Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac mini

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Apr 1, 2012, 07:21 PM   #101
Torrijos
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechnoLawyer View Post
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.
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...).
Torrijos is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2012, 07:27 PM   #102
dunna005
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
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 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2012, 08:05 PM   #103
celavato
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunna005 View Post
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.
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.
celavato is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2012, 08:43 PM   #104
dunna005
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Great point, thanks!
dunna005 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2012, 08:59 AM   #105
Fishrrman
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
"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 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2012, 10:57 AM   #106
Torrijos
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishrrman View Post
"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."
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishrrman View Post
USB3 has the potential to "knock out" both firewire 800 -and- Thunderbolt.
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishrrman View Post
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.
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).
Torrijos is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2012, 06:33 PM   #107
scottsjack
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arizona
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 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2012, 04:42 PM   #108
Santabean2000
macrumors 65816
 
Santabean2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottsjack View Post
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.
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...]
Santabean2000 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 4, 2012, 02:08 PM   #109
Lynn Belvedere
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishrrman View Post
For me, USB3 is the most important reason for waiting for the new Minis...
I agree completely. For me, it's USB3 or bust. Thunderbolt might as well not exist.
Lynn Belvedere is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2012, 07:24 AM   #110
zulkiflim
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
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 is offline   -5 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2012, 04:14 PM   #111
aarond12
macrumors 6502a
 
aarond12's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by zulkiflim View Post
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.
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/Intel...8-264137.shtml

Please check your facts before posting.
__________________
Voted "Most likely to start his own cult" by my high school class.
aarond12 is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 21, 2012, 03:19 AM   #112
gladoscc
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
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.
gladoscc is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 21, 2012, 05:12 AM   #113
Moccasin
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Newcastle, UK
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!
Moccasin is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 22, 2012, 04:10 AM   #114
gladoscc
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
AMD APU Trinity would be awesome, but doesn't Airplay require QuickSync (intel technology)?
gladoscc is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 22, 2012, 04:20 AM   #115
Confuzzzed
macrumors 68000
 
Confuzzzed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Liverpool, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torrijos View Post
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.
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

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynn Belvedere View Post
I agree completely. For me, it's USB3 or bust. Thunderbolt might as well not exist.
You will be disappointed
Confuzzzed is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 22, 2012, 09:55 AM   #116
zulkiflim
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by aarond12 View Post
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/Intel...8-264137.shtml

Please check your facts before posting.
Heya

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

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5626/i...re-i7-3770k/18
zulkiflim is offline   -2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2012, 11:22 AM   #117
Quash
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
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/...d.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
__________________
2013 2.0 quad 15" rMBP with 27 inch Cinema Display- 11 inch MBA 2013

Last edited by Quash; Apr 25, 2012 at 11:27 AM.
Quash is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2012, 01:23 PM   #118
philipma1957
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
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/Produc...82E16811112356
philipma1957 is offline   -3 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2012, 04:23 PM   #119
tshrimp
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by philipma1957 View Post
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/Produc...82E16811112356
Is the no USB 3 confirmed, or just a guess?
tshrimp is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2012, 04:48 PM   #120
Mike Valmike
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Quote:
Originally Posted by tshrimp View Post
Is the no USB 3 confirmed, or just a guess?
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 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2012, 05:16 PM   #121
philipma1957
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Valmike View Post
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.


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.

Last edited by philipma1957; Apr 26, 2012 at 06:00 AM.
philipma1957 is offline   -4 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2012, 06:08 PM   #122
mopatops
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by philipma1957 View Post
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.
Yeah, calm down mate. Why would they go out of their way to not include it?
mopatops is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2012, 07:22 PM   #123
philipma1957
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by mopatops View Post
Yeah, calm down mate. Why would they go out of their way to not include it?
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.

Last edited by philipma1957; Apr 26, 2012 at 06:00 AM.
philipma1957 is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2012, 02:39 AM   #124
Quash
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
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.
__________________
2013 2.0 quad 15" rMBP with 27 inch Cinema Display- 11 inch MBA 2013
Quash is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2012, 03:53 AM   #125
Confuzzzed
macrumors 68000
 
Confuzzzed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Liverpool, UK
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?

http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
Confuzzzed is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac mini

Tags
2012, intel, ivy bridge, mac mini, next generation

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mac Mini Ivy Bridge vs Haswell Dragonfire2539 Mac mini 4 Feb 23, 2014 09:12 AM
Help! Can't install 10.7 on Ivy Bridge Mini! Djfremen Mac mini 18 Apr 7, 2013 03:47 AM
Mac mini 2012 (Ivy bridge) test videos "post yours" ZaYoOoD Mac mini 7 Oct 25, 2012 12:20 PM
Ivy Bridge v/s Sandy Bridge & why Apple might skip Ivy for iMac ? mjoshi123 iMac 6 Sep 15, 2012 11:27 AM
Will the Mac Mini get Ivy Bridge? gladoscc Mac mini 19 Jun 15, 2012 01:20 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:44 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC