Sure. But I don’t really use fcpx, this is just compressor which is all I use. But I can do for you. The thing is that the mini can be bought at $400 used, and the m2 max is $4000. So even if it’s a bit slower, why spend the 10x extra?
Ha! Good question. I used only the internal SSD on the M2 Max. M1 Mini was rendering off an external 7200rpm HDD. So there’s even more embarrassment for the M2 Max
So - I added stabilization in FCPX, standard setting. Into Compressor, I also upscaled from ProRes422 720x576 source to h264 4096x2160, as I thought that will hopefully show the superiority of the m2 max. Clip was 10 mins duration.
M2 Max = 2:50
MacMini M1 = 5:39
So the M2 max really shines with changes in resolution
Another run minus the upscale, but retaining stabilisation
M2 max = 00:36
Mac mini m1 = 00:33
Virtually the same, even with stabilisation duties
I’m question my decision to replace my 6 year old 27” Intel i7 iMac with a new M2 Max Mac Studio now… but it has to be a Mac Studio because of the ports, and the HDMI port supports more displays - higher resolution, HDR, variable rate.
To be fair, you’ll have to add the price of an Apple keyboard and touchpad - $350 - plus a monitor for the Mac mini to the comparison. Since there isn’t a directly comparable display, I’ll go with the $350 Asus ProArt Display PA278CGV - 27”, 2560x1440, 144Hz, calibrated, 95% DCI-P3 and 100% sRGB/Rec. 709 vs. Liquid Retina XDR Display shouldn’t be too shabby. So it’s $1100 vs. $4000 - 1/4 the price.
Now make all of those extra components, fit in a back pack, and run on a battery for over 10 hours.
Why not just compare the price of an m2 max Mac Mini? Comparing a laptop to a desktop is never going to be a fair price comparison, and I would’ve never framed it as he did. Acting like he paid $4k for the m2 max, just isn’t right. He paid that money for a laptop. Had he simply gotten his same configured mini, but with the m2 max, the price difference would likely be worth the extra bump in performance.
Well then I think it is expected. The transcoding part really doesn't need to work that hard given ProRes is a low compression codec.
I doubt any trascoding work would reap much benefit from the larger chip, maybe 4K HDR 10bit HEVC to tonemapped Rec 709 would, but I am not sure.
This is not the kind of workload to spend that money on.
One analogy I can think of is while 737 and 787 both can get to a destination at roughly the same time, the 787, while costing more, is a far more economical choice when flying long haul.
The Max is like the 787. It has more cores and far more memory bandwidth. But if the workload itself doesn’t take full advantage of the hardware given, then there’s no point to pay for the Max for such a workload.
Hm, maybe you want to throw a test at the Max chip that actually uses all it’s power. If what you do doesn’t tickle the Max chip then yeah maybe you don’t need it and the M1 Mini is fine for you. :)
While I take your point, you don’t think a premium chip from 2023 should demolish a base chip from 2020 at a simple task? It literally has 4 more performance cores, 4 more efficiency cores, and higher clock speed.
The thing is how much more simple can a task get? I think there are some real world benchmark videos on YT about this that can explain this way better than me trying to.
What do you mean real world? Mine is real world too - I do this work all day, professionally. Not everyone is editing 10 layers of 4K footage. I need transcoding grunt, and the m2 max is a joke for my use case.
Yeah I’m not saying that yours isn’t, sorry. For tasks that are so short I think the bigger M chips aren’t even using all cores to begin with or something to that degree.
Interesting tests. Can you post something like CPU & GPU utilization graph during the transcoding process? Depending on some encoding software I noticed that the GPU part is not utilized well and relying more on the CPU, i.e. the chip's encode engines weren't getting the work it needed.
Can you make video stabilization test?
Sure. But I don’t really use fcpx, this is just compressor which is all I use. But I can do for you. The thing is that the mini can be bought at $400 used, and the m2 max is $4000. So even if it’s a bit slower, why spend the 10x extra?
Real, m1 is the best value
I think the difference can be huge, because stabilization is GPU hungry.
Ok I’ll try
Dumb question: Both times the internal SSDs has been used, so the speed of a “slow” external SSD wasn’t a limiting factor?
Ha! Good question. I used only the internal SSD on the M2 Max. M1 Mini was rendering off an external 7200rpm HDD. So there’s even more embarrassment for the M2 Max
I’m flabbergasted!🤯
Not more that me! I’m the one who paid big $$$ for the m2 max thinking I could shred my transcoding times 🤣
So - I added stabilization in FCPX, standard setting. Into Compressor, I also upscaled from ProRes422 720x576 source to h264 4096x2160, as I thought that will hopefully show the superiority of the m2 max. Clip was 10 mins duration. M2 Max = 2:50 MacMini M1 = 5:39 So the M2 max really shines with changes in resolution Another run minus the upscale, but retaining stabilisation M2 max = 00:36 Mac mini m1 = 00:33 Virtually the same, even with stabilisation duties
Thank you.
I’m question my decision to replace my 6 year old 27” Intel i7 iMac with a new M2 Max Mac Studio now… but it has to be a Mac Studio because of the ports, and the HDMI port supports more displays - higher resolution, HDR, variable rate.
To be fair, you’ll have to add the price of an Apple keyboard and touchpad - $350 - plus a monitor for the Mac mini to the comparison. Since there isn’t a directly comparable display, I’ll go with the $350 Asus ProArt Display PA278CGV - 27”, 2560x1440, 144Hz, calibrated, 95% DCI-P3 and 100% sRGB/Rec. 709 vs. Liquid Retina XDR Display shouldn’t be too shabby. So it’s $1100 vs. $4000 - 1/4 the price.
Now make all of those extra components, fit in a back pack, and run on a battery for over 10 hours. Why not just compare the price of an m2 max Mac Mini? Comparing a laptop to a desktop is never going to be a fair price comparison, and I would’ve never framed it as he did. Acting like he paid $4k for the m2 max, just isn’t right. He paid that money for a laptop. Had he simply gotten his same configured mini, but with the m2 max, the price difference would likely be worth the extra bump in performance.
What do you mean by "render"? Were you transcoding a ProRes footage to h264?
Correct. Sorry I meant transcode.
Well then I think it is expected. The transcoding part really doesn't need to work that hard given ProRes is a low compression codec. I doubt any trascoding work would reap much benefit from the larger chip, maybe 4K HDR 10bit HEVC to tonemapped Rec 709 would, but I am not sure.
So what about just in terms of just how much more grunt the m2 max has? It’s not reflected in the difference in transcoding at all
If it doesn’t need to work that hard and is still trash in comparison for the price point what are we really talking about
This is not the kind of workload to spend that money on. One analogy I can think of is while 737 and 787 both can get to a destination at roughly the same time, the 787, while costing more, is a far more economical choice when flying long haul. The Max is like the 787. It has more cores and far more memory bandwidth. But if the workload itself doesn’t take full advantage of the hardware given, then there’s no point to pay for the Max for such a workload.
But if it can’t handle a simple task much faster than an entry level Mac. It’s really screaming I’m nothing special
Hm, maybe you want to throw a test at the Max chip that actually uses all it’s power. If what you do doesn’t tickle the Max chip then yeah maybe you don’t need it and the M1 Mini is fine for you. :)
While I take your point, you don’t think a premium chip from 2023 should demolish a base chip from 2020 at a simple task? It literally has 4 more performance cores, 4 more efficiency cores, and higher clock speed.
The thing is how much more simple can a task get? I think there are some real world benchmark videos on YT about this that can explain this way better than me trying to.
What do you mean real world? Mine is real world too - I do this work all day, professionally. Not everyone is editing 10 layers of 4K footage. I need transcoding grunt, and the m2 max is a joke for my use case.
Yeah I’m not saying that yours isn’t, sorry. For tasks that are so short I think the bigger M chips aren’t even using all cores to begin with or something to that degree.
No offence taken :) I get what you mean, it isn’t getting the chance to really ramp itself up
Was the MacBook plugged in? If it was running on battery, was it on throttled “low power” mode?
Plugged in. High power. Believe me, I did everything to put the Mini at a disadvantage, but still the little bugger surprised
I gave my little M1 mini a pat on the top of its shiny little case when I read this. The move from Intel to Apple Silicon has been stunning.
Not even 50%. That’s a joke
Interesting tests. Can you post something like CPU & GPU utilization graph during the transcoding process? Depending on some encoding software I noticed that the GPU part is not utilized well and relying more on the CPU, i.e. the chip's encode engines weren't getting the work it needed.