Late 2014 Mac Mini Benchmarks Indicate Decreased Multi-Core Performance

AppleSOS said:

What's that supposed to mean? In fact, I repair computers to make some money.

Click to expand...

"On a side note, the top level Mac Mini with the i7 upgrade is an amazing headless computer for $1200."

If you have every built a computer you would know it is not an amazing headless computer for 1200, with 1200 dollars I could build a quad core i7 with 16GB ram 240GB SDD and 4TB drive and even throw a dedicated mid-level graphics card...

The fact that the i7 would be a true quad-core edition is reason enough that the Mac mini is a rip off.

And if you think that OSX is worth the 600-700 markup on hardware you can hackintosh pretty easily nowadays, at worst a copy of windows is 100 dollars.

They basically crippled the mac mini by not keeping the quad-core.

That is why people are pissed because it used to be a mini-powerhouse, now it has been downgraded to a tiny toy.

I think this goes in the "No ****" column of news.

They went from using mid-level range components in intelss "LV" quad core range of products (as found in Macbook Pros)

To using ULV, range dual core products, that are far far more limited in performance in order to have a much lower power and heat threshold.

of course it performs worse.

these 2014 Mac Mini's are embarrassing.

JoEw said:

And if you think that OSX is worth the 600-700 markup on hardware you can hackintosh pretty easily nowadays, at worst a copy of windows is 100 dollars.

They basically crippled the mac mini by not keeping the quad-core.

That is why people are pissed because it used to be a mini-powerhouse, now it has been downgraded to a tiny toy.

Click to expand...

There's a lot more than the Software that keeps people buying Macs. Most of the parts are made specifically for the Macs, which decreases the chances of component failures. Thus, the build quality is much better than almost any PCs (Razer is one PC manufacturer that has adopted this process as well). Again, it is an entry-level machine; it's not meant to be a "powerhouse".

AppleSOS said:

There's a lot more than the Software that keeps people buying Macs. Most of the parts are made specifically for the Macs, which decreases the chances of component failures. Thus, the build quality is much better than almost any PCs (Razer is one PC manufacturer that has adopted this process as well). Again, it is an entry-level machine; it's not meant to be a "powerhouse".

Click to expand...

that sort of thing however is what we call an intangible. There's no real way of valuating that since there's no objective measuring of such thing.

Thats why the debate about "apple tax" always seems to come up. for many, it's worth it, For many others, it is not.

AppleSOS said:

There's a lot more than the Software that keeps people buying Macs. Most of the parts are made specifically for the Macs, which decreases the chances of component failures. Thus, the build quality is much better than almost any PCs (Razer is one PC manufacturer that has adopted this process as well). Again, it is an entry-level machine; it's not meant to be a "powerhouse".

Click to expand...

Look at my signature, I definitely buy macs they are great computers but I also build PC's for media servers/gaming and HTPC uses and if you know what you are doing and you buy from reputable known components (the same ones apple use) you are gonna have a great computer. Granted not the refinement that Apple provides but my original point someone made is that the new topped out 1200 dollar dual core i7 mini was a great headless computer and that is simply not true when you got more from the last generation mac mini.. or any other desktop you can build for 1200 dollars.

But maybe you guys are missing my point,
It now is an entry-level machine when it used to be a powerhouse and the prices stayed the same on the high end with the loss of quad-core and ability to upgrade. That is why people are pissed off because they did infact cripple the series.

Also, on the iMac you can choose a 1tb fusion drive or 256gb flash memory without paying more for either, on the mac mini to go from a fusion drive to the same 256gb flash it is another 200 dollars.... sneaky Apple.

As much as we are all disappointed in in the CPU de-evolution of the new MacMini... especially after such a godawful long wait...

Looking on the bright side... We can all at least be grateful that apl didn't can it entirely.

media hookup

As a media machine it's still good. I just hooked up a mid lever (iris) mini. Runs all the stuff I want to my 60" sony nicely. popcorn time, vuze, netflix, amazon and some others. Seems to work just fine for this purpose. I also have a quad core 2.7mhz 27" iMac, mid 2011. I don't feel that much difference in general wandering around the computer. I haven't and won't be putting photoshop on the mini of course but then again that's not what it's for.

For those looking for a media deliverer, it seems to work well. I can't speak for the lower end one though. It's the reason I bumped it up a bit for that iris graphics processor.

From the benchmarks it seems the i7 offers almost nothing over the i5 or am I missing something (i.e. usually you get additional threads).

In the long run, quad-core across new Mac mini line is very necessary. Because there is gonna be more and more mini-generation.

Is there benchmarks comparing the 1.4 to the 2.8 2014 Mini? I know it's found the GHz, but I'm trying to figure out for a media center, but ripping DVD and BD's if it worth the extra to go from a base 1.4 with 4GB to a 2.8 with 8GB. The base has the 500GB the other has a 2TB HDD and the better graphics, but it quite a bump in price.