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

611–620 of 632 posts

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#611

Post by foldr »

7thpower wrote: post #208
josephg wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I don’t know why 8gb base models get so much hate online. 8gb is 64 billion bits of memory. If you’re writing everyday software and you need more memory than that, you’re almost certainly doing something wrong.

Seriously? What if you want to have a few browser tabs and a spreadsheet open? Or containers? My M1 routinely rests around 22gb of RAM.

This doesn't necessarily mean that your workload would perform unacceptably on an 8GB model. It just means that fewer optional things would be cached in RAM, more RAM pages would be compressed, and there'd be more swap usage.

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#612

Post by ideashower »

matwood wrote: post #479
ideashower wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you run it headless? Like, if I have it power on after a reboot, is it possible to log in remotely?

My old mini ran just fine only accessing it over remote desktop. I assume the new ones will act the same.

Did your old mini have FileVault enabled?

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#613

Post by mbs159 »

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.

> For keeping the mac awake “forever”, i’d suggest the Amphetamine app.

macOS has a built-in console command for that: `caffeinate` [1]

1. https://ss64.com/mac/caffeinate.html

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#614

Post by m4button »

s6af7ygt wrote: post #514
henryfjordan wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a way of signaling how the product should be used. Plug it in, hit the power button, put it down, and never turn it off again. For many users that's probably the only time they will ever interact with that button (or want to). I actually think it's a really good choice and shows Apple really understands design. And with the relatively low power consumption it makes sense. It's not like it's drawing a ton of powe…

Zero power draw is still less than a little power draw. A couple million of these babies running on idle is a considerable amount of power. Please, turn off devices when you're not using them.

Completely agree! We just 3D printed a base switch that makes it easy to turn your Mini on and off. Here's a link: https://m4button.com/ (if you have a 3D printer, you don't need this).

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#615

Post by twilo »

n_ary wrote: post #442
twilo wrote: post #411

Apple's ARM chips have been incredibly effecient for a while now. My m3 air draws around 3W on avarage and that's with a 14 inch screen running at around 40% brightness.. impressive stuff. Passive cooling too!

M3 airs come in 14” or did you mean m3 pro? To best of my knowledge, airs come in 13” and 15”.

13.6 inch screen on the small air

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#616

Post by seec »

MVissers wrote: post #545
volemo wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t possibly bring up Magic Mouse as an example of good UX.

Apple doesn't want you to use it while charging. They succeeded.

Apple fanboys are insane, no way around it.

They were successful in annoying every customer of this product and being the laughing stock of even their most die hard supporters. Like even across all the very Apple oriented publication, almost no one is recommending this mouse (even though the touch surface can be usefull).

I have the Magic Mouse and I had the previous version that just had battery swap. The experience on the newer one is much worse, previously you just had to spend 30 sec for a battery swap and you were on your way. Now you need to wait at least 5 min and you better not forget to put it to charge before leaving the computer, otherwise tomorrow the same problem await you. And this is compounded by the fact that it has terrible battery life to begin with, especially considering the extremely mediocre sensor they put in it. Logitech has mouseq with much better sensors that last much longer on battery and they don't even have the charge problem.

If anything, the last generation of Magic Mouse is a testament of Apple's utter disdain for its customer and the general lack of care they have around user experience today.

They have the best chips around but it can't be just that.

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#617

Post by GeekyBear »

zimpenfish wrote: post #424
nl wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the best answer. The Beelink (and other mini-PC brands) offer comparable performance. The fact they offer lots of different configurations lets you choose your own trade-offs. Assuming you don't have an operating system preference, the base model Mac Mini is tough to beat outright, but as you upgrade it there are other options that get interesting.

> The Beelink (and other mini-PC brands) offer comparable performance. [0] has the new (base!) M4 at 3859 (single) and 14837 (multi) whilst [1] has the Ultra 5 125H 4500 at ~2200 (single) and ~11500 (multi). "comparable" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your sentence. [0] https://arstechnica.com/apple/2024/11/review-the-fastest-of-... [1] https://browser.geekbench.com/search?q=Ultra+5+125H

A performance test between a Beelink flagship mini PC that was around $1000 and the Mac Mini was recently posted:

> M4 Mac Mini vs Intel and AMD Flagships – It's Not Even Close

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Uuu046EE28

There are even cheaper mini PCs you can buy that offer great bang for the buck for home users who just want to do web browsing and run Office, but the performance isn't at the same level, even if you spend a lot more.

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#618

Post by m4button »

baq wrote: post #100
dansky wrote: post #95

The Mac mini M4 performance is around 4-5x in DaVinci Resolve for me - compared to my HP laptop (i5-1135G7). Rendering HDR video was around 12fps there on the i5 - the same project in the Mac mini gets 60fps. The M4 10 core GPU seems on par or better with a mobile RTX3060(65W) for video tests (NR / Deflicker) so I'm also impressed about the M4's efficiency. A lot of power per Watt. It's becoming a dedicated video ren…

> The power button placement is an annoyance for me, though. Keep the thing upside down. Not joking.

Well, you could try this solution, designed for people who’d like the flexibility of an on/off choice! https://m4button.com/

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#619

Post by m4button »

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...

If you don't have a 3D printer, we've got you covered here: https://m4button.com

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#620

Post by saagarjha »

astrange wrote: post #500
saagarjha wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really think ARMv8 has anything useful to provide here?

It's all in there, it's just optional. Plus it doesn't have variable length instructions.

I'm still not entirely sure what the security improvements are?
Post reply on HN