A Maxed Out Mac Mini With Full Upgrades Will Cost You $4,200

[DeepIn2U]

"Now excuse us while we focus all of our efforts in every other area of hardware...". When they finally take care of a successor of the Cinema Display, I want to like it: Retina. 24-inch. Apple.
View attachment 802446

Funny the pamphlets that come with the new 2018 Apple Mac Mini has a render VERY similar to the Cinema Display you've posted above. 2019 will be a very GOOD year: MBP 13" and 15" to get 6 Core-i7 cpu's.

PS: this naming convention "core" has gone on far too much.

 

[tokyodan]

Yeah. The TouchArcade Show podcast, episode #375 really talks sense about how much of a rip off the new Mac Mini is when considering the actual cost of the parts.

 

[Ifti]

I'll probably go with the i7, 8GB RAM (which I'll upgrade myself), 512GB SSD and 10GBe.

I have a 10GBe switch already with a compatible QNAP NAS, so most of my data storage goes there. At the moment I use a Sonnet TB3-to-10GBe adapter with my MacBook Pro and the speeds are plenty fast!
I also have several TB3 external drives (a ThunderBlade V4 as my editing drive, and a Samsung X5 for general portable data storage, as well as a Samsung T5 for SuperDuper Clones) so I don't really need a large internal drive - its only used for the OS and apps - nothing more.

I purchased my previous 2013 MacBook Pro with a 1TB SSD, and never went over 100GB!! My current MacBook Pro has a 512GB SSD and Ive yet to go over 50GB! With the speeds of external storage these days, I don't find any need for a large internal drive any longer.

 

[RobbieTT]

I'll probably go with the i7, 8GB RAM (which I'll upgrade myself), 512GB SSD and 10GBe.

I have a 10GBe switch already with a compatible QNAP NAS, so most of my data storage goes there.

I did give some thought of going 8GB and self-upgrading but the price difference for 16GB (as I don't have suitable SODIMMs to hand) does not seem worth it.

I am interested in what switch you use as looking around 10GbE switches are still rather expensive. My current solution is to stick with my regular 24-port 1GbE switch for everything else and use an additional Netgear switch that includes 2x10GbE to link my NAS to my iMP. I run a 4xLACP link from this switch to provide the NAS access for the wider network. It works well but clearly limited to just 2x10GbE devices and adds the complication of a second managed switch:

 

[Ifti]

I did give some thought of going 8GB and self-upgrading but the price difference for 16GB (as I don't have suitable SODIMMs to hand) does not seem worth it.

I am interested in what switch you use as looking around 10GbE switches are still rather expensive. My current solution is to stick with my regular 24-port 1GbE switch for everything else and use an additional Netgear switch that includes 2x10GbE to link my NAS to my iMP. I run a 4xLACP link from this switch to provide the NAS access for the wider network. It works well but clearly limited to just 2x10GbE devices and adds the complication of a second managed switch

Nice neat setup there!

At the moment I have a QNAP 8 Bay NAS connected directly to a QNAP QSW-1208 Switch ( https://www.qnap.com/en-uk/product/qsw-1208-8c ). Its only 8 ports but all are 10GBe and its more then enough for my current setup.
Most of my 'Internet Connected' devices, such as mu cameras and other 1GBe devices are directly connected to my router since I generally access them via wireless or remotely anyway, so there was no benefit to them taking up my 10GBe ports.

So on the switch Im using a port for the router (internet Access) and a port for the NAS. A third port goes to a Sonnet adapter which I plug my MacBook into whenever Im at my desk - leaving me with 5 spare 10GBe ports. One is reserved for a Mac computer (possibly a Mini) and the remaining for future use.

I wanted a switch that was plug and play, as well as being power efficient and very quiet in operation, since it was going to sit with my NAS in my work room - so I didn't want anything louder then the drives in the NAS itself. This QNAP fit the bill perfectly since its very quiet in operation, and remains cool even during large file transfers.

 

[RobbieTT]

Nice neat setup there!

I wanted a switch that was plug and play, as well as being power efficient and very quiet in operation, since it was going to sit with my NAS in my work room - so I didn't want anything louder then the drives in the NAS itself. This QNAP fit the bill perfectly since its very quiet in operation, and remains cool even during large file transfers.

Thank-you, although the price smarts a little when we have become so accustomed to cheap network switches.

Noise and heat are also concerns of mine. The Netgear switch is fanless (as is my main switch) but the two 10GbE ports get rather warm to say the least. The non-standard orientation in my rack is to position the hottest part of the switch as far back as possible (ie on the 'hot' side of the rack). The new Mac mini will probably run hotter than my current i7 so I will have to check the thermals. It's always warm in the network cupboard....

 

[Ifti]

Thank-you, although the price smarts a little when we have become so accustomed to cheap network switches.

Noise and heat are also concerns of mine. The Netgear switch is fanless (as is my main switch) but the two 10GbE ports get rather warm to say the least. The non-standard orientation in my rack is to position the hottest part of the switch as far back as possible (ie on the 'hot' side of the rack). The new Mac mini will probably run hotter than my current i7 so I will have to check the thermals. It's always warm in the network cupboard....

View attachment 803555

Looks sweet - which rack is that?

 

[RobbieTT]

All Metal Parts 300 x 9U:

http://www.allmetalparts.co.uk/50-19-300mm-deep-rack-cabinet-cases

 

[NaimNut]

My iPhone 5 needs replacing soon as the apps on it are super slow with the hardware”

Complaining about a 7 year old phone?

I read no further.

 

[benwiggy]

Did Mac Mini ever have speakers of any kind?

I am more interested in Microphone, will I have to buy microphone to talk to Siri?

CONFIRMED: The Mini does have speakers. I was a bit worried that they were absent from the specs. Anyway, mine has arrived, and it's awesomely fast.

You will need a microphone if you want to use Siri, but Siri is mostly rubbish.

 

[bobmepp]

I initially was excited about the new Mini, and I still think it's a great improvement overall, but, in the final analysis, the cost just seems to be too high for what it is. I'm happy to see that thunderbolt 2 external drive cases and memory for my late 2013 Pro have dropped. I think I'll keep my Pro and upgrade the memory to 64 GB, which now costs $329 (and a 128 GB upgrade costs just $599!) Sure the memory is slower than the new Mini's memory, but I don't really care. If I get my external drives off USB 3, and onto Thunderbolt, plus 4x the memory, my old trash can will seem like a real screamer to me. I'm afraid the new MacPro that's supposed to come out next year will be shockingly expensive if its price is proportional to this new mini's price - I'm guessing entry level will be at about $4 to 5K with higher configs going well into 5 figures. The only hope for people like me will be if some kind of bare bones unit is offered for around 3K.

 

[jdiamond]

And it will struggle doing a lot of tasks unless you're investing in an eGPU. Seriously this is pretty bad to include an Intel UHD Graphics 630

Seriously, that's why Apple did this - to jump start the eGPU industry. It's the same reason Macbook Pros have no USB 3 ports. To create a huge and desperate market for 3rd party makers to supply. But I completely agree - unless you have a specialized use for a Mac Mini in a black box compute farm, you need to add at least $400 to the price (the lowest cost eGPU I found that boosts graphics capability to that of an iMac.)

The good news - like the DRAM, you can add this later as you need/afford it.
[doublepost=1542384100][/doublepost]

I initially was excited about the new Mini, and I still think it's a great improvement overall, but, in the final analysis, the cost just seems to be too high for what it is. I'm happy to see that thunderbolt 2 external drive cases and memory for my late 2013 Pro have dropped. I think I'll keep my Pro and upgrade the memory to 64 GB, which now costs $329 (and a 128 GB upgrade costs just $599!) Sure the memory is slower than the new Mini's memory, but I don't really care. If I get my external drives off USB 2, and onto Thunderbolt, plus 4x the memory, my old trash can will seem like a real screamer to me. I'm afraid the new MacPro that's supposed to come out next year will be shockingly expensive if its price is proportional to this new mini's price - I'm guessing entry level will be at about $4 to 5K with higher configs going well into 5 figures. The only hope for people like me will be if some kind of bare bones unit is offered for around 3K.

I did a *LOT* of price analysis before deciding to buy a Mac Mini, and based on Apple's CURRENT line up, it really *IS* the best deal. For a stationary computer, you don't need a large internal hard drive. And I found the high end Mac Mini with a 256GB hard drive and (initial) 16GB RAM was substantially cheaper than an equivalent iMac or Macbook Pro - even throwing in the cost of an eGPU. You basically are getting what for Apple is a $2,600 computer for just $1,500. The high capacity SSD options are insanely priced on all Apple products - about $1,000/TB. I'd rather invest a fraction of that in an external TB3 RAID for the desktop.

It's hard to find even a used Apple computer with this power at this price. But I agree with the OP - if you still own an Apple computer you can upgrade, that's gonna be cheaper.

 

[bobmepp]

Seriously, that's why Apple did this - to jump start the eGPU industry. It's the same reason Macbook Pros have no USB 3 ports. To create a huge and desperate market for 3rd party makers to supply. But I completely agree - unless you have a specialized use for a Mac Mini in a black box compute farm, you need to add at least $400 to the price (the lowest cost eGPU I found that boosts graphics capability to that of an iMac.)

The good news - like the DRAM, you can add this later as you need/afford it.
[doublepost=1542384100][/doublepost]

I did a *LOT* of price analysis before deciding to buy a Mac Mini, and based on Apple's CURRENT line up, it really *IS* the best deal. For a stationary computer, you don't need a large internal hard drive. And I found the high end Mac Mini with a 256GB hard drive and (initial) 16GB RAM was substantially cheaper than an iMac or Macbook Pro - even throwing in the cost of an eGPU. You basically are getting what for Apple is a $2,600 computer for just $1,500. The high capacity SSD options are insanely priced on all Apple products - about $1,000/TB. I'd rather invest a fraction of that in an external TB3 RAID for the desktop.

It's hard to find even a used Apple computer with this power at this price. But I agree with the OP - if you still own an Apple computer you can upgrade, that's gonna be cheaper.

My price analysis was basically the same, and, who knows, if I can get a good price for my trash can, I may still opt for the Mini, in order to take advantage of usb c/thunderbolt 3, and the ability to upgrade graphics over time, the lack of which is probably the biggest shortcoming of the late 2013 Pro. By the way, I meant to say USB 3, not USB 2 in my post. God help me if I'm trying to use external drives on USB 2! In any case, I'm probably holding off until 2019, just to see what the deal is with the new Pro.

 

[eRondeau]

If nobody's claimed this "rule of life" perhaps it can be named after me. But I bought my first computer -- a Commodore PET 4032 -- in 1981; all-in it cost about $3,000. In 1990 I bought a Commodore Amiga 500; all-in it cost about $3,000. In 1994 I bought a Commodore Amiga 2000+; all-in it cost about $3,000. In 2003 I bought my first Mac, an iBook G4; all-in it cost about $3,000. In 2007 I bought a 24" iMac; all-in it cost about $3,000. In 2012 I bought a 27" iMac; all-in it cost about $3,000. These are Canadian prices BTW. So my theory is -- a new state-of-the-art computer will always cost about $3,000. A loaded top-of-the-line model is $1,000 more and a no-frills base model is $1,000 less. So the top-of-the-line Mac mini at $4,200 (US) falls within this rule. The market has determined that $3,000 is the "sweet spot" for a nice new computer. Some will pay a little more for bells-and-whistles and some will pay a little less for the plain-jane model. When people stop buying $4,000 Mac mini's there won't be any more $4,000 Mac mini's. It's a rule of free economics.

 

[bobmepp]

If nobody's claimed this "rule of life" perhaps it can be named after me. But I bought my first computer -- a Commodore PET 4032 -- in 1981; all-in it cost about $3,000. In 1990 I bought a Commodore Amiga 500; all-in it cost about $3,000. In 1994 I bought a Commodore Amiga 2000+; all-in it cost about $3,000. In 2003 I bought my first Mac, an iBook G4; all-in it cost about $3,000. In 2007 I bought a 24" iMac; all-in it cost about $3,000. In 2012 I bought a 27" iMac; all-in it cost about $3,000. These are Canadian prices BTW. So my theory is -- a new state-of-the-art computer will always cost about $3,000. A loaded top-of-the-line model is $1,000 more and a no-frills base model is $1,000 less. So the top-of-the-line Mac mini at $4,200 (US) falls within this rule. The market has determined that $3,000 is the "sweet spot" for a nice new computer. Some will pay a little more for bells-and-whistles and some will pay a little less for the plain-jane model. When people stop buying $4,000 Mac mini's there won't be any more $4,000 Mac mini's. It's a rule of free economics.

My experience is very similar. I'm willing to refer to it as the "eRondeau rule"!

 

[mmomega]

And it will struggle doing a lot of tasks unless you're investing in an eGPU. Seriously this is pretty bad to include an Intel UHD Graphics 630

Depends on your tasks.

I have PLENTY of 2010-2014 Minis with much less graphical power than the built-in 630 and those machines work 40+hrs a week.

Promise life will go on.

 

[fastasleep]

Seriously, that's why Apple did this - to jump start the eGPU industry. It's the same reason Macbook Pros have no USB 3 ports. To create a huge and desperate market for 3rd party makers to supply. But I completely agree - unless you have a specialized use for a Mac Mini in a black box compute farm, you need to add at least $400 to the price (the lowest cost eGPU I found that boosts graphics capability to that of an iMac.)

Jumpstarting the eGPU industry doesn't gain them anything since they don't make eGPUs.

I think you mean USB-A ports. The Thunderbolt 3 using USB-C ports on the MBPs support USB 3.x (3.0, 3.1 gen 1, 3.1 gen 2 which is twice as fast as 3.0/3.1 gen 1) as well as everything else and all you need is a different cable. It's not a conspiracy, it's a better and more advanced port in every way. And again, creating a market for third parties does not benefit Apple in any way. TB3 ports do benefit the user, though.

 

[campyguy]

And it will struggle doing a lot of tasks unless you're investing in an eGPU. Seriously this is pretty bad to include an Intel UHD Graphics 630

The 2012 Minis working their chips off in my company are installed in Sonnet xMacs as video ingest workstations - they resemble @mmomega's remarks. :evilgrin:

I'm waiting with baited breath to see what Sonnet dials up for the updated Mini...