One thing Apple can't (or won't) compete on is price for RAM and storage.

I have 32GB of RAM and 1 TB of storage, that cost me $200 total. The CPU and barebones mini pc (5600G, ASRock DeskMini) I bought are about $200 each. So $600 total.

Meanwhile I can't even buy a base model M1 or M2 mac mini with 32 GB of RAM, and 24GB of RAM is $400. 1 TB of storage is another $400.

The Mac option turns out to be roughly twice as much, for a pretty comparable system (including single core speed!). Even if I want more storage, I can have it for an extra $100 or so.

Given that a Mac Mini has USB 4 you could connect an M2 drive with an adapter and still get good perf. That still has some additional cost though, and doesn’t address RAM.

Do you know if TRIM works over USB 4 and if MacOS supports it? Would I also need to ensure the enclosure supports it?

I'm not the USB4 expert, but don't they support raw pcie? I imagine choice of enclosure is very important.

I concede Apple does not sell low bandwidth spec parts. Only one bandwidth. What is the memory bandwidth of the AsRock compared to the Mac Mini? Is it a bottom binned spec? At this point it is well known that they solder the memory dies onto the chip to get a specific memory bandwidth that a slot would not be able to provide. Some of the magic of the M1 is due in part to this design.

Yes for storage the M1 is more opaque. They claim this is the only way they can provide truly secure trusted boot. Its questionable but at least the theory seems to be holding up. I give them the benefit of the doubt just because the machine truly feels like it is from the future. It is like the desktop perfected. If it was anything less than the rocket it is we'd be having a different conversation and I'd give more credence to your claims. As it stands to me, the value of the platform exceeds that additional memory/storage upcharge.

>>The Mac option turns out to be roughly twice as much, for a pretty comparable system (including single core speed!). Even if I want more storage, I can have it for an extra $100 or so.

Are you sure about this being "comparable"? This is so much legacy in these x86/64 designs that either they are slower per given clock or they have to compensate with increased fan speeds/power consumption. The minisforum I have was a popular Ryzen 5 machine being pushed by all the youtuber people two years ago. (Minisforum DMAF5). It was slow out of the box and is now even more slow about 2 years later. Even this system being advertised here has to use a GaN Charger to cover up the fact that they are needing a more powerful wattage than the equivalent Mac would need (65w vs ~45w) That right there is more evidence that the design can't possibly be more efficient than the M1. (not to mention the PSU is integrated into the case on the Mac!)

This is such a common trope with PC people, they ignore design and value it at 0.

Hey, looks like you got downvoted. Sorry that happened. I think you brought up some decent points about memory quality vs. quantity.

To answer your question, my memory is 3200MHz with probably not great latency compared to the Apple solution.

Someone else mentioned USB4 for external storage, which honestly isn't a terrible solution.

Heres hoping one day apple makes 16gb the default in all computers.

I looked a bit at how AMD is doing vs. Apple. These current chips are all 65W TDP and up:

https://www.amd.com/en/processors/ryzen-for-creators#

(vs. the Byte Mini's 45W), but they mostly have base frequencies above 4.4GHz. One of the slower chips in the current lineup beats the M2 on absolute performance (with a higher TDP):

https://versus.com/en/amd-ryzen-7-7700-vs-apple-m2

It's per core speed is comparable, but it has twice as many cores.

This old (2018) chip is 45W, but it's boost is only 4GHz:

https://versus.com/en/amd-ryzen-7-2700e-vs-apple-m2

so that's a lower bound on the AMD side. It's about the same speed as the M2 when using all cores (half as fast per core).

Assuming they're targeting something AMD just released, and not something 5 years old, and the "up to 4.4GHz" is talking about base frequency, not turbo, then I'd expect this to be extremely competitive with the M2 Mac Mini. (As it better be, since it seems to be more expensive than the Mac!)

I wish they'd say what processors they are targeting.

> I bought one of those Minisforums Mini PCs with a Ryzen processor like two years ago, it now sits collecting dust.

Cool. Sell it to me? I have tons of use cases for it.

The value of the PC has probably dropped so low that I wouldn't feel happy giving it away for a paltry amount of money instead of holding onto it in the hopes of possibly doing something with it one day. I hoard old computers. You don't want to see my basement. For now it will sit collecting dust.

Well, glad your M1 Mac Mini runs circles around some random mini PC. This is really great information, with detailed data that really shows how much better the M1 chip is than any other processor ever made. This really relates a lot to the system being reviewed too.