pers0n said:

REQUIREMENTS:
Mostly design work (figma, sketch, photoshop, illustrator, indesign, affinity), lots of browser tabs, VMs for old Windows software and testing. I plan to use 3 monitors (I dont have any 4k ones, just old LCD ones).

MAYBES:
I'm thinking of doing streaming at some point. I'd like to able to run AI image generators to play around with.

Hoping to keep this machine at least 3-5yrs if not longer.

Click to expand...

JavaScript Jackal said:

This way you get the 20% increase in single core speed

JavaScript Jackal said:

I have a 12 core 32 gb ram 1 tb hard drive. Upgraded from M1 mini 16 gb ram and can really tell the difference with Illustrator and Photoshop.

pers0n said:

I've been looking at some articles and geekbench.

The 12-core M2 Pro Mini outperforms every version of the M1 Ultra Studio except the 20-core.

I also heard that the $/performance for 32gb and 16gb is too high and very minimal.

I've also read the 1tb vs 512gb SSD storage is faster.

That being said I'm not upgrading all of these.

Is the 12core worth it performance wise? Does the SSD storage matter if you are going to be using external drives as well to keep the core storage space freed up? How much memory does VirtualMachines take up and can you run VMs of Windows (xp,7,10) on MacOS these days anyway?

Click to expand...

Juicy Box said:

I think you mean multi-core, but yeah, the increase with the 12c upgrade is decent alone, then have the added GPU cores as a bonus.

To get a 20% multi-core performance increase on old Intel Macs would cost at least a few hundred $ extra.

This is my exact M2 Pro MM that I just purchased, also coming from a M1 MM with 16GB of RAM. I expect a decent performance boost with the new Mac.

Click to expand...

JavaScript Jackal said:

Compared to single core M1 Max I saw a 20% increase with Xcode. Around 44% increase from the m1 mini for my Xcode test. I was able see a very noticeable difference with Adobe. Had beach balls constantly popping up with the m1 mini. All that is gone now.

pers0n said:

I've been looking at some articles and geekbench.

The 12-core M2 Pro Mini outperforms every version of the M1 Ultra Studio except the 20-core.

I also heard that the $/performance for 32gb and 16gb is too high and very minimal.

I've also read the 1tb vs 512gb SSD storage is faster.

That being said I'm not upgrading all of these.

Is the 12core worth it performance wise? Does the SSD storage matter if you are going to be using external drives as well to keep the core storage space freed up? How much memory does VirtualMachines take up and can you run VMs of Windows (xp,7,10) on MacOS these days anyway?

Click to expand...

CausticPuppy said:

If you need to run x86 Windows then you’ll need an Intel Mac.

KPOM said:

The only Windows VMs that work on Apple Silicon are Windows 10 and 11 for ARM. Intel-based Windows will not run. That said, I use Windows 11 ARM (which Parallels lets you purchase and install) which works with most but not all 32- and 64-bit Windows apps. I give it 8GB of RAM on my 16GB M2 Pro Mac mini and it seems to work just fine.

NeonNights said:

I was able to install regular Windows 10 Profesional x86-64 on my M1 MacBook Air 16GB, check this post. It was done through emulation with UTM. It technically works but emulation is expectedly slower than virtualization. I gave it 8GB RAM but performance is akin to a PC with 2GB and a mechanical PATA drive. The software I want to run is not ARM compatible. It works under emulation but takes more patience.

It was more a curiosity experiment and not entirely practical for regular use. To run x86 code you're better served with a spare PC, even a 15-year-old Core2Duo compared to emulation. Maybe my future M2 Pro Mini will run emulation faster.

Click to expand...

Juicy Box said:

That is pretty impressive. Is this the 12 core M2 Pro? In the Mac Mini or MBP?

Juicy Box said:

BTW, I ordered the exact spec that you mentioned above a few days ago, 12c/19c M2 Pro Mac Mini, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD.

I have a bunch of Macs that are daily used, but my current main Mac is M1 Mac Mini with 16GB RAM and 1TB SSD.

My reasons for choosing the configuration of M2 Mac Mini listed above is probably very different from why you would choose one upgrade over the other, but I will explain my reasons, and it may help you or someone else choose.

My main apps that I use are Handbrake for SW encoding, World of Warcraft and some other gaming, Safari for web browsing, mail, messages, and a bunch of iOS apps. I do some very light photo, and video editing, just for hobby.

With Handbrake, I was disappointed at the lack of performance increase with my M1 Mac Mini compared to my much older iMacs with the 3rd and 4th generation i7. It the time of purchase of the M1, I figured after 8 years there would have been a better multi-core performance increase. That is one reason I went with the 12c over the 10c on the new M2 Pro. The 12c would be (theoretical) at least a 20% increase over the 10c for multi-core. For me in the US, with the Veteran discount, the upgrade is $270 for both a CPU multi-core and GPU increase of about 20%.

With Intel Macs, the cost to increase the multi-core performance by just 10% was sometimes more than $270.

For the RAM, I use a lot of Safari tabs at one time. Sometimes close to 50 or more. Even when only using a few dozen, I noticed that I was using a lot of Swap. I also tend to use multiple apps at a time, along with screen sharing to other Macs in my network. Mix all that with the fact that the GPU shares the RAM which could impact gaming, I decided to go for the 32GB upgrade in RAM.


Getting back to playing games like WoW, the $270 increase for the 12c/19c GPU may have been worth it to me for just the additional CPU cores, but considering I would get an almost 20% increase in GPU performance as well, it wasn't hard for me to pick this upgrade.

Again, think about the Intel Mac days how much it would cost to get an almost 20% increase in GPU performance.


The storage size was the hardest for me. I don't need 1TB as I could work from other Macs storage and externals. So, I started thinking about getting the 512GB instead, but at one point I considering 2TB of storage just to have the fast storage in case I need it. I decided to go for the faster 1TB storage, mostly due to it being faster, but also because the cost difference between the 512GB and 1TB wasn't that bad compared to going from the 1TB to 2TB.


I plan on my new 12c M2 Pro Mac Mini to be my main Mac for many years. My last main Mac that I purchased new, my Late 2012 iMac with the i7 and 680m upgrade, I planned on replacing around 2017, but the performance difference between the 2017 and 2012 iMacs were not significant enough for me to warrant that purchase. Same with the 2019 iMacs. With the 2020 iMacs, I considered it, but AS was coming, so I decided to wait.

There isn't a 27" AS iMac yet, and who knows if there will be, so I decided to just make the M2 Pro Mac Mini, as well as all the upgrades I did, my main Mac for at least 5 years. That comes to about $33 a month for my configuration with the Veteran discount.


Not sure if the above will help you make a decision, but maybe something to think about.

Click to expand...

Mardiel8128 said:

Hello friend and how did it go?
I think we are similar users

pers0n said:

I've been looking at some articles and geekbench.

The 12-core M2 Pro Mini outperforms every version of the M1 Ultra Studio except the 20-core.

I also heard that the $/performance for 32gb and 16gb is too high and very minimal.

I've also read the 1tb vs 512gb SSD storage is faster.

That being said I'm not upgrading all of these.

Is the 12core worth it performance wise? Does the SSD storage matter if you are going to be using external drives as well to keep the core storage space freed up? How much memory does VirtualMachines take up and can you run VMs of Windows (xp,7,10) on MacOS these days anyway?

Click to expand...

Juicy Box said:

I have been very busy, and have not had enough time with my new Mac to make a final decision, but based off of everything I have done so far, I have been mostly impressed with the performance of the 12c M2 Pro MM over the 8c M1 MM. Although, I have discovered an issue that I was not counting on with one of my most used apps (Handbrake).


While it isn't that noticeable, the overall "snappiness" of the 12c M2 Pro Mac Mini has improved over the M1 Mac Mini.

WoW - I have only tested Dragon Flight areas so far, but with the graphic settings set to "10" on both the M1 and M2 Pro Mac Minis, the fps has more than tripled on the 19c GPU of the M2 Pro MM over the 8c GPU M1 MM. The downside, the M2 Pro MM gets hotter more quickly when the graphic settings were set to the max, while the M1 MM did get hotter, but at a much slower rate. It is also important to note that while I was experiencing was above 100C on the M2 Pro, neither Macs' fans went above idle.

I did have something strange happen though, when I set both Macs to graphical setting "5" (default for the M2 Pro), the fps gain dropped from 200%-300% higher on the M2 Pro, to about only 50% higher. It didn't make any sense. Maybe it was because I had V-Sync turned on.

I am planning on doing more graphical settings testing between the two Macs, and next time with V-Sync turned off.

Another thing I noticed when comparing WoW on the two Macs, was that the load screen duration was about 25% slower on the older Mac Mini.

Warcraft III: Reforged - This game is a x86 app, not optimized for AS, and I didn't expect much improvement, but there was a huge improvement in performance on my new Mac Mini. On the 12c M2 Pro MM, I was able to turn all the graphical settings to the max, and the game runs great. While still playable, the M1 Mac Mini runs at a low frame rate, even with lower graphic settings. I am unsure of the actual fps, there is a new tool built into the macOS to see frame rates, but I don't think it works for x86 apps.

Handbrake - Most of my testing have been with Handbrake. I am comparing the performance between four different Macs, with the following: 3rd Gen i7, 4th Gen i7, M1, and 12c M2. I am testing two different codec settings (H.264, H.265), at two different video preset level (Medium, Placebo). I am using two different sources to compare, one is a movie from a DVD and the other is a movie from a Bluray. I am almost done with the DVD movie.

The outcome so far have been both good and kind of disappointing. For H.264, the new M2 pro has a decent improvement over the M1 and older Intel Macs. For H.265, I noticed that not all the cores are being utilized to 100% on the M2 Pro. It is still faster than the M1, but the performance improvement has decreased a lot. I am unsure if this is a limitation or bug of Handbrake, or a limitation of H.265.

I do not use H.265 currently, but was considering using it in the future to reduce the file size of my encodes, but based off of the performance (or lack of) of the M2 Pro, I will continue using H.264 for now.

After seeing the issue on H.265, I started doing some research, and it appears that Handbrake can fully utilize up to 6-cores, and each additional core has reduced performance. This isn't really noticeable on the 8c M1, but with the 12 cores on the M2 Pro using iStat Menus, you can see the cores randomly dropping with H.265.

For H.264, all the cores are almost fully used. So again, not sure if this is a Handbrake issue or a H.265 issue.

If your primary workload is using SW Encoding on Handbrake, and you are using the H.265 codec, it may not be worth it to pay for the extra two performance cores.

Some people ask about HW encoding on Handbrake, so maybe I might add that to my testing on all Macs as well.

Other than the above, I haven't done much else on my new Mac, yet.

Click to expand...

Freida said:

I wouldn't get the 12 core and I wouldn't get the 32gb ram. I would probably only consider the 1TB as the price of the upgrade is not bad and you get better speed.

32gb is almost useless unless your scenario is super specific. Its been proved by tons of benchmarks that 16 vs 32 gives you almost no advantage so that is money wasted right there.

And for 12 core, sure its a bit better but I don't think its worht it for the price.

And the 'excuse' for future proofing is just that - an excuse to validate unnecessary purchase.

The money you save now will be better used in the meantime (AAPL stock for example with dividends)
and will be used towards your device in the future that is actually miles ahead of today's one. M3 is meant to be bigger leap and if you plan to upgrade in 3-5 years than just buy what you need NOW/TODAY and not what you may or may not need. Wasting money now is often a bad decision.

Thats my 2c

Click to expand...

NeonNights said:

I am seriously leaning towards this direction of thinking.

I previously planned to get an M2 Pro 10c/16c and 32GB/1TB. My prior main laptop was a 2015 MBP 13 that I loved and it's still being used in our family, going on 8 years. However, in reality I upgraded to the M1 MBA and stopped using the 2015 MBP after five years. I didn't expect to want to upgrade from my 16GB M1 this soon after only ~2.5 years. It takes every conceivable app open (multiple browsers, multiple development suites, and multiple photo editing apps, FCP, etc) to get memory pressure in the yellow. I've been trying to convince myself I need 32GB for the "next machine" but honestly I don't. I definitely need the 1TB internal, plus some external drives, no question there. But yea, the 32GB RAM upgrade is a 33% price increase that I may not benefit from on a daily or regular basis. Ironically, I already returned a 16GB/1TB M2 Pro Mac Mini last month, lol. Still debating if I want to keep my 16GB/512GB M1 MBA and add a Mini, or replace MBA with MBP 14 with 16GB/1TB.

Click to expand...

NeonNights said:

I am seriously leaning towards this direction of thinking.

I previously planned to get an M2 Pro 10c/16c and 32GB/1TB. My prior main laptop was a 2015 MBP 13 that I loved and it's still being used in our family, going on 8 years. However, in reality I upgraded to the M1 MBA and stopped using the 2015 MBP after five years. I didn't expect to want to upgrade from my 16GB M1 this soon after only ~2.5 years. It takes every conceivable app open (multiple browsers, multiple development suites, and multiple photo editing apps, FCP, etc) to get memory pressure in the yellow with 16GB. I've been trying to convince myself I need 32GB for the "next machine" but honestly I don't. I definitely need the 1TB internal, plus some external drives, no question there. But yea, the 32GB RAM upgrade is a 33% price increase that I may not benefit from on a daily or regular basis. Ironically, I already returned a 16GB/1TB M2 Pro Mac Mini last month, lol. Still debating if I want to keep my 16GB/512GB M1 MBA and add a Mini, or replace MBA with MBP 14 with 16GB/1TB.

Click to expand...

Freida said:

And for 12 core, sure its a bit better but I don't think its worht it for the price.

Mardiel8128 said:

When will be good to have the extra two performance cores.

Freida said:

And the 'excuse' for future proofing is just that - an excuse to validate unnecessary purchase.

Freida said:

And for crying out loud, don't worry about bloody future proofing nonsense.

Juicy Box said:

If you compare to Intel Mac CPU and GPU upgrade prices, the amount of performance gained from the two extra performance cores and three extra GPU Cores is pretty cheap.

Now if it is "worth it" depends on many different things. With the Veteran discount, the 12c/19c upgrade was $270 for me, and I think it was well worth it for me for about the 20% potential increase for multi-core CPU and GPU performance.

For the CPU performance, any apps that can take advantage of having more CPU cores. Not all apps can (or do) take advantage of having more CPU cores. Although, with the core count increasing in the past few years, more and more apps are being updated to make use of those cores. I think Photoshop just recently added multi-core support.

For the GPU performance, the extra three GPU Cores could provide a decent bump in GPU performance, especially in games.

Now, whether or not the upgrade will be "worth it" totally depends on the user, what they do with their Mac, how patient they are.

I don't agree with this, at least in a general statement sense.

There are many possible examples of where future proofing would pay off.

Just one of countless examples is the 64GB option for the 2015 ATV4 (HD). At the time of launch, it was literally impossible to fill up the storage of the 32GB ATV, mostly due to the ridiculously tiny static storage size of apps on tvOS, but also due to the lack of available apps.

After Apple backtracked on several problematic decisions they made on tvOS including raising the static storage size, apps, especially games started launching on the tvOS App Store. In a very short period of time, the 64GB option went from pointless to necessary for some users, and if those users "future proofed" their purchase, they were most likely not going to have to deal with "Out of Storage" issues as much.

The same can be said with the storage size on the 2017 ATV4K before and after Apple Arcade launched.

That is not to say that everyone would have benefited from future proofing, but depending on what the user does or plans on doing in the future with their device, future proofing could really pay off.

Click to expand...

Freida said:

Paying for something that you won't need is useless.
Same goes for your future proof examples.

Freida said:

Advice is: don't spend more than you need. Simple as that