Admittedly, the 10G interfaces and fast RAM make up for some of it, but at least for a normal homelab setup, I can't think of an application needing RAM faster than even DDR3, especially at this power level.
A base Mac Mini (256GB/16GB) would cost me €720 while a Minisforum MS-R1 (1TB/32GB) would cost me €559 (minus a 25 euro discount for signing up to their newsletter if you accept that practice).
Price to performance the Apple solution may be better, but the prices aren't similar at all.
Upgrading the Mac to also feature 1TB of storage and 32GB of RAM, the price rises by a whopping €1000 to €1719.
I did not realize the EU versions were that much more expensive.
I do agree about the RAM/storage prices though. It's only worth it if you want the raw power, where the Mac handily beats this.
MinisForum makes disposable hardware. We used to use them for TV computers at work, and while they are cheap, they are fidgity with hardware and drivers, come with hacked-Windows Enterprise installed by default, and generally last for about 2 years before they hit the recycle pile.
Go for the Mac Mini, the hardware incl thermal is also built exceptionally well. That's why you still have 20 year old Mac Minis still running as home servers etc.
Without the ability to upgrade either storage or RAM, a 256GB SSD with 16GB RAM is quite useless for a home server. Minisforum doesn't offer any options with that little RAM and storage it seems (you can pick between barebones and 1TB models).
The bare minimum spec for the Mac Mini sits at an interesting price point, but if you use it for any more than the bare minimum it'll be pretty restrictive with how memory-hungry macOS has become. No Linux support to speak of also makes for a rather mediocre home server experience.
One interesting part I found out of Apple's European pricing is that after currency conversion and subtracting VAT, the European price is still equivalent to $700, which is $100 more than they charge within the US. Looks like a 1/6th price increase is all you need for consumer rights!
Indeed macOS is a bit memory hungry but... unified memory, the sheer speed those chips can move data around is ridiculous. And macOS is a proper workstation Unix.
You're right - it's not ideal for headless. But there are ways. Still less painful than running Windows as as server.
my atom, 4gb,1tb hdd bare metal ovh server also disagrees.
Not that I would buy it new, no, but 16GB for a home server can be quite fine. If I didn't have the 2x3 TB NAS disks (sounds ridiculously small now, right) - that would actually be enough.
When someone says he drank a few coffees, I would never have guessed it was 32.
Also, I'm surprised how often on here I see people argue about price differences that are literally as I spend on entire computers.
I often see statements like this made as if it's an exceptional characteristic of Macs. I've found that almost all computer hardware I buy has made it 20 years, though. Sure, a hard drive or something dies every once in a while, but most stuff gets retired because I just don't care to use it anymore, not because it doesn't work.
So over the span of 20 years they’ll pay a multitude on these crappy computers than what the Mac mini costs once. May as well get a specced out Mac.
(One exception being the GPU issues a few years back though on Intel MBP's)
No, wait, there was also bend gate and the iphone battery thing as well.
Uhhhh something about airpod ANC crackling.
There's more I'm forgetting.
God why do I keep buying Apple shit. I'm in a toxic relationship with an abuser.
It runs docker (supports docker compose) and vms and has the usual raid stuff.
They also do an arm version for half the price but I wanted the intel gpu for transcoding.
The 10 GBit/s NUCs you find on eBay are enterprise-grade stuff: 10 Gbit/s hasn't really been a consumer thing. A used Fujitsu, Intel or Mellanox dual 10 Gbit/s bought on eBay isn't a "stained shit" that's "not guaranteed to be reliable". It's enterprise grade hardware.
(that said the machine in TFA looks nice)
They'll also probably work out of the box on whatever "server" distro you throw at them, which seems to be an issue with the machine in question.
However, GP was most likely talking about actual NUCs, not NICs. I mean, there wasn't a typo. The point probably being that the CPUs in some of those mini boxen are likely to be woefully undercooled, so performance may not be what you expect by just looking at the CPU model.
Since this server seems to have pretty average performance/watt and cooling, I can't really see much advantage to ARM here, at least for typical server use cases.
Unless you're doing ARM development, but I feel like a Pi 4/5 is better for basic development.
This computer uses 8 Cortex-A720 cores (and 4 little cores with negligible performance), which have a performance similar to the older Intel E-cores, i.e. Gracemont or Crestmont from Alder Lake, Raptor Lake or Meteor Lake. They are much slower than the recent Intel E-cores, i.e. Skymont or Darkmont, from Arrow Lake or Panther Lake.
So the performance of the whole CPU is similar to the 8-core Intel N300 (Alder Lake N) or Intel N350 (Twin Lake), which are found in various mini-PCs that are cheaper than this ARM computer.
Even so, the performance of this ARM CPU is many times greater than that of a Raspberry Pi and greater than of any cheaper ARM CPU. For greater performance, you must buy a more expensive smartphone, or a Qualcomm or Apple laptop or mini-PC, or a very expensive development computer from NVIDIA.
An older but better ARM CPU with quadruple Cortex-A78 cores (Armv8.2-A ISA) is available for use in embedded computers from Qualcomm, rebranded from Snapdragon to Dragonwing. There are a few single-board computers of credit-card size with it, which are much faster than Raspberry Pi and the like.
Such SBCs are cheaper than the one from TFA and they are better for the purpose of software development.
The computer described in this article has the advantage of better I/O interfaces, the SoC has much more PCIe lanes, which allows the computer to have more and faster network interfaces.
If you want for an ARM computer to be a true high-throughput network server, then this one is the best choice. Nevertheless, for a true network server, a mini-PC with an Intel or AMD CPU will have a much, much better performance, at the same price or even at a lower price.
Using ARM is justifiable only for the purpose of software development, or if you want a smaller volume and a lower power consumption than achievable by a NUC-sized computer. For these purposes, one of the SBCs with Qualcomm QCM6490 is a better choice.
While a credit-card-sized SBC has only one Ethernet port, you can connect as many Ethernet interfaces as you desire to it (by using an USB hub and USB Ethernet interfaces), as long as the network throughput is not important and you just want to test some server software.
The Minisforum computer from the parent article has only 2 advantages for software development, the Armv9 ISA and being available with more memory, i.e. 32 GB or 64 GB, while the smaller ARM SBCs are available with 8, 12 or 16 GB.
The article never explained why the author wanted an ARM setup. I can only consider this a spiritual thing, just like how the author avoids Debian without providing any concrete explanations.
So in this case, the only valid reason to choose it is to have the ARM ISA for the purpose of software development.
This Chinese CPU is the only Armv9 CPU that is available in anything else than smartphones or expensive computers from Apple, Qualcomm or NVIDIA (or in even more expensive big servers). So there may be cases when it is desirable for software development, even if it has some quirks.
Mobile x86 processors used in mini PCs these days (as in 2026) are very competitive in terms of power efficiency. I wouldn't go for ARM just for that factor alone, especially without side-by-side comparisons of benchmarks.
"Most people" aren't on HN, either.
The # of ARM servers at cloud providers are growing, but the ARM server options are severely lacking for most.
I, personally, would like to see more ARM growth (and I think we're heading that direction anyway... look at NVIDIA right now). Buying ARM servers that help push ARM software development forward is probably a good thing, IMO, from that POV.
That's rubbish; even the people who don't care about ISA will care about stuff like power draw and software availability (although ironically arm seems distinctly worse in terms of power draw here).
But, I hope there are other people like me who will take a premium to avoid reading x86 core dumps, which is sort of like getting nails driven through your eyes. Yes, there's more software optimized for the chips; it is still bad code.