Mac Mini is always on sale for $600 which is less than this. It has a significantly more powerful iGPU than anything AMD offers, neural engine, hardware video encoders, significantly faster ST, and only slightly slower MT, all while using 1/3 the power and virtually silent.
Because the memory is integrated and unified in the M1, people have been saying that 8GB really runs like 16GB.
So much misinformation and lies from lemubutton. First of all, there is no such thing as an "5800HX". It is the Ryzen 9 5900HX. Secondly, the 5900HX actually does outperform Apple M1 in multithreaded or MT performance.
Also, as someone who was exploring M1 for home lab use (for Plex, VMs, and the like), macOS has to rely on severe disk swapping with the 8GB models. I imagine that in a couple years from now, there are going to be a lot of warranty claims on those models.
What? Cinebench? That's a real benchmark right? 99.9999% of the people buying computers won't use Cinema4D. Cinebench only became popular because it was heavily skewed toward AMD's architecture. AMD fanbois run Cinebench everyday to get their d hard.
SPEC and Geekbench agrees. M1 is significantly better in the CPU department and worlds better in GPU, ML, efficiency.
I don't have ANY AMD systems in my arsenal right now and I run Cinebench all the time predominantly to assess single threaded performance that's reasonably compute-intensive across all of my Intel systems.
Conversely though, if you want the fastest single-threaded performance (where preparing my cases for computational fluid dynamics using Ansys CFX is a HIGHLY single-threaded application), the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X clearly shows that it would perform better at that task than any of Intel's offerings.
The current case that I am setting up is simulating 5 GPUs sitting side-by-side next to each other, at 90 mm spacing, which has 7,601,520 nodes and 28,911,100 elements.
And when it comes to multi-threaded performance, you can't even BUY a 64-core/128-thread from Intel, let alone two in a dual socket system, which again, AMD spanks Intel.
This isn't about being an AMD fanboi. My current micro HPC cluster consists of four nodes, each node with dual Intel Xeon E5-2690 (total of 64 cores and 512 GB of RAM) and I am looking for a solution that will replace that. Why run four nodes (with 100 Gbps 4x EDR Infiniband as the system interconnect) when I can consolidate that down to a single system and have upto TWICE the number of coures/threads in a single system vs. four nodes?
The data and market availability of the products speaks for itself.
I pick the processor that does the task at hand, the best, whether it's Intel or AMD.
You can't "Run 8GB like it was 16GB". That's like saying that your 1TB SSD can store 2TB of data. You either have enough space to keep an application in RAM or you don't, period.
OSX is a lot more memory efficient than Windows. A Macbook Air with 8 gigs will run similar to a Windows laptop with 16 gigs for most things (I don't own anything OSX btw) It's kind of like iOS vs Android. iOS just runs better with less memory.
Your disk space analogy's accurate, but programs aren't always the same size between OS's. I mainly use Serato on my Win laptop, the latest Windows version's 752 megs, but the OSX version's 217 megs and they're identical feature wise. So I'd go so far as to say even disk wise, 1tb isn't exactly equal on Win and OSX.
MacOS likes to swap the memory space of processes that aren't active, which does help with the memory management. It also benefits from very fast SSD's that use their custom controller and firmware. But if you have a single program that takes close to 8GB of RAM or more, no OS magic will save you. And third-party programs can be quite grabby when it comes to RAM. In fact, when Mini's were just released, there were tests that showed that 8GB version was doing way more swapping than the 16GB one even under the normal light use. So, it's not so much that it's 8/16GB because you never need more, but because they can't package more, at least not at that price point. It's not simply slotted/soldered, after all.
While having fast memory and storage, along with good memory management, can help memory be used more efficiently, at the end of the day it is less memory.
And if you're going to be using the 'better' CPU and GPU then you are more likely to be using enough memory for you to simply not have enough to run what you want all at once.
But you wrote, 'people have been saying that 8GB really runs like 16GB.', so I'm confident you have no idea what you are on about and just parrot others.
"Because the memory is integrated and unified in the M1, people have been saying that 8GB really runs like 16GB."
My NUC has 32 GB of RAM in it, and I've got 6 VMs running on that thing right now, as we speak, with 21.6 GB of 32 GB used (including the host system).
I can't do that with a Mac Mini even if it might "feel" like there's more RAM. You can't provision hardware that you don't have.
If you can fit 6 VMs plus the host OS, and five of the VMs has 2 GB of RAM and the sixth has 8 GB of RAM with swap DISABLED/turned off - then I'll buy what you're saying.
Sounds like someone is a bit of an Apple fanboi.
And really? You're going to compare sale prices against MSRP??? Really???
It's moot point as all you can do with a Mac is turn it on and off. Not enough applications, not enough games, too limiting all around compared to a Windows PC. I want to do things my way not Apples backward way or the highway.
Dude, can you point me towards your dealer. Whatever it is he's selling you it must be good if you believe a machine with a Ryzen 5900HX is less powerful than an anemic M1. My laptop with the HS runs circles around the M1 lol. These mac fanboys really live in an alternate reality...
You may dislike Apple fanboys but your own comments just add to the hyperbole and rhetoric.
Objectively it’s give and take between the M1 and this. If you value single threaded performance the M1 wins handily and does it using 1/3 of the power, however it’s effectively only a quad core part so higher core count processors like the 5900HX get the edge in parallel computing.
While they can trade blows on various benchmarks. I’m not sure I’d really be comparing these as there aren’t a lot of people cross shopping MacOS systems with DIY barebones, but I think I get the OP’s point in that Apple systems are usually priced at a premium and often used as a “what you can get for the money” high mark.
I have a 16/256 M1 Mini and placed an order for the barebones version of this HX90 to replace my ancient Broadwell NUC. That one's become inadequate a while ago, but HX90 is the first recent offering in this segment that clicked with me. One thing people seem to miss is that it's as much about the software as it's about the hardware. I bought an M1 for MacOS, and ordered this one for Windows. The reality is that no hardware+software combination is perfect, and it's convenient to have both stacks if you can afford that. Arguing which one will get more parrots in this or that benchmark is besides the point for this class of computers.
The AMD solution is pretty solid despite the lack of TB4. Good to see better networking options. This barebones at $500 would be an absolute killer deal.
M1 mac mini really only has power efficiency going for it when compared to 5900HX. In the ultra portable form factor, where you encounter U series chips, sure, M1 is king. But in NUC like and desktop replacement laptop segment? No way M1 will beat those.
Now, if you are speculating about M1X, M2 and M2X, we'll just have to wait and see.
M1 is faster than the 5800HX in MT according to Geekbench which is a better all around benchmarking tool than the heavily AMD-favored Cinebench. No one uses Cinema4D. Move on from the stupid benchmark.
You are wrong. Ryzen 9 5900X is significantly faster in ST Geekbench than Apple M1 (1800 ... 1850 for 5900X vs. 1700 ... 1750 for Apple M1).
Also in all the other single-thread benchmarks for which there are public results for both 5900X and M1, 5900X is faster. In multithreaded benchmarks, of course 5900X is many times faster.
The Apple M1 at 3.2 GHz has the single-thread speed of a Zen 3 at 4.5 ... 4.6 GHz.
The mobile 5800HX has only 4.4 GHz, so here you are right, it should be slower than an Apple M1 in single-thread tasks. On the other hand, in multi-thread tasks 5800HX will be faster. A mobile Ryzen 9, with a 4.8 GHz frequency, will be faster in ST GB5 than M1.
When discussing Geekbench results for non-Apple computers, you must take care to find the highest non-overclocked results, because the Geekbench database is polluted with thousands of excessively low results, usually from misconfigured Windows machines, where an antivirus or other junk applications interfere with the benchmark, and also with thousands of too high results from overclocked computers.
The fans of M1 frequently ignore this and they usually compare good results from M1 to some random abnormally low result for another CPU. Correct results for Ryzen 9 5900X must be well over 1800, but in the database there also many incorrect results e.g. 1600 or other impossible values.
Who cares about such a small ST difference? One runs Windows and not OS X, the other runs OS X and not Windows. That's kind of the elephant. MT is for multitasking, which any micro build is going to have to worry about throttling if they don't run into the RAM ceiling first
Where does the info about SODIMMs having to be 1.2V come from? 5900HX is supposedly overclockable, and GPU will certainly benefit from the increased memory bandwidth. Even 3200 profiles on many modules require 1.35V, and getting them to 3600 can easily require 1.42V.
For years, these small PCs less value than a laptop. Not a fan of Apple but their Mac Mini is significantly cheaper than the Macbook Air, I'd think twice between them. Having said that, Apple is so large now they can provide high end, cutting edge products at prices now reasonable vs competition.
I find the comparison with the Mac Mini a bit strange.
I am not a gamer, but I would think a Mac Mini to be a lousy investment as a game box. Or a Plex server.
Personally the Mac would the better choice for me, but I need very specific music and video production tools. The upper limits of 16GB on the Mac (or this Tiger Lake box) make me nervous.
Appeals to benchmarks just confuse the argument. Accepting the limitations of these physically tiny machines, focus on your specific needs and be happy.
Isn't MinisForum the site where everything is essentially pre-order? They charge your card before the product ships, then use the money to actually build the systems. Seems shady.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
41 Comments
Back to Article
lemurbutton - Thursday, August 5, 2021 - link
More expensive than a Mac Mini but less powerful all around.satai - Thursday, August 5, 2021 - link
$1,099 for Mac Mini 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD. You can't get more RAM.HX90 - 32GB RAM + 512GB SSD ($909 - $1009)
CPU and GPU performance will vastly differ based on what you try to do.
lemurbutton - Thursday, August 5, 2021 - link
Mac Mini is always on sale for $600 which is less than this. It has a significantly more powerful iGPU than anything AMD offers, neural engine, hardware video encoders, significantly faster ST, and only slightly slower MT, all while using 1/3 the power and virtually silent.Because the memory is integrated and unified in the M1, people have been saying that 8GB really runs like 16GB.
lemurbutton - Thursday, August 5, 2021 - link
Edit: Actually the M1 has faster MT than the 5800HX according to Geekbench 5. And obviously it blows the 5800HX away in ST.satai - Thursday, August 5, 2021 - link
Geekbench...Hifihedgehog - Thursday, August 12, 2021 - link
So much misinformation and lies from lemubutton. First of all, there is no such thing as an "5800HX". It is the Ryzen 9 5900HX. Secondly, the 5900HX actually does outperform Apple M1 in multithreaded or MT performance.Proof:
Ryzen 9 5900HX: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/9279268
Apple M1: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/9283163
Also, as someone who was exploring M1 for home lab use (for Plex, VMs, and the like), macOS has to rely on severe disk swapping with the 8GB models. I imagine that in a couple years from now, there are going to be a lot of warranty claims on those models.
Makaveli - Thursday, August 5, 2021 - link
lol geekbench?Can you find a real benchmark?
lemurbutton - Friday, August 6, 2021 - link
What? Cinebench? That's a real benchmark right? 99.9999% of the people buying computers won't use Cinema4D. Cinebench only became popular because it was heavily skewed toward AMD's architecture. AMD fanbois run Cinebench everyday to get their d hard.SPEC and Geekbench agrees. M1 is significantly better in the CPU department and worlds better in GPU, ML, efficiency.
alpha754293 - Thursday, August 12, 2021 - link
Dumb.I don't have ANY AMD systems in my arsenal right now and I run Cinebench all the time predominantly to assess single threaded performance that's reasonably compute-intensive across all of my Intel systems.
Conversely though, if you want the fastest single-threaded performance (where preparing my cases for computational fluid dynamics using Ansys CFX is a HIGHLY single-threaded application), the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X clearly shows that it would perform better at that task than any of Intel's offerings.
The current case that I am setting up is simulating 5 GPUs sitting side-by-side next to each other, at 90 mm spacing, which has 7,601,520 nodes and 28,911,100 elements.
And when it comes to multi-threaded performance, you can't even BUY a 64-core/128-thread from Intel, let alone two in a dual socket system, which again, AMD spanks Intel.
This isn't about being an AMD fanboi. My current micro HPC cluster consists of four nodes, each node with dual Intel Xeon E5-2690 (total of 64 cores and 512 GB of RAM) and I am looking for a solution that will replace that. Why run four nodes (with 100 Gbps 4x EDR Infiniband as the system interconnect) when I can consolidate that down to a single system and have upto TWICE the number of coures/threads in a single system vs. four nodes?
The data and market availability of the products speaks for itself.
I pick the processor that does the task at hand, the best, whether it's Intel or AMD.
Wereweeb - Thursday, August 5, 2021 - link
You can't "Run 8GB like it was 16GB". That's like saying that your 1TB SSD can store 2TB of data. You either have enough space to keep an application in RAM or you don't, period.QueBert - Thursday, August 5, 2021 - link
OSX is a lot more memory efficient than Windows. A Macbook Air with 8 gigs will run similar to a Windows laptop with 16 gigs for most things (I don't own anything OSX btw) It's kind of like iOS vs Android. iOS just runs better with less memory.Your disk space analogy's accurate, but programs aren't always the same size between OS's. I mainly use Serato on my Win laptop, the latest Windows version's 752 megs, but the OSX version's 217 megs and they're identical feature wise. So I'd go so far as to say even disk wise, 1tb isn't exactly equal on Win and OSX.
pdakkar - Thursday, August 5, 2021 - link
MacOS likes to swap the memory space of processes that aren't active, which does help with the memory management. It also benefits from very fast SSD's that use their custom controller and firmware. But if you have a single program that takes close to 8GB of RAM or more, no OS magic will save you. And third-party programs can be quite grabby when it comes to RAM. In fact, when Mini's were just released, there were tests that showed that 8GB version was doing way more swapping than the 16GB one even under the normal light use. So, it's not so much that it's 8/16GB because you never need more, but because they can't package more, at least not at that price point. It's not simply slotted/soldered, after all.Tams80 - Friday, August 6, 2021 - link
While having fast memory and storage, along with good memory management, can help memory be used more efficiently, at the end of the day it is less memory.And if you're going to be using the 'better' CPU and GPU then you are more likely to be using enough memory for you to simply not have enough to run what you want all at once.
But you wrote, 'people have been saying that 8GB really runs like 16GB.', so I'm confident you have no idea what you are on about and just parrot others.
alpha754293 - Thursday, August 12, 2021 - link
"Because the memory is integrated and unified in the M1, people have been saying that 8GB really runs like 16GB."My NUC has 32 GB of RAM in it, and I've got 6 VMs running on that thing right now, as we speak, with 21.6 GB of 32 GB used (including the host system).
I can't do that with a Mac Mini even if it might "feel" like there's more RAM. You can't provision hardware that you don't have.
If you can fit 6 VMs plus the host OS, and five of the VMs has 2 GB of RAM and the sixth has 8 GB of RAM with swap DISABLED/turned off - then I'll buy what you're saying.
Sounds like someone is a bit of an Apple fanboi.
And really? You're going to compare sale prices against MSRP??? Really???
That sounds like it's a terrible idea.
lemurbutton - Thursday, August 5, 2021 - link
Also, the AMD version starts at $629 - $729 and doesn't even come with any RAM/SSD.satai - Thursday, August 5, 2021 - link
I don't care where it starts. If you want a machine suitable for work and fun, you need at least 0.5TB SSD and some RAM.dubyadubya - Saturday, August 28, 2021 - link
It's moot point as all you can do with a Mac is turn it on and off. Not enough applications, not enough games, too limiting all around compared to a Windows PC. I want to do things my way not Apples backward way or the highway.plsbugmenot - Thursday, August 5, 2021 - link
Dude, can you point me towards your dealer. Whatever it is he's selling you it must be good if you believe a machine with a Ryzen 5900HX is less powerful than an anemic M1. My laptop with the HS runs circles around the M1 lol. These mac fanboys really live in an alternate reality...sor - Thursday, August 5, 2021 - link
You may dislike Apple fanboys but your own comments just add to the hyperbole and rhetoric.Objectively it’s give and take between the M1 and this. If you value single threaded performance the M1 wins handily and does it using 1/3 of the power, however it’s effectively only a quad core part so higher core count processors like the 5900HX get the edge in parallel computing.
While they can trade blows on various benchmarks. I’m not sure I’d really be comparing these as there aren’t a lot of people cross shopping MacOS systems with DIY barebones, but I think I get the OP’s point in that Apple systems are usually priced at a premium and often used as a “what you can get for the money” high mark.
pdakkar - Thursday, August 5, 2021 - link
I have a 16/256 M1 Mini and placed an order for the barebones version of this HX90 to replace my ancient Broadwell NUC. That one's become inadequate a while ago, but HX90 is the first recent offering in this segment that clicked with me.One thing people seem to miss is that it's as much about the software as it's about the hardware. I bought an M1 for MacOS, and ordered this one for Windows. The reality is that no hardware+software combination is perfect, and it's convenient to have both stacks if you can afford that. Arguing which one will get more parrots in this or that benchmark is besides the point for this class of computers.
lemurbutton - Thursday, August 5, 2021 - link
AMD fanbois...Makaveli - Thursday, August 5, 2021 - link
Apple fanbois.....Samus - Friday, August 6, 2021 - link
Windows fanbois....YB1064 - Thursday, August 5, 2021 - link
The AMD solution is pretty solid despite the lack of TB4. Good to see better networking options. This barebones at $500 would be an absolute killer deal.meacupla - Thursday, August 5, 2021 - link
M1 mac mini really only has power efficiency going for it when compared to 5900HX.In the ultra portable form factor, where you encounter U series chips, sure, M1 is king.
But in NUC like and desktop replacement laptop segment? No way M1 will beat those.
Now, if you are speculating about M1X, M2 and M2X, we'll just have to wait and see.
lemurbutton - Thursday, August 5, 2021 - link
M1 is faster in ST, MT, GPU, ML, has way lower power requirements, runs silent, and is $600-$650 on Amazon.nicamarvin - Thursday, August 5, 2021 - link
BS, M1 with its 4C/4T is not faster in MT apps than Zen 3, Whats next? M1 is faster than 5900X?lemurbutton - Friday, August 6, 2021 - link
M1 is significantly faster than the 5900X in ST.M1 is faster than the 5800HX in MT according to Geekbench which is a better all around benchmarking tool than the heavily AMD-favored Cinebench. No one uses Cinema4D. Move on from the stupid benchmark.
AdrianBc - Friday, August 6, 2021 - link
You are wrong. Ryzen 9 5900X is significantly faster in ST Geekbench than Apple M1 (1800 ... 1850 for 5900X vs. 1700 ... 1750 for Apple M1).Also in all the other single-thread benchmarks for which there are public results for both 5900X and M1, 5900X is faster. In multithreaded benchmarks, of course 5900X is many times faster.
The Apple M1 at 3.2 GHz has the single-thread speed of a Zen 3 at 4.5 ... 4.6 GHz.
The mobile 5800HX has only 4.4 GHz, so here you are right, it should be slower than an Apple M1 in single-thread tasks. On the other hand, in multi-thread tasks 5800HX will be faster. A mobile Ryzen 9, with a 4.8 GHz frequency, will be faster in ST GB5 than M1.
When discussing Geekbench results for non-Apple computers, you must take care to find the highest non-overclocked results, because the Geekbench database is polluted with thousands of excessively low results, usually from misconfigured Windows machines, where an antivirus or other junk applications interfere with the benchmark, and also with thousands of too high results from overclocked computers.
The fans of M1 frequently ignore this and they usually compare good results from M1 to some random abnormally low result for another CPU. Correct results for Ryzen 9 5900X must be well over 1800, but in the database there also many incorrect results e.g. 1600 or other impossible values.
lemurbutton - Friday, August 6, 2021 - link
This guy.Dude.
5900X ST Geekbench is 1672. MT is 14159. https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks
M1 ST Geekbench is 1711. MT is 7416. https://browser.geekbench.com/mac-benchmarks
M1 is faster in ST. 5900x is less than 2x faster despite having 8 more high performance cores and using 5x+ more power.
lemurbutton - Friday, August 6, 2021 - link
5900x MT is less than 2x faster despite having 8 more high performance cores and using 5x+ more power.*Wrs - Saturday, August 7, 2021 - link
Who cares about such a small ST difference? One runs Windows and not OS X, the other runs OS X and not Windows. That's kind of the elephant. MT is for multitasking, which any micro build is going to have to worry about throttling if they don't run into the RAM ceiling firstSamus - Friday, August 6, 2021 - link
That's cool and all if you want to run OSX but what about the other 96.3% of the population?WJMazepas - Friday, August 6, 2021 - link
Dude, on every thread you are talking about Macs. Not everyone needs or wants a Maclemurbutton - Sunday, August 8, 2021 - link
Why pay more money for slower/less efficient hardware? Get an M1.alpha754293 - Thursday, August 12, 2021 - link
It'll be interesting to see whether this thermal throttles like the Mac Mini or the Intel NUC.pdakkar - Thursday, August 5, 2021 - link
Where does the info about SODIMMs having to be 1.2V come from? 5900HX is supposedly overclockable, and GPU will certainly benefit from the increased memory bandwidth. Even 3200 profiles on many modules require 1.35V, and getting them to 3600 can easily require 1.42V.zodiacfml - Friday, August 6, 2021 - link
For years, these small PCs less value than a laptop. Not a fan of Apple but their Mac Mini is significantly cheaper than the Macbook Air, I'd think twice between them. Having said that, Apple is so large now they can provide high end, cutting edge products at prices now reasonable vs competition.watersb - Friday, August 6, 2021 - link
I find the comparison with the Mac Mini a bit strange.I am not a gamer, but I would think a Mac Mini to be a lousy investment as a game box. Or a Plex server.
Personally the Mac would the better choice for me, but I need very specific music and video production tools. The upper limits of 16GB on the Mac (or this Tiger Lake box) make me nervous.
Appeals to benchmarks just confuse the argument. Accepting the limitations of these physically tiny machines, focus on your specific needs and be happy.
The AMD version would be great to play with...
Rookierookie - Saturday, August 7, 2021 - link
I understand the need for RAM, but I would think that there are better music and video production tools for Mac than for PC.DigitalFreak - Tuesday, August 10, 2021 - link
Isn't MinisForum the site where everything is essentially pre-order? They charge your card before the product ships, then use the money to actually build the systems. Seems shady.