This is what it looks like when there is a paradigm shift. The computer architecture as we knew it had matured as far as it could go, leaving only incremental improvement left to achieve. Apple made the original computer for the masses and so it was the first paradigm shift for business. This is the second paradigm shift in computers. Now Apple may have spent all this time during the Mac dark ages putting out sub par product while trying to come up with a new approach to pc design, resulting in the current silicon.
3 Likes
It seems as though Apple has put its future in ARM. I wouldnāt be surprised if The ARM Mac Pros are similar in price to the ones they are replacing; this is the future architecture, not an additional one for deeper pockets.
Agreed with this. I got an iMac 2020 that cost me close to $4000 CAD, on the local EBay style market over here they are between $3000 and $3500 and people are buying them.
A known student person that bought a MacBook Air for about $900 USD a year ago is selling it for $700 USD to upgrade for a M1 Pro. If you ask me, $200 for a full year use of such a great machine is quite affordableā¦ heck I was thinking of buying it myself at that price to have such a light, powerful and portable one but I donāt feel like juggling data wise between more than two machines that I probably donāt really need.
1 Like
Yeah I was more asking myself
Will they make expensive Mac pros and cheap Mac mini and keep the Mac mini weak in comparison
Or will they also offer performant macminis !
If they will make any semi Pro ā¦
for sure.
They already degraded the Mac Mini once in 2012 (?) because it
sold too well. (A few years after offering even a capable Mac Mini
āServerā in 2009 (?) which still sits under my desk)
Anyone buy the 24 core over the 32 core M1 Max?
How do they compare?
This seems plausible that they might simply chain the system to scale it.
Maybe if Apple is nice they release a Mac mini also with a pro or max M1 option
2 Likes
yeah it makes a lot of sense, would love to see what a mac pro mini with a duo or quad chip design costs.
Or bring this back 
1 Like
Thatās a big, big maybe. For the last 10 odd years, Appleās treated the Mini as the redheaded stepchild of the Mac line, occasionally throwing a bone itās way, but usually ignoring it. Sometimes, theyāll get a mean streak going on, and end up hamstringing it.
The biggest tease of it all is that thereās nothing stopping them from putting a 32-core M1 Max in a Mini enclosure. Itās all a question of whether they will.
3 Likes
Bet the new Pros will be in a cube. 
2 Likes
Apple clearly keeps their devices separated among entry level and pro level
That is very true
Their SoC (heat production and size) I feel however can change things.
They could put a really decent cpu into the Mac mini
Well all the current Mac mini - iMacs - MacBook Air have the M1 chip so they are all the same already
The best case scenario would be that they offer pro variants for every iteration of their hardware. They already do this with with the Macbook Air/Pro, and iMacs. All they have to do is take one extra step to include a Mini Pro in that lineup, and everyoneās happy.
4 Likes
Yeah - their advantage now is that the cpu gpu is the same in size heat production and makes it so easy to put into different enclosures and make sure that the experience is even
2 Likes
Thatās possible. If you look at Appleās current design for the new MBP and the iMac they seem to be looking back at their older designs and are kind of doing a retro thing. The new 24" iMacs have the same colors as the original iMac candy coated colors. The new 14" and 16" MBP are very similar to the 2006/2007 MBP or the Powerbook.
2 Likes
The new Pros do remind me a lot of the old Macbooks from 2008.
4 Likes
The issue is production. The chip is pretty big and probably expensive for Apple to produce as yield can be an issue with a chip that size. Apple may not want to scale that down to a Mini Pro as they may not be able to recoup the cost and Apple does not usually make devices they canāt make at least 33+% of margin on. But letās see what they do.
yes what I thought.
Also something interesting for everyone switching perhaps.
Needed 64 GB on Windows to do your work well perhaps now you donāt.
Impressive how little OS X slows down compared to Windows.
I know it is 16 Gb vs 16 only but still.
Personally I always thought the unified memory might slow the GPU but guess not.
1 Like
1 Like
Yep. They took a lot of design cues from that machine. It kind of makes sense as the MacBook was the first Intel machine they made and was very popular. I still have my old one and my MBP from 2007 in my closet. Iām going to compare the two whenever I get my new 16" MBP from Apple in a few weeks.
2 Likes
Windows has always been bad at handling memory pressure imo. It doesnāt do well when it has to move into swap memory. It probably doesnāt help the Windows machine that it has to copy from RAM to the GPU RAM and under load from Swap to RAM to GPU RAM. The Mac can pass that dat directly to the GPU cores without having to copy anything. Thatās why swap doesnāt need to be as high on the Mac.