Geekbench painted a similarly disappointing picture. Benchmarks are only part of the picture, though. I'm not a programmer or a 3D designer, but I am a video editor, and to provide a real-world test I edited an episode of Engadget Today on the Mini using Premiere Pro.
Mac mini compatible professional studio sound recording microphones for superior voice and music recording. When it comes to USB microphones for your Mac the best option when it comes to versatility and convenience is the Blue Yeti. Not only can it.
The Mini performed better than I expected. Cutting footage, moving it around the timeline and basic playback were all smooth. It even played back 4K footage from my Sony FS5 with barely a hitch.
The limitations of the machine become particularly apparent when I began adding titles and color-correction. Premiere Pro and most editing software relies heavily on the GPU to render real-time previews once you've started modifying the footage with color and effects. That proved to be a real challenge for the Mini, and the preview playback became increasingly choppy as I added even basic effects.
Reducing the playback resolution helped a bit, but at a certain point, the footage just became challenging to work with. On one test of 4K footage using color, correction, a blur and a title, the Mini managed to display only 10 percent of the frames during a second playback. And forget about working at double speed which many editors do to save time ; once effects were added, the audio wouldn't even play if I tried to preview faster than real-time.
Even using proxies low-res temporary files in a format that should be easier for the program to read barely helped the situation. When exporting the footage, a task that generally doesn't rely heavily on the GPU, the Mini performed better. Despite the effects and color correction, Engadget Today came out with no glitches, though it took nearly three times as long as it does on the iMac Pro.
The lack of a dedicated graphics processor really seems to be the weak point here, and unfortunately, there's no easy way to rectify that. There are only three processors available for the Mini, and no option to add a discrete GPU. That's probably enough speed to leave the MacBook Pro in the dust, and should give the Mini some serious CPU processing power, but it won't improve the graphics performance at all. For a sense of how poor the graphics performance is, I tried one more test, Unigine's Valley benchmark.
This is the most recent test available for macOS, and while Unigine's benchmarks are intended as extreme stress tests for gaming graphics performance, Valley is from , so it's not exactly cutting-edge. Even so, on the lowest "basic" settings, at 1, x resolution, the Mini could only manage 20 frames per second. Switching to "Extreme" at x, that dropped to a pitiful four. Four frames per second. This is definitely not a system for gaming. Beyond the processor, there are a few other components you can upgrade. What it does have is one of Intel's new Kaby Lake G chips. They pack a remarkable amount of performance into a small SoC, and it's frankly odd this chip isn't an option in the Mac Mini, considering AMD graphics are already used in the higher-end iMac and MacBook Pros.
If you're in the market for a new system and are committed to macOS, the Mini does have a few selling points. Aside from 3D modeling and video editing, Apple mentions XCode and Music production on their website, and these actually seem like compelling use-cases for the Mini. CPU-dependent tasks like coding and audio engineering make sense for this system and wouldn't be held back by its specs. When Apple unveiled the Mini, it floated the idea of chaining multiple Minis together into a "Mini" server, and for serious CPU-based number crunching, that's actually an intriguing idea.
You would need a pretty specific workload to take advantage of a setup like this office server? Code compiler? Render farm? Apple's own marketing materials refer to the new mini as "part racehorse, all workhorse," and though they didn't go as far as branding this the "Mac Mini Pro" Apple is clearly positioning it as a high-performance computer. This makes the lack of a reasonable GPU all the more confounding. These types of GPU-driven number crunching are increasingly useful for scientific computing and data analysis tasks like encryption, image recognition, optimization and machine learning.
For music producers and people writing apps in Xcode, maybe the new Mini makes sense, but I don't imagine most other "pro" users will be happy with this level of performance. I can't help but shake my head at Apple's charts and graphics showing off how much faster the new Mini is than the model. Four years later, I'd certainly hope the new model would be faster.
Maybe this highlights the best professional use case for the new mini. A rendering machine that can handle CPU intensive tasks like compiling code and rendering graphics, but that you wouldn't actually want to do your daily work on. For general consumers, the Mini seems to fill the role of the family computer in the living room; a small, reliable desktop that should feel speedy and take care of basic work. But with many people having laptops or tablets, how essential is that any more?
If performance doesn't matter to you at all, then the new MacBook Air or even an entry-level MacBook Pro might be a better choice. All of those caveats aside, I actually like this machine. The design is terrific, and I love the options for add-ons and expandable storage, but I wouldn't want to have to work on it. It's possible that there's a cohort of people out there who are looking for an inexpensive macOS desktop with a ton of useful ports, who don't care about GPU performance and have been waiting for the past four years for a new computer.
For them, the Mac Mini is the perfect fit. Buyer's Guide. Log in. Sign up. Buy Now. Apple promises hostile treatment for sites that break Safari privacy rules. Latest Reviews. See all articles. There's a lot to like about this in spite of a few flaws. And among the current options, none is more time-tested and highly-reviewed than the Apogee Mic 96k.
When recording into a microphone, you ideally want to hear yourself in real-time through a set of headphones. And you can actually hear this time delay through your headphones! NOTE : All microphones on the list from this point forward also have this headphone jack feature. On the surface, it looks like your average cardioid dynamic handheld vocal mic for live performing. And it is in fact all of those things. How would a USB mic be used for live performing? Well the answer is… this one is actually designed for BOTH. The Spark Digital Lightning combines the sound quality of a proven studio microphone….
Some say it instantly brings any vocal track more forward in a mix. Others say it makes vocals sound great even in rooms with no acoustic treatment. Especially when it comes to recording instruments such as acoustic guitar for example. With the simple turn of a knob, you can fine tune the balance between the live and backing tracks to exactly what you want. Surprisingly, not all mics have this feature…but this one does. Check it out:. First up… 1.
Up next… 2.
Pretty cool huh? But is it?