M2 Pro Mac mini as iMac Pro Replacement?

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

I’m still hoping to hold out replacing my iMac Pro with an Apple Silicon iMac Pro or iMac with an M Pro processor if Apple releases such a machine (I work well with all-in-one Macs).

 

However, I still keep an “emergency plan” on backup just in case my iMac Pro were to bite the dust, and I’d need to buy a Mac immediately for work.

 

My iMac Pro is the 8 Core CPU, 8 Core GPU, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD model.

 

Originally, I had looked at the Mac Studio + Studio Display as my “emergency plan” in the event I need to quickly replace my iMac Pro.

 

However, I see the Mac mini now comes with a M2 Pro chip, and there are models with similar specs to my iMac Pro.

 

I’m wondering, is it actually possible now to use a M2 Pro Mac mini as a replacement to the iMac Pro and have a similar spec machine? Between the M2 Mac mini and Studio Display, if I needed to buy such a Mac, it would actually run about $1,500 cheaper than what I paid for an iMac Pro.

 

Thanks!

[Michel Gilbert]

If you’ve got the 2017 model, I think you would have to look up the benchmarks of the Intel Xeon W-2140B and the M2 Pro separately to compare.

[Rich]

My gut is even the M1 Pro/Ultra/Max would crush a 2017 Xeon.... I did find this on the plain M1:  https://architosh.com/2021/04/the-m1-mac-mini-vs-imac-pro-2017-vs-everyone-part-1/

 

If you look at the Geekbench scores in that article — the original M1 Mac mini (a plain M1, no pro/max/ultra) destroyed a iMac Pro 2017 in single threaded but lost in multithreaded...  The Pro/Max/Ultra would have likely remedied the MT performance.  Even a plain M2 is faster than all M1 procs in ST and closer to a Max in MT.  This doesn't even consider GPU performance or any of the other improved subsystems.  

 

In other words, I imagine a M2 Mini will crush a a 2017 iMac Pro pretty much everywhere....

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

Thanks for the info!

 

This is almost unbelievable that I could even consider a Mac mini (plus I’m likely buying a M2 MacBook Air later this year for travel). In the past, I would have literally destroyed these machines had I tried to use them for my workload. Now I’m able to give them serious consideration to power my workload.

 

What’s even more ironic is my financial situation is improving in 2023 where I can finally afford Pro-level hardware from Apple without it being a cost-burden (unlike in the past when I had to really save up for it), but now Apple has made it to where I probably don’t need to throw the extra cash at Pro-level hardware. I guess it’s a double blessing.

[LaMonte Richardson]

          Apple announced a new Mac Mini with the Apple M1 “64 bit” chip on November 10, 2020.^[104] It was released on November 17, 2020, and was one of the first three Apple silicon-based Macs released (alongside the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro)

 

          I am staying with the Intel Mac for now with Big Sur OS. The #1 reason it runs my older programs, the silicon-based Mac will not run them such as Adobe programs. #2 it runs Accordance Bible software better. #3 I can run most all 32-bit programs on my Intel, but only 64-bit silicon-based Mac. Another problem is hardware such as printer, scanners, it’s very picky.

 

          I have been working on Windows and Macs since the mid-80s. I bought my first Macbook Pro in 2011, my second Macbook Pro 2015 both 15 in. I was a software tester for most of the time. I tested my Macbook Pro 2015 vs 2022 Macbook Pro M2. If you are a high-end user, such as Video or Graphic design with adobe products it is the one for you, the price tag will be around $3000. If you are a normal user, such as browsing the Internet, looking at photos, using a word processor and running a Bible program such as Accordance or Logos the 2015 Macbook Pro is all you need. Mac with the M2 chip is fast, and the display is great, when it comes to text I think the 2015 is better. You can buy a 2015 MacBook Pro for $600 or less through Amazon or OWC. The same go for the Mac mini or the iMac.

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

Thanks for the info!

[Rich]

On 5/16/2023 at 12:43 PM, LaMonte Richardson said:

 

          I am staying with the Intel Mac for now with Big Sur OS. The #1 reason it runs my older programs, the silicon-based Mac will not run them such as Adobe programs. #2 it runs Accordance Bible software better. #3 I can run most all 32-bit programs on my Intel, but only 64-bit silicon-based Mac. Another problem is hardware such as printer, scanners, it’s very picky.

 

 

I have all Apple Silicon computers (except for one old MBP that my kids use as a computer for browsing the internet only)... I use multiple Adobe programs (Photoshop, Illustration, Lightroom Classic, and Audition) with no issue on my Apple Silicon — all native.  Every modern Adobe program runs on Mac — for that matter, it runs practically everything from my live music programs to my software development stuff and everything in-between — all native to Apple Silicon.  It's also benchmarked to run circles around practically every Intel chip ever made (unless you start talking about the recent  energy sucking chips Intel released to try to compete).  Accordance also seems to run much faster on Apple Silicon, although I only can say that subjectively.   I also have multiple printers, two scanners, and a bunch of audio and photo/video equipment that all work fine with Apple Silicon.  

 

Unless you have very old software that has not been updated or you require Bootcamp / dual-boot to Intel-based Windows, I believe buying Intel for Mac is a very bad idea at this stage — Apple has definitely placed all their energy in Apple Silicon.  

Edited May 19, 2023 by Rich

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

Great feedback. Thanks!

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

Mac Pro is still Intel, but that will likely change at WWDC. 🙂

 

Originally I wanted Windows virtualization, then I didn’t care about it when I went “all Mac” for my computing workflow, but now I have a Windows PC around, so it doesn’t matter either way. I am hoping Apple Silicon Macs will reduce my power bill ever so slightly when I move to them, but probably not enough to make an excuse for buying one just for the power savings. 🙂 

 

The Apple Silicon transition worked similar to the PowerPC to Intel Transition. Intel only apps run on a compatibility layer called “Rosetta 2” just like PowerPC apps ran on a compatibility layer called “Rosetta”. The only difference is “Rosetta 2” seemed to do far better with most apps than “Rosetta” did during the PowerPC to Intel transition.

 

Many apps are being upgraded to “Universal 2” binaries that natively support both Intel and Apple Silicon Macs, just as during the PowerPC to Intel transition, apps were upgraded to “Universal” binaries for a while to support both PowerPC and Intel Macs natively.

 

All supported versions of Accordance are currently a “Universal 2” binaries. They run natively on Apple Silicon Macs and Intel Macs.

 

I hope Apple is truthful about supporting Intel Macs for a while, but then again, they introduced Intel Support in Tiger and dropped PowerPC support in Snow Leopard, so I’m not fully confident in it.

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

As long as it’s not the same track record as the PowerPC to Intel transition, otherwise, prepare to be sunk. 

[Rich]

23 hours ago, john_2022 said:

 

My Core i-7 iMac has AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT graphics. You sure the M2 will beat it at graphics performance?

 

And ... other threads indicate that particularly on Accordance, Apple silicon might have some rendering differences/problems with Greek/Hebrew text. I'm not sure the details of all that or if anyone isolated the cause of the problems ... ?

 

The GPU in each Apple Silicon chip varies greatly by which version...  The top end M1 Max is close to an Nvidia 3060, which is pretty impressive... The M1 base couldn't touch an 3050 and is nearly half its speed (although that's still pretty fast for a 2+ year old integrated GPU).  

 

That said, per readily available benchmarks, the 5500XT runs at about 5.4 teraflops.  The base M1 is 2.6, M1 Pro is 4.5, M1 Max is around 7.6 in the low end variant and top end variant is 10.4 teraflops.  The base M2 is 3.6 teraflops and the M2 Max is 13.6 teraflops.    So, the Radeon Pro is holding its own against the bottom end Apple Silicon  but is being being beaten by the top end models of even the M1, and all but the lowest model of the M2, and we're not far off from seeing M3 chips.  

 

All that said, the 5500XT will provide great use for a long time to come.

 

As far as Accordance, I haven't seen benchmarks.  My comment about performance being better on my M1 Max is definitely subjective.  That said, objectively, if the app is native in both platforms (it is), Apple Silicon should run faster than on Intel native unless you are running an Intel Mac Pro (against a non-Max chip) at this stage as nearly all benchmarks heavily favor the Apple Silicon over nearly every Intel chip ever used in a Mac.

[dandennison]

Accordance performance falls largely in three  areas:

 

1) Scrolling performance: on Windows this uses Direct3D to render right into the frame buffer in the same way as your web browser does. I believe the Mac is similar here. 
2) Research performance: this is mostly disk I/O bound thanks to the precomputed indices bound into each module. 
3) Certain search operations like INFER: I haven’t profiled this recently so I can’t remember if it would benefit from more threads. Since it builds groups it seems like there is a component that would be  embarrassingly parallel. 
 

So to answer the question: Accordance benefits first from fast disk I/O, then from high memory bandwidth to the frame buffer, and finally (I think) from more threads when doing certain CPU bound search operators. 
 

This is all in line with expectations for a program mostly focused on searching and visualizing a small corpus. 
 

This is why it’s important to report performance regressions like beachballing or unexplainable freezes since the application doesn’t involve a lot of code and those are easy to spot in a profiler. Given its Free Pascal and originally written for far slower computers overall it should be very snappy. 

 

Hope this helps,

 

 Dan

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

@dandennison Good info on Accordance!

 

@Rich Where are you finding those graphics specs for Apple Silicon? I had someone email me recently needing specifics about the Apple Silicon MacBook Pro’s graphics, and I wasn’t sure where to point him.

[Rich]

On 5/21/2023 at 3:22 PM, Nathan Parker said:

 

 

@Rich Where are you finding those graphics specs for Apple Silicon? I had someone email me recently needing specifics about the Apple Silicon MacBook Pro’s graphics, and I wasn’t sure where to point him.

 

I honestly don't remember...  I just googled GPU benchmarks for those processors and went to some of my favorite sites for that sort of thing.

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

Thanks!

[Rich]

And, as of today, the transition to Apple Silicon is complete, and Intel is no more.    Relatedly, Apple also is cutting support to a bunch of Intel Macs in Sonoma:

 

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/06/macos-sonoma-drops-support-for-another-wide-swath-of-intel-macs/

 

Clearly, they will support the latest Intel chips for some time, but the end is definitely in sight.

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

Yep

[LaMonte Richardson]

On 5/19/2023 at 6:07 AM, Rich said:

 

I have all Apple Silicon computers (except for one old MBP that my kids use as a computer for browsing the internet only)... I use multiple Adobe programs (Photoshop, Illustration, Lightroom Classic, and Audition) with no issue on my Apple Silicon — all native.  Every modern Adobe program runs on Mac — for that matter, it runs practically everything from my live music programs to my software development stuff and everything in-between — all native to Apple Silicon.  It's also benchmarked to run circles around practically every Intel chip ever made (unless you start talking about the recent  energy sucking chips Intel released to try to compete).  Accordance also seems to run much faster on Apple Silicon, although I only can say that subjectively.   I also have multiple printers, two scanners, and a bunch of audio and photo/video equipment that all work fine with Apple Silicon.  

 

Unless you have very old software that has not been updated or you require Bootcamp / dual-boot to Intel-based Windows, I believe buying Intel for Mac is a very bad idea at this stage — Apple has definitely placed all their energy in Apple Silicon.  

“You are right the Apple Silicon computers will run most all the new software and hardware and its very fast.”

 

          I personally cannot afford the price tag of a new MacBook pro or a Mac Mini. To use a Mac mini, you must have a keyboard mouse and display. The other problem I have is I use Adobe CS6 which was released in May 2012. The reason I use Adobe CS6 is I own it. The next update went to subscription $50 a month. I also use a program called Bibleworks 10, it will not run on an Apple Silicon computer. 

           I will eventually buy a new MacBook Pro, but for now my 2015 MacBook Pro 15 inch is find. It has great video and fast, you can buy a used one Amazon or OWC for around $600 compared to a new Apple Silicon computer MacBook Pro 16 inch for $2400.

           It seems like most new software is going to subscription. Accordance runs good on intel or Apple Silicon. They have great training videos, as I am learning the program I am using Bibleworks 10 less.

         When I buy a new Apple Silicon computer what do you suggest? 

 

 

[Michel Gilbert]

3 hours ago, LaMonte Richardson said:

I also use . . . Bibleworks 10, it will not run on an Apple Silicon computer.

 

BW10 works in Windows 11 ARM in Parallels Desktop 18 on Apple silicon. Microsoft now officially supports Windows 11 ARM in Apple silicon, including activation.

 

This screenshot is from my M1 mini:

 

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

You might also be able to run a macOS VM that can run Adobe CS6. Affinity is another option. Their apps are getting there in terms of an Adobe alternative, and their pricing model is similar to Accordance (you buy and own the apps, and you can choose if you want to upgrade to new app versions). As long as they keep improving features and keep that model, they'll attract customers who don't want to jump on the Adobe CC bandwagon.