If so, that just makes me have to make a decision.
Full blown iMac, or jump on a Mini until Ivy Bridge.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2011 Mac Mini - Speculation
- Thread starter Nanker/Phelge
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If so, that just makes me have to make a decision.
Full blown iMac, or jump on a Mini until Ivy Bridge.Internal space for 2 hard drives plus an optical drive in an easy open case that has some jacks and ports on the front like the Mac Pro. It's not the processor it is what is wrapped around the processor that is the deal breaker.
I prefer not to have a bunch of external devices cluttering up my desk and I do not want a built in screen.
My problem is that I really can't get by with the G4 anymore. But I'm tired of waiting on Apple and I'm a stubborn SOB (taurus) that doesn't want external devices or built in screens. And if I chunked down the bucks for a Mac Pro I might have to build me a doghouse.
Some of us had to do the spending all we had and then some to get a Mac Pro... (Mine replaced a G4/450 for Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro... so long long overdue)... Having done it, while its *awesome* I wouldn't do it again...
Apologies if posted before. Posting this as others have enquired about performance differences between Mini's current 320M GPU & the HD3000 which may be part of Mini's next update. Some interesting stats below for MacBook Pro (2010) with 320M v MacbookPro (2011) with HD3000, in both W7 & OS X:
http://www.techyalert.com/2011/02/25/macbook-pro-2010-vs-macbook-pro-2011/
Overall, 320M is better than HD3000, but what's interesting is how much better Windows 7 64-bit performance is with both cards over OS X 10.6.6.
For example (other games tested in link):
In Windows 7 64-bit: Left 4 Dead (SP Campaign No Mercy)
Low Settings
2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (avg fps) = 57
2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (avg fps) = 69
Medium Settings
2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (avg fps) = 49
2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (avg fps) = 64
High Settings
2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (avg fps) = 36
2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (avg fps) = 43
In OS X 10.6.6: Left 4 Dead (SP Campaign No Mercy)
Low Settings
2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (avg fps) = 51
2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (avg fps) = 48
Medium Settings
2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (avg fps) = 41
2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (avg fps) = 44
High Settings
2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (avg fps) = 27
2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (avg fps) = 30
For me, best thing would be a CPU update & more RAM, but keep the 320M. Hopefully we'll find out very soon.
http://www.techyalert.com/2011/02/25/macbook-pro-2010-vs-macbook-pro-2011/
Overall, 320M is better than HD3000, but what's interesting is how much better Windows 7 64-bit performance is with both cards over OS X 10.6.6.
For example (other games tested in link):
In Windows 7 64-bit: Left 4 Dead (SP Campaign No Mercy)
Low Settings
2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (avg fps) = 57
2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (avg fps) = 69
Medium Settings
2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (avg fps) = 49
2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (avg fps) = 64
High Settings
2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (avg fps) = 36
2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (avg fps) = 43
In OS X 10.6.6: Left 4 Dead (SP Campaign No Mercy)
Low Settings
2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (avg fps) = 51
2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (avg fps) = 48
Medium Settings
2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (avg fps) = 41
2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (avg fps) = 44
High Settings
2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (avg fps) = 27
2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (avg fps) = 30
For me, best thing would be a CPU update & more RAM, but keep the 320M. Hopefully we'll find out very soon.
I don't think that's possible. From what I understand, Intel ran into legal troubles with Nvidia and blocked them from making the newest Intel chipset, so it's either Core 2 Duo with Nvidia GPU or the new Sandy Bridge with Intel's GPU.
That's a bummer, but thanks for the clarification, guys. Fortunately, there's no rush here in buying one immediately.
Meantime, I'll weigh up pros & cons of buying a new discounted 320M Mini when updated Minis with HD3000 are out, or maybe put up with Intel's crap after all & buy with Lion's release. Hopefully by then they might have improved the drivers a bit.
FWIW, I wouldn't give a stuff about 320M or HD3000, but I have loads of Mac games. However, I won't buy another iMac (or any other AIO) after the last one developed a major logic board problem in less than 3 years + I can't stand glossy screens. As Mac Pro is overkill, it has to be a Mini. Cheers!
Once Thunderbolt is added, the need for additional internal storage will be even less of a concern for Apple. I don't know how much smaller the form factor could get, but imagine a Mini sans optical drive, and mSata flash storage in place of a traditional HDD. Give me that, Sandy Bridge and a Thunderbolt port and I'd be good to go!
Thunderbolt is meaningless for me - I use the mini in my living room as a HTPC/home server. The last thing I need is more cords and another peripheral device. I just want a small, quiet box with high storage capacity and all the useless junk cut out. it doesnt have to be the fastest box - just the smartest one.
What if you had a thunderbolt drive that continued to a thunderbolt port at the back of your TV? I could see that as being a potential replacement for HDMI meaning you would have only two cables coming out of the mini: Power and TB. We'll have to see if the TV industry will have any movement towards TB.
Hard drive with Thunderbolt, connected to your TV? Makes no sense.
First you're going to want the audio processed and amplified by something better than a TV anyway. So a receiver has to be in the pathway anyway.
Second you would never want your TV to be your playing device, not unless you want to spend a lot of money on upgrading. The kinds of processsing and so on that go on with video are changing far faster than the 5-10 year useful life of a TV display.
It's far better to have a computer as the server/player and the display as a dumb unit that displays images that it is instructed to. So personally i would always prefer to do it all with the mini - just want better internal capacity and ability to swap out drives reasonably easily.
Maybe in 3 years. The Mini uses 2.5" drives not 3.5". I can't see this changing when the Mini gets updated.If you remove the OD you can jam 6TB into there!
I agree with what you want , but apple doesn't. iTunes and netflix provide huge content on the net. The volume they push is amazing. They want to keep it at 720p for video and a max of 320kbits for audio.
The internet would need 3 times the coax/ fiber optics / satellites to move just the volume sold now if a full switchover to 1080p for streaming downloads etc happens today. So apple is looking to cripple the mac mini and ATV at 720p.
There are a lot of shapes and designs that could work with storage and speed you want for a HTPC, but until someone figures an easy low cost way to push video into your home at 1080p and music at about 1500kbits (ie lossless is about 700kbits to 1400kbits). Apple will not push minis the way both you and I want. A 14 inch by 7 inch by 2 inch box can fit just about everything you want. A killer cpu a gpu a few hdds etc.
Seriously seconded. I'm using a 1,42 GHz PPC mini and have (about bloody time) finally got enough money to buy a new one. I, however, just won't buy a machine with a CPU that's as outdated as these C2D's. As I also don't have the money to buy something else Apple (sigh, I'd love a 15" MBP with dedicated GPU) I could as well buy a normal PC if they don't refresh Mini along with the iMac.
I'd be very dissapointed in Apple.
ATV and Mac Mini haven't been refreshed. The iPad 2 mirrors 1080p via HMDI.
Last edited:
good point drop ATV and the mini.
making the ipad the htpc/mobile jack of all trades.
this fit in with the rumor of a smaller mac pro. it is really a blown up mini and not a smaller mac pro. for desktop you get☟
mac mini pro
http://www.macgasm.net/2011/04/21/rumor-mac-pro-revision-bring-smaller-rackmountable-cases/
imac
mac pro on steroids 16 core
I'm seriously considering building a hackintosh at this point. It won't be worth it if the Mini is refreshed (I'll be happy with a mini that has the specs of the 2011 mb pro), but if they discontinue it I think I'll spend the $700 building something with decent specs. I already have a nice monitor so I don't need an iMac.
This of course, wouldn't be an issue if the Mini had remotely decent specs at the time of its last refresh. I bought a laptop LAST March that had an i3. Wtf!
I assume your laptop was a PC? If you're going to compare straight PCs to Macs, spec for spec, then you're not going to get far in understanding the real differences that set the two apart. It's not just about specs.
And why on earth would they discontinue the Mac Mini, less than a year after a major rehaul? It's most definitely here to stay as it's a very popular machine for both entry level switchers and HTPC enthusiasts. Don't forget it's server counterpart as well and the markets that it targets.