Ivy Bridge Mac Mini

TechnoLawyer said:

I don't think we'll see any new models until Mountain Lion ships. I'm surprised no one has mentioned the OS angle. Apple shipped the current mini after it shipped Lion.

Click to expand...

To be fair, Apple has usually offered free OS upgrades for computer bought a couple of months before the new OS release.
Anyway OS release date will not influence hardware cycle for the simple reason that the OS could be delayed if some bugs couldn't be resolved in time, while setting up factories to manufacture hardware cost tons of cash so as soon as they are up (and getting obsolete by the minute) they have to produce what they were brought up for.

For my part I wish for a quad-core mini with discrete graphics (maybe Apple could produce something based on powerVR series6).
Easily upgradable internal storage would be a must (to put in a SSD). Then again with Apple buying a memory company from Israel it would be great to have macs use purely SSDs, maybe with mSATA format.

Now for my part there is some fear as for the future of mac when I looked at the macs trends and then the trends with mobile devices.
As you can see computers trends are barely registering when comparing with the iPhone and iPad... These generations (maybe the next 3) of classical computers might be our last (from Apple but seeing as other big names in the PC industry are moving away from home computers...).

Compared to 2006 MBP?

Great thread. I hope no one minds a quick diversion.

I'm considering a desktop purchase when the new iMac & Mini models are released. I'm hoping for the mini to update to the higher speed quad core (>2.0 GHz) and beefier graphics (512 MB range). There also some little picky things to fix, like the inclusion of audio through t-bolt, which I don't think is included now, etc.

I've got a 2006 MBP 2.33 GHz C2D w/ 3 GB Ram running Lion (barely) and the occasional boot camp XP. Obviously, price is an object, as I've kept my MBP this long as my primary personal computer. I'd say the maxed-out iMacs are out of my price range. I'm leaning toward the mini server for its price, connections and future utility as a home theater component.

How would either the current mini or mid-range iMac compare to my current MBP? I've checked the benchmark sites, but I'm looking for real world tests. Handbrake, GarageBand, iMovie, iPhoto and occasional gaming are the most powerful of my computing tasks.

For a Handbrake example, it usually takes my current MBP about 45-60 minutes to rip a 1.5 hr DVD on iPod legacy settings. Any comments on that for the new models?

Thanks for the advice and forgive the hijacking.

dunna005 said:

I'd say the maxed-out iMacs are out of my price range. I'm leaning toward the mini server for its price, connections and future utility as a home theater component. Thanks for the advice and forgive the hijacking.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say you hijacked the thread. Keep in mind that while the Mac mini Server is much faster CPU-wise, the $799 mini has a better GPU. It makes sense. No one sits in front of a server all day so graphics performance isn't important. If you plan to use a mini as your computer, I recommend the $799 model, not the server. It can even drive a 30-inch display.

Great point, thanks!

"The USB 3.0 is the biggest step up for me, i love my mac mini 2011 though. Ivy Bridge is cool and all but if anyone is on the edge and need a new desktop buying the current mac mini is not the end of the world."

USB3 has the potential to "knock out" both firewire 800 -and- Thunderbolt.

It will be considerably faster than firewire 800, and (if I'm not mistaken) the "3" version of USB will correct some of the bus management problems of USB1.1/USB2.0.

With USB3, there will be little reason to stick with firewire, except for those situations where a particular user is already heavily "invested" in firewire hardware.

Of course USB3 has nowhere near the speed and potential of Thunderbolt/Lightpeak, but what good are those technological advantages when
- The cost is too high ($50 for a connecting cable?)
- There are a dearth of hardware products available, and only a "trickle" coming down the line, and
- There seems little buyer interest, or more importantly, buyer -need- for Thunderbolt products when USB3 will more than fulfill their requirements.

It's the old "VHS vs. BetaMax" scenario all over again...

For me, USB3 is the most important reason for waiting for the new Minis...

Fishrrman said:

"The USB 3.0 is the biggest step up for me, i love my mac mini 2011 though. Ivy Bridge is cool and all but if anyone is on the edge and need a new desktop buying the current mac mini is not the end of the world."

Click to expand...

While USB 3 is a tech Apple should implements as soon as possible, it is a crap tech and it usefulness as more to do with being a backward compatible port than anything else.

Fishrrman said:

USB3 has the potential to "knock out" both firewire 800 -and- Thunderbolt.

Click to expand...

While YES USB 3.0 is potentially way faster than FW800, the truth of the matter is that even today USB 3.0 throughput is a choke point for certain system (RAID, SSDs) where ThunderBolt offers WAY BETTER real life performances (2x).

Fishrrman said:

It will be considerably faster than firewire 800, and (if I'm not mistaken) the "3" version of USB will correct some of the bus management problems of USB1.1/USB2.0.

Click to expand...

As a real life example, single hard drive external storage devices have appeared offering USB3.0 capacities, but it isn't a magical port. The real life throughput (LaCie drives) remains around 80 MB/s writes 90 MB/s reads (close to FW800 performances) because that's the throughput single mechanical drives are capable of.

So to use the port to the fullest you'll need SSDs or a RAID device, except that USB3.0 protocol IS a mess, the real life maximum transfer rate is closer to 400 MB/s than the theoretical 600+MB/s meaning you wouldn't use your (expensive / Pro) peripherals to their fullest.

Then there is the issue of the stress USB3.0 puts on low level systems. You see I bought myself a couple of USB3.0 devices and a USB3.0 card to use them and some nasty behaviour started appearing :
Whenever a time machine backup starts, I suffer some sort of input lag, where a click is acted upon only after another action happens, having to sort of double click everything in order for the system to "get it". The same behaviour happens whenever I copy files between my USB3 devices. Sure the speed is great but having the computer barely usable until the copy is over is a pain.

This was the reason FW or TB were developed using controllers in the devices in order to avoid stressing the main system, and boy would I love being able to buy devices with FW800 (for me) AND USB3 (for my Windows using friends).

Seems to me it's kind of goofy putting TB on a mini and not including USB3. Someone buying a $600 computer is a lot more likely to want the kind of cost effective, high performance USB3 equipment that one can readily find at Best Buy.

Sure TB can run external SSD raids and all kind of pro level peripherals but that usually isn't the focus of a mini buyer. Good graphics, HDMI and USB3 are more important than TB. Even eSATA is more useful than TB.

TB is more about Apple's restricted equipment list than it is about providing peripherals that match both the user and the equipment.

scottsjack said:

Seems to me it's kind of goofy putting TB on a mini and not including USB3. Someone buying a $600 computer is a lot more likely to want the kind of cost effective, high performance USB3 equipment that one can readily find at Best Buy.

Sure TB can run external SSD raids and all kind of pro level peripherals but that usually isn't the focus of a mini buyer. Good graphics, HDMI and USB3 are more important than TB. Even eSATA is more useful than TB.

TB is more about Apple's restricted equipment list than it is about providing peripherals that match both the user and the equipment.

Click to expand...

USB 3 will come with IB, when included natively from Intel.

TB was included first as Apple wanted a point of difference, and also to standardize the port across all Macs. [MP coming too, I hope...]

Fishrrman said:

For me, USB3 is the most important reason for waiting for the new Minis...

Click to expand...

I agree completely. For me, it's USB3 or bust. Thunderbolt might as well not exist.

Heya

For me the next Mac mini should have the AMD APU Trinity.

The Intel CPU ivy Bridge is fast but on the whole with HD4000 is pretty disappointing.
We need more power to media and nowadays the bottleneck is not CPU but GPU.
Not to mention the next iteration of Intel graphics HD4000 is not able to support adequately DX11 , nor play HD you tube videos without stuttering.
I am very sure that most of you have a bad notion of AMD CPU but do try out their APU.
It blows intel out of the water, they are not even in the same league.
So my wish list, Mac Book air AMD Trinity, Mac Mini AMD Trinity 8 ( ? ) core with discrete AMD FX9.

zulkiflim said:

Not to mention the next iteration of Intel graphics HD4000 is not able to support adequately DX11 , nor play HD you tube videos without stuttering.

Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? Even the Intel 3000-series can play 1080p YouTube videos full screen without dropping frames ("stuttering"). Additionally, the 4000-series IS DirectX 11 compatible and apparently does it at low CPU utilization:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Inte...hree-Screens-CPU-Load-at-Just-28-264137.shtml

Please check your facts before posting.

The Intel HD 4000 is nice for a integrated graphics card, and plays ~3+ year old games fine. I doubt apple will include a dedicated GFX for the higher end IB model.

I'll probably be in the market for a mac mini when the new ones are released unless Apple do something uncharacteristic like bring out something between a mac mini and a pro. Given the comments here about the Mini outperforming most of the iMac line-up and the apparent problems with their screens, it sounds like the best way forward.

I'm patient enough to wait, although timing may mean an expensive few months if the new Minis are released at about the same time as the iPhone!

AMD APU Trinity would be awesome, but doesn't Airplay require QuickSync (intel technology)?

Torrijos said:

Anyway OS release date will not influence hardware cycle for the simple reason that the OS could be delayed if some bugs couldn't be resolved in time, while setting up factories to manufacture hardware cost tons of cash so as soon as they are up (and getting obsolete by the minute) they have to produce what they were brought up for.

Click to expand...

I don't agree, waiting a mere 4-6 weeks and shipping the new hardware with the most up to date OS saves Apple a lot of customer care time & money. It's not as if the current range is not selling well anyway and 95% of the population is not on geek watch, waiting for the latest processor to be released. The world buys its computers when and if it needs them

----------

Lynn Belvedere said:

I agree completely. For me, it's USB3 or bust. Thunderbolt might as well not exist.

Click to expand...

You will be disappointed

aarond12 said:

You're kidding, right? Even the Intel 3000-series can play 1080p YouTube videos full screen without dropping frames ("stuttering"). Additionally, the 4000-series IS DirectX 11 compatible and apparently does it at low CPU utilization:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Inte...hree-Screens-CPU-Load-at-Just-28-264137.shtml

Please check your facts before posting.

Click to expand...

Heya

you should be mad if you stick with intel HD4000 or 3K series..LOL

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5626/ivy-bridge-preview-core-i7-3770k/18

Well if you're not a 3d gamer a HD 4000 GPU will do nicely.

And even some games run quite ok on the HD4000, it's not like integrated graphics from a couple of years ago.
http://http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4000-Benchmarked.73567.0.html

If they keep the current configs the line up looks like:

i5-3320M 2.6 dual core entry level.
i5-3360M 2.8 dual core with nvidia 640m graphics (no new AMD graphics with same TDP), upgrade to: i7-3520M 2.9 dual

i7-3610QM 2.3 Quad core server model.

Also AMD CPU's with their power usage and CPU speed , no thanks

The new minis 2012 will not have usb3. they will have 2 t-bolt ports. the 4000 graphics will be a decent boost.

The form factor of a mac mini as it is today will never allow for "good graphics" Power supply is too little and machine is too hot.

Maybe just maybe the 2013 haswell mini will have good intel 5000 graphics.

Apple has always stayed clear from the medium mini or smaller mac pro. A machine that allows 2 or 3 hdds a real graphics card has never been made in this century. I would love a simple 2 by 12 by 12 inch machine. looks like this

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811112356

philipma1957 said:

The new minis 2012 will not have usb3. they will have 2 t-bolt ports. the 4000 graphics will be a decent boost.

The form factor of a mac mini as it is today will never allow for "good graphics" Power supply is too little and machine is too hot.

Maybe just maybe the 2013 haswell mini will have good intel 5000 graphics.

Apple has always stayed clear from the medium mini or smaller mac pro. A machine that allows 2 or 3 hdds a real graphics card has never been made in this century. I would love a simple 2 by 12 by 12 inch machine. looks like this

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811112356

Click to expand...

Is the no USB 3 confirmed, or just a guess?

tshrimp said:

Is the no USB 3 confirmed, or just a guess?

Click to expand...

It's a guess, and a bad one at that. The new Intel board chipsets for Ivy Bridge have USB3 support natively. For USB3 not to be included in Ivy Macs, Apple would have to have made Intel manufacture control chips to special order that were specifically crippled in that way, adding cost and delaying availability for what in return, some nebulous marketing focus on thunderbolt? No. Apple keeps it much simpler than this. There is no USB3 support so far because Apple saw no compelling reason to add it. There will be USB3 support on the Ivies because it's already there and there is no compelling rationale for Apple to eliminate it, if they even have that option.

Mike Valmike said:

It's a guess, and a bad one at that. The new Intel board chipsets for Ivy Bridge have USB3 support natively. For USB3 not to be included in Ivy Macs, Apple would have to have made Intel manufacture control chips to special order that were specifically crippled in that way, adding cost and delaying availability for what in return, some nebulous marketing focus on thunderbolt? No. Apple keeps it much simpler than this. There is no USB3 support so far because Apple saw no compelling reason to add it. There will be USB3 support on the Ivies because it's already there and there is no compelling rationale for Apple to eliminate it, if they even have that option.

Click to expand...

They are the biggest richest computer company in the world without using USB3.

They have no incentive to put USB3 in a mac. They will expand T-bolt and ignore USB3.

philipma1957 said:

THEY ARE THE BIGGEST RICHEST COMPUTER COMPANY IN THE WORLD WITHOUT USB3. They have no incentive to put USB3 in a mac. They will expand T-bolt and ignore USB3.

Click to expand...

Yeah, calm down mate. Why would they go out of their way to not include it?

mopatops said:

Yeah, calm down mate. Why would they go out of their way to not include it?

Click to expand...

You are right too many caps sorry about that. (caps are gone)


The exclusion of USB3 adds to APPLE'S bottom line. The proof is in the sales. Apple does not need you if you own a pc with windows. USB3 would help you as a pc users of windows Link up with apple gear quikly if apple had usb3.. Since Apple can sell a computer that legally can run windows why would they want to make it easy for you to keep a non mac pc?

I run windows on my mac minis and also ran windows on my mac pro. by keeping usb3 out of macs and making it illegal to run lion on a windows pc apple score big. Why should apple help out pc owners? Zero cash incentive. Asking for usb3 is the same as asking for all computers to run windows linux and osx.

BTW I would like it very much if the 3 major os systems would work on all machines.

I fully expect USB 3 on all ivy bridge machines. The same discussion was going on with USB 2. Apple still was pushing firewire back then, but when intel came with native USB2 on chipsets so did apple. The is no reason not to include usb 3.

Apologies for jumping on this thread for something possibly unrelated, but can MacRumors staff explain to us why in the Buyer's guide the Mac mini is denoted as "Don't Buy" with refresh expected soon whilst other products sporting the mobile intel chips like MBA and the entry level MBP remain in amber?

Is it not only the Mac mini server that uses a quad core processor (which were the ones released on the ivy bridge platform recently). Do we expect all mac minis to have quad core processors for the refresh?

https://buyersguide.macrumors.com//