Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

M4 Mac mini's efficiency

jeffgeerling.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 632 posts

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#51

Post by AcerbicZero »

kranke155 wrote: post #27
rgovostes wrote: post #22

> If only they didn't put the power button on the bottom. I can't tell if anyone is being serious about the "Powergate" issue. The thing is 5" wide and weighs 1.5 lbs, it's not exactly a burden to lift it a little. And there are highly practical workarounds: https://www.reddit.com/r/macmini/comments/1gncek7/nailed_the...

It’s not a burden. I consider it a typical Tim Cook decision, in that the man led the company that made one of the fastest CPUs in the world, makes it draw as much as a Raspberry Pi. Absolutely crazy feats of engineering, design, manufacturing… and - There is that ONE detail that would’ve made it perfected but it’s botched! I don’t mind it too much, since it’s still 99% close to perfect. But, but…

Hah, Tim Cook decision pretty much sums it up; its the kind of thing that wouldn't have lasted 5 seconds when placed in front of Jobs (although there is a strong chance Jobs would have demanded his own nonsensical addition/subtraction to the design).

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#52

Post by telgareith »

winwang wrote: post #40
GeekyBear wrote: post #23

Also interesting, the M4 Mini has the flash storage on a replaceable module, instead of being soldered to the motherboard, although the NVMe controller is still integrated into the SoC. iFixIt and others have already posted videos showing that the flash storage is now upgradable. > M4 Mac mini Teardown - UPGRADABLE SSD, Powerful, and TINY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rtdGxBeSkz8

The controller being decoupled is an extremely interesting idea! Makes a lot of sense. I wonder if it includes a (nontrivial) cache.

Seems likely its a cacheless (well, host bus memory) design like the ones used by Apple on their other designs.

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#53

Post by dangus »

I see a lot of reviews that say things like this but seem to be written by people who aren't testing against commonly available mini PCs that are built on efficiency architectures.

How different is the efficiency of this compared to something like an Intel N100/200/300 or a Ryzen 7 7735HS that you can get in cheap mini PCs from manufacturers like Beelink?

I am not doubting that Apple's processors are class-leading but at the same time it seems like I see a lot of people impressed that a mini PC can idle under 10 watts. That's been common for a long time now.

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#54

Post by jsheard »

wmf wrote: post #47
ewalk153 wrote: post #5

Given these efficient numbers, I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple were racking Minis for serving the new ML models for Siri.

Mac minis probably don't have enough RAM to hold Siri's models. It's more likely that Apple is using (modified) Mac Studios.

Why use Macs at all? It's well within Apples abilities to make a completely custom server motherboard built around Apple Silicon rather than hacking something together out of Mac parts. That would allow for much better rack density, and they could add proper server amenities like a BMC for remote management.

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#55

Post by vetinari »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #43
vetinari wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NUC 14th gen with i3 is around 400 EUR with VAT, with no RAM or storage. For the other 250 EUR, surely you can get more RAM than 16 GB and more storage than 256 GB.

> NUC 14th gen with i3 is around 400 EUR with VAT 4 cores instead of 10 cores, 69W TDP instead of 22W, UHD Graphics 730 versus Apple's 10 core GPU (0.5 TFLOPs vs about 4.3), 23% worse single core performance, 45% worse multicore, and much louder cooling. It's not a fair comparison.

So get a stronger one. There will be always something that is better on one or another side.

I have 13th gen i7, with 64 GB RAM and 2 TB ssd (and 2.5 GbE). It was 800 EUR + VAT, last year. How much would similar Mac Mini cost?

Not a fair comparison either.

Edit: 69W for the NUC is not TDP. It is 69W power brick that ships with the machine.

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#56

Post by marxisttemp »

nikcub wrote: post #34
riknos314 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What specific feature gaps would you like to see them address?

I'd like to replace my NAS using a mini - but Apple segment the market on disk. A "dumb" NAS 2.5" SSD drive array plugged into one via ~~firewire~~, and then out to the network via the Mac Mini would work. edit: thunderbolt!

FireWire?

Once I have some more disposable income I plan to buy a Thunderbolt RAID array and a mini. FireWire hasn’t been on Macs for at least a decade.

Apple’s internal storage pricing is absurd but you wouldn’t plan to use a NUC or a Raspberry Pi SOC’s onboard storage for a NAS anyways.

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#57

Post by manmal »

lurking_swe wrote: post #31
LordKeren wrote: post #6

I can’t help but wish that Apple would provide the handful of features needed to make a Mac mini into a competent home server.

i’ve found it pretty easy to run my “homelab” with docker compose. Traefik binds to port 80 and 443, and all my apps are accessible behind the proxy. Docker desktop can be configured to start on login. For keeping the mac awake “forever”, i’d suggest the Amphetamine app. I also appreciate that you can easily use the macOS screen sharing app to login and manage the mac from a laptop.

That certainly works, but Docker will use a Linux VM, right?

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#58

Post by AshamedCaptain »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #43
vetinari wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NUC 14th gen with i3 is around 400 EUR with VAT, with no RAM or storage. For the other 250 EUR, surely you can get more RAM than 16 GB and more storage than 256 GB.

> NUC 14th gen with i3 is around 400 EUR with VAT 4 cores instead of 10 cores, 69W TDP instead of 22W, UHD Graphics 730 versus Apple's 10 core GPU (0.5 TFLOPs vs about 4.3), 23% worse single core performance, 45% worse multicore, and much louder cooling. It's not a fair comparison.

It's almost half the price.

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#59

Post by userbinator »

rgovostes wrote: post #22

> If only they didn't put the power button on the bottom. I can't tell if anyone is being serious about the "Powergate" issue. The thing is 5" wide and weighs 1.5 lbs, it's not exactly a burden to lift it a little. And there are highly practical workarounds: https://www.reddit.com/r/macmini/comments/1gncek7/nailed_the...

Or rotate it 180 degrees. There's nothing on the top (now bottom) anyway that can't stand being covered up.

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#60

Post by evilduck »

steeleduncan wrote: post #29
rgovostes wrote: post #22

> If only they didn't put the power button on the bottom. I can't tell if anyone is being serious about the "Powergate" issue. The thing is 5" wide and weighs 1.5 lbs, it's not exactly a burden to lift it a little. And there are highly practical workarounds: https://www.reddit.com/r/macmini/comments/1gncek7/nailed_the...

Because minis are very commonly racked in bulk, and its both very irritating for that use case, and entirely unnecessary

Why not just rack them upside down then?
Post reply on HN