Apple’s little silver square has always been a study in contrasts: tiny yet ambitious, quiet yet powerful, simple yet surprisingly adaptable. The latest model—powered by the new M4 family—raises the bar again.
I parked the M4 Pro configuration (14-core CPU, 20-core GPU, 48 GB unified memory, 1 TB SSD, optional 10 Gb Ethernet) on my desk, wired up a pair of 4K displays, and threw my entire mixed workload at it: 4K Premiere projects, thousands of raws in Lightroom Classic, multi-gigabyte data sets, and the kind of multithreaded code compiles that usually make laptops sweat.
If the M3-era MacBook Pro felt like Apple’s declaration that desktops could be mobile, the Mac mini M4 Pro feels like the company’s reminder that desktop form factors still matter, especially when they disappear under your display but outperform workstations ten times their size. Grab a drink, because Apple’s smallest computer now lands some very big punches.
Specifications
- Chips: M4 (10C/10G) or M4 Pro (12C/16G or 14C/20G)
- Our unit: 14-core CPU (10 performance plus 4 efficiency), 20-core GPU, 16-core Neural Engine, 273 GB/s memory bandwidth
- Memory options: 16, 24, 32 GB on lower chips; 48 GB or 64 GB on this top M4 Pro trim
- Storage: 256, 512 GB, 1, 2, 4, or 8 TB PCIe 4.0 SSD (ours is 1 TB)
- Front I/O: 2 × USB-C (USB 3, up to 10 Gb/s) + 3.5 mm headphone jack
- Rear I/O (M4 Pro): 3 × Thunderbolt 5 (up to 120 Gb/s), HDMI 2.1, RJ45 (1 Gb/s configurable to 10 GbE), AC-in
- Wireless: Wi-Fi 6E, Bluetooth 5.3
- Display support (M4 Pro): Up to three 6K at 60 Hz screens or one 8K at 60 Hz and one 4K at 240 Hz combo
- Dimensions and weight: 5 × 5 × 2 in (12.7 × 12.7 × 5 cm); 1.6 lb / 0.73 kg
- Acoustics: 5 dBA at idle (basically silent)
Design
Apple has never tried to hide that the Mac mini is a more traditional computer: you supply the peripherals, it supplies raw processing. What’s changed is how few compromises remain. Pop the 2024 model next to a 2018 mini and the two machines don't even share a silhouette anymore, because it's so compact. The entire chassis is CNC-milled recycled aluminium and still cool to the touch even after a forty-minute export. The base remains a circular vent; with a rubber bottom lifting the unit just high enough for airflow.
Front USB-C ports matter, full stop. My card reader now lives on the desk instead of dangling from a hub, and I have another free to easily connect peripherals as needed without having to do gymnastics behind my desk. Around back, three Thunderbolt 5 jacks unlock 120 Gb/s of bandwidth—handy when you realize a single 40 Gb/s enclosure no longer scares the bus.
At just 1.6 pounds, the mini is lighter than any full frame lens I own, yet the enclosure feels solid as can be. You can easily hide it wherever you want and create a very minimalist, clean desk.
The only complaint I have with the design is the power button, which is located under the computer. Granted, it's rare these days that I full shut down a computer; rather, they go to sleep most of the time when I step away, but when you do need to turn on the computer from a fully powered down state, it's a bit annoying.
Chip, RAM, and Real-World Performance
The Numbers
Geekbench 6 posts a 3,822 single-core and 22,340 multi-core CPU score, plus a 110,104 Metal GPU number for this 14C/20G variant. For reference, that’s about 50% faster multi-core than a 2023 M2 Pro mini. Apple is making impressive progress with each new generation. That's even more evident when you consider the fact that the M4 Pro Mac mini boasts better scores than my speed demon M1 Ultra Mac Studio.
Hands-on Workload Testing
What does that mean in practice? It's fast. I've been working on an intense multi-core Python project for several months. Each run of the program requires spatial interpolation and analysis of almost a million points. Once they're aligned, the program conducts a massive search of several million combinations of points to see which satisfy criteria, then performs a three-dimensional analysis of those that pass the filter. It's an extremely demanding workflow that normally takes a minute or two to run and sends cooling fans running to leaf blower levels. Running program with my test data, I noticed it ran notably more quickly than on my M1 Max, which already did an impressive job with it, and the M4 Pro is a lower-tier chip with a lower power draw. That's impressive.Memory Ceiling
Unified memory remains Apple’s joker. Its deep integration with the SOC means its very fast, and that's important for anyone working on large data sets or large Photoshop files.
Storage
Does 1 TB feel cramped in 2025? If you shoot photo and video, yes—but Thunderbolt 5 has made “internal versus external” almost moot. That being said, it's good to have at least 512 GB on your internal drive for the OS and apps. And the internal storage is fast; I normally get about 6,000 MB/s read and 5,000 MB/s write speeds. That's a big deal when you're a creative frequently dealing with massive files; we all know how annoying it can be waiting on slow copies and transfers.
Cooling and Acoustics
The entire thermal story fits in one line of the spec sheet: 5 dBA idle. Because the mini sits further from your ears than a laptop keyboard, perceived volume is lower than the MacBook Pro even when RPM is similar. During most work, you'll never hear it. When the fan does spin up, it's quite quiet. It won't bother you.
Ports and Connectivity
-
Thunderbolt 5 (3×): 120 Gb/s. These are the most versatile ports, capable of keeping up with the fastest external SSDs or driving high-resolution displays.
-
HDMI 2.1: Up to 8K resolution at 60 Hz or 4K resolution at 240 Hz
-
10 Gb Ethernet: This is great to have if you have the wiring in your house or office. I unfortunately don't, but with Wi-Fi 6E, I can get 9.6 Gbps speeds.
-
Front USB-C: rated for 10 Gb/s, which is over a gigabyte a second, making them plenty fast and convenient enough for offloading files from a shoot.
Missing pieces? An SD slot would have made the front I/O perfect. Apple clearly wants the mini to feel universal, not photo-specific.
Audio
The mini retains a single down-firing driver for system beeps—nothing you’d play music on—but the 3.5 mm jack supports high-impedance cans. HDMI 2.1 passes 24-bit Dolby Atmos to my soundbar without handshake issues.
The Value Proposition
Starting at $549, it's hard to argue the value proposition of the Mac Mini. That being said, if I had to recommend a sweet spot configuration for photographers and videographers, it would be the M4 model with 32 GB of unified memory, a 1 TB SSD, and Gigabit Ethernet for $1,399. You probably don't need 10 Gb Ethernet unless you're working off a large NAS (and Wi-Fi 6E helps that), 32 GB of memory can handle most tasks, and 1 TB will leave you plenty of room for the OS and any apps you need. Remember that the storage and unified memory are not upgradeable, so be sure to get what you need.
What I Liked
-
Desktop-class speed in a 5-inch square.
-
48 GB unified memory that's very fast.
-
Thunderbolt 5 × 3 feels properly future-proof.
-
Front-facing USB-C—small change, massive daily convenience.
-
Whisper-quiet, even mid-render.
-
Energy frugal.
-
Environmentally forward: recycled aluminium, copper, gold, rare-earths, ENERGY STAR certified.
What I Didn’t Like
-
No SD slot.
-
Power button location.
Conclusion
The Mac mini is a computer that has no right to be this small, this quiet, and this fast at the same time. Apple’s silicon trajectory once again redefines what “entry desktop” means: the mini matches much larger computers in media tasks, matches or surpasses last generation’s Mac Studio in many pro workloads, and sips power while doing it. If you manage large photo libraries, edit multi-camera 4K footage, or run million-line compiles and already own decent peripherals, this is the single best-value Mac you can buy.
It won’t replace a laptop on location; it doesn’t try. Instead, it promises that when you’re back at the desk, the bottleneck will be your imagination, not your hardware. Plug it in, forget it’s there, and watch your renders finish before the coffee gets cold. That, to me, is the ultimate creative tool: unfussy, unshowy, unstoppable.
Now that I no longer need a gaming PC, and because Photoshop does not need a top of the range graphics card, I am seriously considering one of these to reduce the footprint of my desktop. The performance will be an improvement overall because my PC is 5 years old now, but not significant. Other improvements will matter more - for example the new generation of Thunderbolt for external drives, lower power consumption and my desire to have something that doesn't need significant floor / desk space. I've seen real world performance in both the only game I play and more importantly, graphics applications. This is a good machine and although the price is maybe 5-10% more than an equivalent spec'd PC, it's worth it in my view for some of the upgraded features.
I really do recommend it. It's a fantastic computer.
What I like about it most is, while not a laptop, it is extremely portable. I'd easily be able to take this with me somewhere that has access to a monitor, keyboard and mouse (like a trip to visit family) and hook it up to work remotely if I had a need to. I also like that it can realistically run World of Warcraft at respectable frame rates.. hey everyone needs down time.
100%. It fits in the palm of my hand! And agreed, we all deserve our downtime!
Heck you could buy a portable 15 inch USB-C monitor if you wanted. Works with one cable too. I got one for 50 bucks and it's been a huge help along side my laptop.
Description of pricing is misleading. The unit YOU TESTED costs $2199, not the $549 for the base model or the $1399 for the non-Pro model you quoted. For $2199, one can get a 3-year-old M1 Ultra with 64GB RAM, TWO Neural Engines, and more than twice the CPU and GPU cores. Also, your Python project sounds interesting, but it’s hardly representative of the photo workflows of the vast majority of photo enthusiasts and pros.
I run an event photo biz and process hundreds of photos on tight deadlines, applying power-hungry noise reduction. I just upgraded to an M1 Max Mac Studio that has 32 GPU cores, 32GB RAM and 2TB storage for $1000. It’s driving two 32” 4K displays, and I couldn’t be happier with it.
Even so, the biggest speed-ups in my workflow of late have been DxO’s new DeepPRIME 3 noise reduction, which is 3x faster than XD2s and just as good for my event work, and switching to wired gigabit internet that uploads my deliverables 20x faster than the cable service I had before and costs the same.
I have the M4 max with 48 gigs of RAM and it smokes. It's so good. I wouldn't worry about going for the 2 TB storage because the best way to run max is to actually keep the hard drives empty as you can and run all your storage externally, if you fill up the storage on MacBook, they slow down anyone that uses a Mac knows this.. and the only reason I went for the laptop M4 Max is that I often go out to clients and meet businesses as well and it's just so convenient having the laptop I have the 16 inch and it's a great screen and I don't even have a external monitor, I like being able to travel with it as well it did cost me $6000 Australian but it's well worth it because I run GFX cameras and I do need to run the noise on a lot of photos. It's really really good. I swear by Macs..... but I wouldn't be buying an M1 .....
the reason I bought the laptop M4 Max is I use GFX and the files are very thirsty. If you own a GFX camera I don't see the point in downgrading your file grade to fit your hardware. You better off upgrading your hardware and I knew this was going to occur, but I've made a fair bit of money over the last six months from my very small photography business that I run and it was the best investment I made. I went for the M4 Max 16 inch 48 gigs of RAM and I don't regret it.
That's nice. The point of diminishing returns varies with use. For my workflow, there's little advantage to anything more than a stock M1 Max Mac Studio. 8 years ago, a high-end Mac that would take 3 hours instead of 6 to export an event job would have been a justifiable expense. But now, it really doesn't matter to me whether it takes 1 hour or 30 minutes.
Yeah 👌 true. Running De noise on my GFX was the hardest on my m1 mac. Now its hiy knife through butter. I donr stuore anything on the mac interal SSD. The emptier it is the smoother it runs.
Its something many mac users dont realise.
Adobe's AI Denoise is a GPU hog. DxO's DeepPRIME XD2s and DeepPRIME 3 run 2x and 5x faster, respectively, than AI Denoise on my stock M1 Max Studio. A 61MP RAW takes just 6.1s (DP3) or 17.5s (XD2s). If I had to run XD2s on 2,000 wedding images, I'd want an Ultra. But, DP3 is quick and very effective. And, if I get time-crunched, I can move a batch to my M1 Pro MBP and cut the export time in half.
As for internal storage, I've increased my minimum. I was surprised to find that my 512GB was about 2/3 full, even though I keep my Studio streamlined and all my big data external. Turns out RAM swaps, caches, and iOS device backups took up way more space than I had realized. Now, I start at 1TB for a desktop and 512GB for a laptop. Doesn't seem to affect performance, but I'm not doing huge layered PS work that stresses the scratch disk.
Yeah thats the go
I dont use anything but LR ...i prefer simple workflow in one place. LR denoise set to 40%
Ram is king from whay ibe observed and been told.
RAM isn't king unless you're doing something that requires a lot of it. The performance differences between the two Studios and MBPs I've tested recently seem attributable to form factor and GPU core count, not RAM. It doesn't seem to matter whether I have 16GB or 32GB of RAM. This was true of my M1 Mac mini (16GB) and M1 MBA (8GB) as well.
Also, I tested an M1 Max MBP with 32 GPU cores and 64GB RAM alongside my M1 Max Studio with 32 GPU cores and 32GB RAM, and the Studio was substantially faster on AI Denoise (14:47 vs 19:07) and slightly faster on DxO DeepPRIME XD2s.
I've been on the fence between the Mac Mini M4 Pro and the Studio M4 Max. I use a combination of Nikon Z8 and Fuji GFX 100s and the reason that I haven't upgraded yet. I currently use both a Windows 11 I9 and Mac Mini M2 Pro.
File size is just one variable. It makes a huge difference what you're doing with them. On some processes, GPU count makes a big difference, while on others it makes none.
Yeah definitely file size makes a huge difference. It wouldn't matter what computer you use for the hundred megapixel files. They are gonna be a little bit slow but currently in terms of De-noise... it's about 20 seconds per photo and that's pretty fast. I will batch the noise the ones that I think need to have it and basically anything over 500 ISO on the GFX and I can choose these from Lightroom. Hit the command button pick the photos that I need to run the program on and just leave it for about 10 minutes and the 25 to 30 photos that I've chosen are done and then I can begin the process so it's not a major inconvenience. I really like the MacBook M4 Max it's such a great computer and it's not noisy at all and I can multitask really well on it. The reason I own the laptop is that I can take it to businesses and clients in cafes and I can show them my work while I'm sitting in a cafe which I really like doing I don't do everything from home. I sometimes enjoy just having a nice coffee or a glass of wine and edit photos I don't find the editing process tedious either. I actually really enjoy editing. Call me strange but I do.
My M1 Max Studio is 25% faster on AI Denoise than the 14" M1 Max MacBook Pro I tested with the same numbers of cores. I wonder if that holds true for the M4 Max variants. I also wonder whether a 16" MBP might suffer less throttling than a 14".
As for the difference that file size makes, I've found that processing time scales linearly with pixel count when running DeepPRIME. IOW, I get about 3.5 megapixels per second with XD2s, regardless of the RAW file's pixel count. So, I expect a 100MP GFX image would take 28 seconds on my Studio. AI Denoise would take about twice that. If you're reliant on AI Denoise, more GPU cores help, but if you run DxO, they make a much smaller difference.
As for AI Denoise in your workflow, what do you do with all those huge DNG files Adobe creates along the way? And, do you make adjustments to the RAW files before AI Denoise or to the DNGs after? I'd be inclined to make adjustments first, so they're saved in .dop sidecar files for future tweaking and re-processing, and convert the DNGs created by AI Denoise to lossy to save storage space while retaining a finished file for re-use that's more versatile than a JPEG.
once I have edited them, I save all my files to SSD's. I am thinking about a NAS but given that NAS systems fail at the same percentage as external SSD's I don't see the point and the modern SSDs are superfast. I'm not moving a lot of files back-and-forth all the time. I save them as backup and that's it and then I've got them stored on Lightroom as well plus I have dropbox and I have plenty of storage options so I keep everything. I saved small JPEG for social media and sharing with clients and then I save all the files as tiff if they are going to be printed which does mean a lot of storage but that's okay. Storage is cheap now I do really well in my very small photography business and I have a reasonably well paid day job as well. I'm not filthy rich by any stretch but I'm not poor so I don't mind buying the extra storage. It's not a major inconvenience.
Sounds like your setup is appropriate for your needs. If you've got 8TB or less, it makes sense and covers the bases. For a busy event shooter with dozens of terabytes of photos, SSDs are still not price-competitive, and the need for a local backup makes them even less so.
I'm still curious about your workflow. Why are you keeping even the large intermediate DNGs that AI Denoise creates?
I tend to keep everything and then just store it on an SSD once I've applied the D noise to the photo. I can also go into Lightroom and go back to the original photo quite simply as well so I've got two options with it.
I'm 99% sold, but, I wish this review had directly compared the Mini4 to the Mini Studio.
Do you mean the Mac Studio? There is no mini Studio.
There is no Mini4, either.
Yes I meant the Mac Studio and the Mini M4.
🙄
Ok Thunderbold 5 is still nowhere available or so expensive. Internal upgrade is almost impossible or so expensive for Mac mini. Small form factor is also available on Windows size, just take a look at the new AMD Ryzen™ Al Max+ 395. 16 cores 32 threads with up to 128 gigs memory. AI core cpu.
It seems on the top end of budgets that processor wins out on value vs cost as the higher spec'd PC's with the AMD chip in them that I've been seeing are much cheaper than a spec'd out M4 Mac Mini Pro with comparable performance.
On the lower end of budgets and less specs though I haven't seen anything around the same price as a base mode M4 Mac Mini. The Mac Mini at $599 for the base model absolutely dominates it's competition in the same space when it comes to performance per dollar. Even I've been thinking about buying one and I don't like Macs lol
I'm a Macintosh hater and even I can see that the base model M4 Mac Mini is the best PC on the market for the money right now and even then some. It's just very powerful for what you're spending which is crazy coming from apple. Although those upgrade options to get the specs you tested at are extremely expensive.