| ▲ | bigyabai 4 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||
> It would be tough to get a windows machine at that price that gets anywhere close on performance Not that tough. I paid $299 for a Ryzen 5800h mini PC last year, which roughly lands in the same performance bracket. Would have considered the Mac Mini, but the AMD box has much better Linux support. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | alwillis 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
> a Ryzen 5800h mini PC last year, which roughly lands in the same performance bracket [as a Mac mini]. Not really. And this is before the M5 Mac mini which ships later this year. Putting it together in desktop‑mini form factors: - Raw CPU: M4 is much faster single‑core, generally faster multi‑core at lower power. - GPU: M4’s iGPU is roughly 2×+ Vega 8 and more modern. - Memory subsystem: M4 has far higher bandwidth and unified memory, ideal for integrated GPU and many modern workloads. - Efficiency/noise: M4 wins by a large margin; much higher perf per watt. - Compatibility: 5800H wins if you need bare‑metal x86 OSes like FreeBSD or specific x86‑only software stacks. - 5800H: 35–54 W configurable TDP in laptops; mini‑PC implementations often run it fairly hot to maintain clocks. - M4 in Mac mini: ~24 W base TDP, ~40 W boost, but getting clearly higher performance per watt. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | caminante 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Even if the mini is more power efficient at $600 base, saving $300 upfront pushes out the breakeven point. | |||||||||||||||||||||||