Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > New Mini mysteries

New Mini mysteries
Thread Tools
WizOSX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, Ontario
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2014, 10:05 PM
 
The new mini seems to me to be a somewhat odd set of choices by Apple.

1) The processors are slower than on the 2012 models. The i7-3610QM, which was the next to highest upgrade in 2012 is about 50% faster that the top end i7-4578u available now. Of course, that's just CPU speed and the Iris graphics will be a huge improvement on the graphics end. But still, for many people, the net effect will be virtually no real improvement.

2) The inability to upgrade RAM yourself. On the 2012 models 16gb added about $70 DIY and on the new models it adds about $200. The i7-3610QM was included in the $800 middle model so $870 for a fast 16gb i7. A 16gb i7 will now cost $1200 and probably be very little faster.
     
WizOSX  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, Ontario
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2014, 10:13 PM
 
Actually, the 2012 middle model had an i7-3615QM which is about 40% faster than the i7 in the new Mini. My mistake.
     
imdipped
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2014, 10:26 PM
 
iris, not iris pro?
     
WizOSX  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, Ontario
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2014, 10:47 PM
 
Yes, that is correct. None of the new Minis have Iris Pro (which is too bad).
     
Charles Martin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Maitland, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2014, 04:10 AM
 
Nevertheless, Apple says the Iris is nearly double the speed of the previous graphics, so it isn't all bad.

My own "take" on why Apple did what it did with the Mac mini is to realign it with what buyers actually do with it. The entire line, from top to bottom, is perceived as entry-level and thus a truly "consumer" machine, which 95+ percent of the time means "very light-duty." Even the bottom-end Mac mini has more than enough power to handle typical computing tasks, so why overpower the line as they have been doing up until now? That just takes away from iMac sales!

The way I look at it, the 2012-yesterday machines were far better than a "budget" line deserved. Be happy if you got one, because you got a great machine at a great price. But if Apple is playing the "good/better/best value" game, then the Mac mini line is meant to be the good, and thus intentionally designed to push buyers to go for the "better" option (the iMac) or the "Best Value" option, which is clearly the top-end iMac.
Charles Martin
MacNN Editor
     
imdipped
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2014, 07:27 PM
 
How would the high end mac mini compare cpu and gpu wise with a late 2007 macbook pro?
2.2 ghz intel core 2 duo, NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT
( Last edited by imdipped; Oct 18, 2014 at 07:43 PM. Reason: added cpu and gpu specs)
     
WizOSX  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, Ontario
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2014, 07:41 PM
 
What you say, _chas_, makes sense from Apple's profit perspective except I might add the following observations:

1) I suspect that the decision to emphasize graphics speed over processor speed was really made for Apple by Intel (that has been their emphasis lately) and then Apple just put the marketing spin on it at the mini introduction (emphasizing that it is the most power efficient desktop when it is always plugged into the wall?).

2) I don't see anything that Apple does with the Mini competing with the iMac. If you accept that most of the buyers of the mini are using them as high powered media devices connected to 46"+ screens then I don't see a lot of moving back and forth. To put it another way, all Apple has to do is price a high powered mini at the same price as a comparable speed/graphics iMac and Apple will will make more money whenever anyone chooses to buy the mini over the iMac. And there will definitely those who will make that choice because they want a machine they can hide under the giant screen.

3) Putting the above two points together, my guess is that, in the end, the primary reason for the current choices for the mini are determined mainly by the 13" MacBook Pro design. The choice of memory and processors says the new mini is merely a repackaged 13" MBP which is the easiest thing for Apple to do.
     
ajprice
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2014, 03:01 AM
 
Has anybody seen the base of the Mac Mini yet? The main reason for the round plastic twist off panel was to get at the RAM for upgrades. The memory is apparently soldered now, so it's to get at things you can't upgrade .

It'll be much easier if you just comply.
     
imdipped
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2014, 05:09 PM
 
OK, this is what I found. It appears that the stuff in the Mac Mini is much better than what I have in my late 2007 15" MBP. I know the CPU is much better but I was concerned about the "GPU".

GeForce 6800 GT, Average G3D Mark 137
PassMark - GeForce 6800 GT - Price performance comparison

HD Graphics 5000 GT3, 40 execution units, twice the performance of HD4xxx for compute-limited workloads, 15W TDP SKUs, up to 704GFLOPS

Iris Graphics 5100 the same as HD Graphics 5000, 28W TDP SKUs, but higher maximum frequency of 1.3 instead of 1.1GHz, up to 832GFLOPS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_..._Iris_Graphics

Intel HD 5000, Average G3D Mark 605
PassMark - Intel HD 5000 - Price performance comparison

It is unfortunate that Intel was late with Broadwell.

I don't have a 27" display yet but want one, the Mini supports a 2560x1440 resolution; an Apple Thunderbolt Display (TB1, USB 2) for a grand, or a Dell w/o TB for considerably less when on sale.

I am old and this may be my final computer purchase so I want it to be a wise choice. I am not in business and am not a heavy hitter, I just appreciate fine equipment. If I already had the TB display, it would be the Mini, good enough apparently for my light duty uses. I really do not want an AIO but considering the relative cost of each option being close and the tradeoffs involved (USB 2 vs USB 3, TB 1 vs TB 2), I will probably opt for the Imac 5K. Apple wins again. I will be watching for the trouble reports if any and the talk about heat.

Any suggestions are welcome.
     
ajprice
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2014, 03:23 AM
 
Late 2014 Mac Mini Benchmarks Indicate Decreased Multi-Core Performance - Mac Rumors

Multi core performance is slower than the previous quad cores (no shit Sherlock!). Haswell dual and quad cores have different sockets, unlike Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge, so either quads didn't hit the price point at all, or 2 boards for a base model dual and higher model quads didn't stack up.

It'll be much easier if you just comply.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2014, 03:58 AM
 
They're right, the mobiles have different sockets for duals and quads. I had missed that (the desktops all have the same socket, except the ones with Crystalwell). Given that Apple waited two years to update the mini this time, I think it's clear that they're trying to minimize investments for it - probably because sales aren't all that great. Making a quadcore model probably became an expense that was not justifiable.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2014, 04:41 AM
 
Rounding downwards is an odd choice. I'd have rounded up. If they only produce one board, make all Minis quads. With clock speeds increasing at a snail's pace, bumping the standard core count is the obvious choice.
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2014, 07:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by ajprice View Post
Late 2014 Mac Mini Benchmarks Indicate Decreased Multi-Core Performance - Mac Rumors

Multi core performance is slower than the previous quad cores (no shit Sherlock!). Haswell dual and quad cores have different sockets, unlike Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge, so either quads didn't hit the price point at all, or 2 boards for a base model dual and higher model quads didn't stack up.
Given the nonexistent performance difference between Haswell and Ivy Bridge, I'm surprised we got an "upgrade" at all.

These results aren't surprising.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2014, 08:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Rounding downwards is an odd choice. I'd have rounded up. If they only produce one board, make all Minis quads. With clock speeds increasing at a snail's pace, bumping the standard core count is the obvious choice.
The cheapest mobile quad is $378 list. Going quad only would move the base mini price quite a bit higher, and since few of the users in the target audience will have a real use for 4 cores, price is more important.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
ajprice
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2014, 04:25 AM
 

It'll be much easier if you just comply.
     
Buckaroo
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2014, 04:32 PM
 
I am also in the market for the new Mac Mini. I had a hard time deciding because of the lack of 4 cores. To compare the performance, I used the bench mark data from the MacBook Pro i7 3.0 13" M from everymac.com.

I wasn't happy with the performance comparison, but then I realized most of the software I use do not use multiple cores. I wanted the 4k output, so the only Mac that I found with better performance was the MacBook Pro i7 2.8 15" D. I would have picked it except 2 things, 1) the price is $1000 more, and 2) I'm not so sure that the 4k utilizes the GeForce GT 750M for graphics.

I finally decided to go with the low end Mac Mini and get the next upgraded MacBook Pro 15 in the future.
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2014, 04:37 PM
 
Buckaroo, what are you using the Mini for?
     
Buckaroo
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2014, 05:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mike Wuerthele View Post
Buckaroo, what are you using the Mini for?
I want to replace my iMac 2009 i7 2.8 Quad Core.

I'd like to use a Visio 60" 4k as my main monitor. I'm hoping that I can put some distance between me and the monitor with the 4k.

On rare occasions, I do edit video using Final Cut Pro 7. But like I mentioned, I don't think it uses multiple cores anyhow.
     
nealt
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2014
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2014, 08:59 PM
 
Apple is no longer interested in what the consumer wants. It is only interested in maximizing its own profits. Take for example the lack of expandability of ram and HD. There is now now no middle of the road Mac. My daughter needed a new computer. she can go with a non expandable Mac mini for about $1ooo or an expandable Pc for $500. She will probably end up with a PC. Macs have priced themselves out of the consumer market.
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2014, 07:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by nealt View Post
Apple is no longer interested in what the consumer wants. It is only interested in maximizing its own profits. Take for example the lack of expandability of ram and HD. There is now now no middle of the road Mac. My daughter needed a new computer. she can go with a non expandable Mac mini for about $1ooo or an expandable Pc for $500. She will probably end up with a PC. Macs have priced themselves out of the consumer market.
Nobody should ever think that a corporation has his or her own best interests at heart. Apple has priced itself out of some markets, that it chooses to not be in, and expansion is that market. As far as the profit goes, if the stuff doesn't get bought, then they won't profit. So, they make choices based on the market and what they can sell the most of. A Mac Mini Pro for $500 will never, ever happen.

Apocryphal reports we've heard have the new mini selling like gangbusters at retail, as well as the $699 version. Apple will do what's best for Apple, and that's not always the best for everybody. No, I don't like the lack of upgradeable RAM, but I'm willing to put good money on 90 percent of the mini buyers having never needed to crack the case for anything.

The new mini isn't bad -- it's just not for everybody.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2014, 08:49 AM
 
The HD is still replaceable in the mini, I think, and 8 GB RAM is honestly absolutely OK for a machine in the mini's class. I'm not a fan of this move towards ever more impenetrable machines, but to Apple's credit they're quite decent about the base RAM these days.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2014, 09:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
The HD is still replaceable in the mini, I think, and 8 GB RAM is honestly absolutely OK for a machine in the mini's class. I'm not a fan of this move towards ever more impenetrable machines, but to Apple's credit they're quite decent about the base RAM these days.
Yeah, one 2.5-inch drive slot is available. There's a (non-standard) header for a PCI-E SSD, but I haven't had the time to take a close look at it.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2014, 10:12 AM
 
I think OWC sells PCIe SSDs that fit that extra slot, don't they?
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2014, 10:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
I think OWC sells PCIe SSDs that fit that extra slot, don't they?
Honestly, I haven't had the chance to look. Not yet, I don't think.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:51 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,