as I mentioned...

Without thinking about editing just normal computing and game playing then a Windows PC will be cheaper and faster.

[Etc, etc, etc]

In the real world where people pay real money to buy things, a lot of people think that cost is relevant.

Price of the M1 computers with 8 cores, 16GB RAM and a 512GB SSD:

Mac mini: US$1100
MacBook Air: $1450
MacBook Pro: $1700

And yes, there are a lot of people who already own a monitor or who want more screen real estate than they get with a 13" laptop.

If you know of a comparable computer to the M1 mini (footprint, weight) that delivers the same performance, at a similar or better price, what is it? As far as I know, the NUC is the main competitor to the mini. Is that what you're talking about? Do you think that there might be a reason why the self-declared anti-Apple author of the video that you treated us to maybe had a reason to recommend the M1 mini, despite his avowed dislike of Apple?

I think that your posts in this thread are nothing more than attempt to turn a useful discussion about what the M1 computers can and can't do into an Apple bashing session. That's crystal clear from suggesting that people watch a video that runs almost 20 minutes that is mostly a rant about Apple. Guess what, you aren't being original.

To re state I think the MacBook Air would be wonderful for travel with the ability to transfer a drp file to a more powerful machine at base to finish edit and render. Best of both worlds I think. But without the ability to upgrade I think the Mini is a dead end and there are better options for PC as I mentioned.

In the real world where people pay real money to buy things, a lot of people think that cost is relevant.

Price of the M1 computers with 8 cores, 16GB RAM and a 512GB SSD:

Mac mini: US$1100
MacBook Air: $1450
MacBook Pro: $1700

And yes, there are a lot of people who already own a monitor or who want more screen real estate than they get with a 13" laptop.

If you know of a comparable computer to the M1 mini (footprint, weight) that delivers the same performance, at a similar or better price, what is it? As far as I know, the NUC is the main competitor to the mini. Is that what you're talking about? Do you think that there might be a reason why the self-declared anti-Apple author of the video that you treated us to maybe had a reason to recommend the M1 mini, despite his avowed dislike of Apple?

I think that your posts in this thread are nothing more than attempt to turn a useful discussion about what the M1 computers can and can't do into an Apple bashing session. That's crystal clear from suggesting that people watch a video that runs almost 20 minutes that is mostly a rant about Apple. Guess what, you aren't being original.

It's not only anti apple people. It's also people that have win-tel only apps that want to work on one computer. Maybe if a new version of Bootcamp came up? Most field users don't need a super laptop for fieldwork and these versions of the Apple laptop, are great but they are not that either or should be.


In the real world, people buy what they need. and this doesn't and the price is not the only consideration.

For me, it's not worth it. If someone needed to cut a film or doc in the field it could be different.
I have a 15 inch Lenovo and in the field, I cut 4k to make a 5-minute timeline with a couple of layers of b-roll and text and a couple of audio tracks. Would I have purchased the new apple M!? Probably not because at the moment it won't run my other apps. Will I buy it in the future, who knows? I'll have to wait till next year to see what Apple comes up with and see if it's worthwhile with a competitive price. Meaning if I cant find something capable enough for a way lesser price.

I think this new m1 is mostly catering to YouTubers and social media content producers.

Apple doesn't hold a patent on "arm" chips, Im, sure many Wintel pc will also adopt it may be sooner than one thinks. Maybe Nvidia who just purchased the "arm" company will make CPUs totally obsolete. It could be their jab to apple.

Ricardo Marty

In the new m1

Ricardo Marty

Hi Ricardo,

I agree with Mac user Marques Brownlee and PC user Dave Lee that these are impressive computers, but that people who are doing complex work should wait until the next iteration, which I suspect is coming by June/September anyway. In other words, I think that these first machines are not a beta experiment, but the first stage of a well-planned rollout. Apple itself is talking two years, but we may see more powerful machines in 2021.

For me, the main issue right now is that I have yet to see a test of graphics or memory on which I'd make a buying decision. As you say, there is probably a fairly good case for these computers if one is making videos for social media. If I didn't already have a 2018 mini that I can easily move around, I'd consider an M1 mini or MacBook Pro for our business's social media content. The fanless Air has a demonstrable throttling problem after about ten minutes constant runtime. At $1000 for the mini rather than $1700 for the MacBook Pro we'd probably go with the mini. I am also really not keen on editing on a 13" screen.

Beyond that kind of use case, people's needs, and assessment of whether these computers can meet those needs, will vary. As mentioned, I think that we need assessments that are more reliable, less off-the-cuff, than what is currently being pumped out on YouTube. Most YouTubers feel real pressure to publish fast, but that comes at a cost. I'm hopeful that somebody - maybe Jonathan Morrison, who has yet to upload anything - is working on a level-headed discussion involving real life workflow, not just benchmark, playback and export tests. Brownlee might do it too. The video that he posted shortly after the launch was a high-level overview. There's a pretty good chance that a more detailed discussion will follow. I also want to see what AnandTech has to say.

In the real world where people pay real money to buy things, a lot of people think that cost is relevant.

Price of the M1 computers with 8 cores, 16GB RAM and a 512GB SSD:

Mac mini: US$1100
MacBook Air: $1450
MacBook Pro: $1700

And yes, there are a lot of people who already own a monitor or who want more screen real estate than they get with a 13" laptop.

If you know of a comparable computer to the M1 mini (footprint, weight) that delivers the same performance, at a similar or better price, what is it? As far as I know, the NUC is the main competitor to the mini. Is that what you're talking about? Do you think that there might be a reason why the self-declared anti-Apple author of the video that you treated us to maybe had a reason to recommend the M1 mini, despite his avowed dislike of Apple?

I think that your posts in this thread are nothing more than attempt to turn a useful discussion about what the M1 computers can and can't do into an Apple bashing session. That's crystal clear from suggesting that people watch a video that runs almost 20 minutes that is mostly a rant about Apple. Guess what, you aren't being original. [/quote]

For someone who hates Apple that guy owned and still owns a lot of Apple products. My reason for showing that video was not the Apple bashing but the performance comparisons charts that I think you should pay more attention to rather think of me as Apple bashing. My comments are purely performance and price.

I think you are the one who is trying to make me look like I am bashing Apple. Far from it. As I have said I think the M1 products are great in their own way. I also specifically said that my view of a competing PC does not meet the Mini attributes of space and power use. My comments were purely performance and price, on those two the PC options are many. No, the current PC NUC's do not compete as most are Intel or just starting with low power AMD parts. No competition here the Mini wins. That was not my point please don't put words in my mouth I specifically pointed out that the PC would be larger and use more power. From your input of $1100 US is currently just short of $1500 Can. I can get a lot of PC for example Ryzen 7-3700X, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 6GB, Windows 10 Home $1499 Can. A HP model that comes with keyboard and mouse. This is almost twice as fast at multithreaded tests and close to 4 times faster for games than the M1 products. But this a big box that weighs 25lbs.
If you put your own PC together rather than buy HP , one could upgrade the 3700 to a 5900 for maybe $450 Can ( CPU and different motherboard that is also PCI 4.0 ) get 10% better single thread and 4 times the multithread performance than the M1 products. Everyone can make their own choice.

To clarify I think the MacBook Air is great and much better than most competing PC's. If you want the small size and weight of the Mini it too is great but please don't assume that they also have the best performance for cost.

Hi Ron,

Thanks for explaining that you can't think of a single Windows computer that is competitive with an M1 mini on power, footprint and weight.

Also, thanks for explaining that I might be able to purchase a more powerful computer than an M1 mini for the same money. I would never have figured that out without your assistance. However, I have a question.

One of the main reasons that I purchased my 2018 mini is mobility. I often carry it between my home and our business. I'd do it with one hand, but the enclosure is smooth, slippery aluminium so I put it in my backpack. As you are apparently Canadian, it may interest you to know that I also regularly fly (pre-Covid) between the U.S. and Canada. The mini goes with me as carry-on.

Here's my question. How do you suggest that I travel around town and on an airplane with what you say is "a big box that weighs 25lbs"?

Apple, meet orange.

One of the main reasons that I purchased my 2018 mini is mobility. I often carry it between my home and our business. I'd do it with one hand, but the enclosure is smooth, slippery aluminium so I put it in my backpack. ... The mini goes with me as carry-on.

I think the latter part of this response was more sarcastically written but that is besides my point in responding so I'm omitting it.

On the serious side, I do agree with Rob as far as what makes the Mini M1 interesting - it is this mobility reason, the price, power consumption, quiet, and now if there's the real ability for it to be close enough to be as performant as my current [pro] workstation for the purpose of using it with Resolve only. That's why I keep on just watching what comes about in the coming months. If the NUC will have something similar as the M1 in both performance and cost, plus the flexibility of a DIY Windows PC to add 64Gb Mem, faster GPU, etc. I'll also start following that trail too. Until that happens, we only got the M1 for now to talk about that comes closes to the reasons why Rob, myself, and I'm sure so many others are clamoring for it with excitement. And yes, I want everything for cheap! Nothing wrong with that. We are at the age of building things faster, better, and cheaper!

This is getting a little silly . If you travel with the Mini I suppose you go to a place that has a monitor keyboard and mouse ? Or do you also put a 27" monitor in your backpack with the keyboard and mouse. I suggest the Air would be a better solution when you travel. Same performance with a screen. The constraint is the configuration of all these products as it is fixed when you buy it . That's the problem that you do not seem to get. If you use the Air when travelling you can finish up on a nice fast PC/Mac when you get home. Which by the way is something I really think is very good about these M1 products. I do not need to edit when travelling so I do not think they are of use to me at all. But the technology is of great interest to me.

This is getting a little silly . If you travel with the Mini I suppose you go to a place that has a monitor keyboard and mouse ? Or do you also put a 27" monitor in your backpack with the keyboard and mouse. I suggest the Air would be a better solution when you travel. Same performance with a screen. The constraint is the configuration of all these products as it is fixed when you buy it . That's the problem that you do not seem to get.

Since you've asked...

Like a lot of people, I have a business and a second home. I have a new 27" Eizo monitor in the U.S. (see my post signature and the thread that I started about this monitor), my choice of several monitors (not in the Eizo class, but adequate) at our business, and an Eizo at my home in Canada. These are used, among other things, to edit video footage and RAW photographs. Yes, I have managed to rustle up a keyboard and mouse at each of those locations.

Re your comment "I suggest the Air would be a better solution when you travel. Same performance with a screen." As I have already said in this thread, my idea of fun does not include trying to edit video footage, or RAW photographs, on a 13" laptop screen. As I have also already said, there are throttling issues with the fanless M1 MacBook Air that I don't want to deal with. As I have also said, cost is a relevant consideration. As between the M1 mini and the M1 MacBook Pro, I can't think of a single reason why I would spend US$600 more for the latter, or, for that matter, $350 more for the Air.

Thanks for your advice about what computer decisions I should make, albeit offered without knowing anything about my situation, or considering that I might be aware of, and have considered, my options. It goes along with saying to me that there are things about computers "that you do not seem to get". I guess I'll just have to live with being dumber than you.

From your first post "I currently use a 2018 Mac mini, together with a lot of RAM and an external graphics card, to make videos and music. " Then in a later post you say none of the three initial M1 products are of interest to you as they are not powerful enough. Yet you seem bothered by the fact that I have brought up these exact issues. If you have expensive monitors in two location why on earth do you go through the trouble of carrying around a Mini instead of a computer to go with the monitors at each location. They are expensive monitor that would justify a real computer to run them. Carrying a SSD drive would make more sense to me. My comment to travel was not between homes in two countries but actual travel for a reason of holiday or location shoot.

More than half the posts I think are from you. I have summed up your view above. These M1 initial products are not powerful enough for your needs. As I and others have said. They are not upgradable and do not at the moment allow eGPU either. What you see is what you get. If you want more I am sure Apple will have a more powerful version to come at an appropriate cost.

I'm as dumb as Rob too, having a mini for carrying around.
Until now, it's last year's top model, but I'll probably go for the M1 when it's finally available with 16 GB.

I don't need to edit, or, god beware, color grade on a tiny screen while waiting for my plane or sitting on a train.
But I'm teaching and counseling in places where they have larger screens (often very good ones) or even projectors. The small wireless Apple keyboard is better than the one in their laptops and I carry my ergonomic mouse anyway. Finally, I like to have the full configuration I set up myself and not the client's system (who will probably not let me boot with my system on a disk anyway).

So, can you finally understand that your solution doesn't fit everybody around here?

BTW, my wife's MBP 13" from 2017 developed a screen defect two days after Apple Care ended. It has never been dropped but carried day by day in a backpack on scooters. I'd assume the screen is the weakest part of a laptop.

Finally, I'd be very interested in getting back to the initial subject and read about the performance of Fusion on a mini with 16 GB vs 8. I can't find any 16 GB machine where I live and the tests with just playing 8K R3Ds and screaming "woaah" don't serve me.

I will be the first person to say one size does not fit all. I even said this in one of my posts, people have the choice. All I am saying is I see no value in the Mini and why. Everyone has the choice to buy what they want as they see fit for their application. But this does not mean it is the only solution.

why on earth do you go through the trouble of carrying around a Mini instead of a computer to go with the monitors at each location. They are expensive monitor that would justify a real computer to run them...

These M1 initial products are not powerful enough for your needs. As I ... have said.

[Etc, etc, etc.]

The Energizer Bunny lives! Do you eventually wind down or is this perpetual motion?

Finally, I'd be very interested in getting back to the initial subject and read about the performance of Fusion on a mini with 16 GB vs 8. I can't find any 16 GB machine where I live and the tests with just playing 8K R3Ds and screaming "woaah" don't serve me.

Hear, hear!

The YouTube videos have become really repetitive. Personally, I'm not getting useful guidance from them beyond "Woaah!" I'm hoping that somebody will take the time for more insightful, rigorous analysis. In the meantime, I check AnandTech every couple of days

why on earth do you go through the trouble of carrying around a Mini instead of a computer to go with the monitors at each location. They are expensive monitor that would justify a real computer to run them...

These M1 initial products are not powerful enough for your needs. As I ... have said.

[Etc, etc, etc.]

The Energizer Bunny lives! Do you eventually wind down or is this perpetual motion?

Might say the same about you too

this is the first generation of this chip

or the fifteenth generation of the Apple ARM series…

I just don't know enough how this really works, so don't know for sure. Maybe there is some article which explains how new M1 chip exactly works?

Here it is: https://erik-engheim.medium.com/why-is- ... 62b158cba2

Also see the ColdFusion link that I posted in a previous post.

To add to the discussion: yes, the mini and the airs are not "pro" computers, but what is drawing attention is that these machines are performing, and in some cases, outperforming much higher Intel chips AND are using a fraction of the power. There are plenty of benchmarks and comparisons out there bearing this out, and it has been surprising (see the article above to understand why). That bodes well for any future "pro" machines that Apple releases in the future.

Here it is: https://erik-engheim.medium.com/why-is- ... 62b158cba2

Good article. Thanks for sharing. On the word "pro", that's just marketing BS AFAIAC. The important thing is the ability for it handle the workload or workflow for the intended user (or the user intent).

Ok, did some tests myself to see all this hype. Got myself MBP 13 M1 8GB.
First off all, did not buy it to be my everyday editing machine, I am photographer and cinematographer and will be carrying it on the set. My desktop machine is PC with 7 years old i7 4770K CPU and RTX 2070 Super. I am using resolve 17.1 for M1

Second.. M1 MPB IS GREAT. Doing far more then I thought it will. Had a gig few days ago and it handles 6K BRAW and 10bit h265 from DJI like a champ. All real time, no jitter. Was really pleasant to edit on it. Put some basic CC, no problem.

BUT....
problem starts when you apply more nodes, NR, grain.... then GPU just fall apart and cannot handle it.
I did some tests with same project, (full grade, NR and everything) on M1 and my old i7-4770+RTX2070 PC. And PC is far better performing in every way. It is more responsive, it playback faster, it render cache faster, it renders final faster.

My plan was to wait for new iMacs (PRO or not) with those M chips.. but I have doubts regarding GPU power that could handle as RTX can? Everybody is talking that new M1x chips will have 12 cores, but CPU is not a problem for resolve on these M1 MBPs. It is GPU that is under performing and I don't think that apple can vastly improve there?
Any chance resolve will in the future utilize even more those M1 cores so GPU wont be that much of an issue? Or do I just buy new Ryzen CPU?
Thnx.