Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Announces New Space Gray Mac mini With 4-Core or 6-Core Intel Processor and Up to 64GB RAM, Starting at $799

emulator said:
I just got a m.2 WD 1TB for $104 a week ago (abeit coupon mistake by Staples).

Doesn't matter, people are stupid enough to pay this all time high Apple tax to purchase inferior computers.
Click to expand...
Emanuel Rodriguez said:
If you don't understand the difference between SATA and PCIe performance, perhaps you shouldn't be arguing specs. PCIe SSDs are very expensive compared to their SATA counterparts.

You too.
Click to expand...

If you make an effort to read the thread, you'll see that PCIe SSD prices have been compared already and Apple is charging at least double for the exact same thing. Example: https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16820147692 2TB is $580. Apple charges $1400 FOR. THE. SAME. THING.

Any other questions?
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG88
Has it been absolutely established that the SSD is soldered to the motherboard? I read a few pages of this thread but I haven’t seen anything authoritative. Couldn’t it have a similar setup to the iMac Pro (which also has the T2 chip) which, according to an earlier article here, has a (theoretically) replaceable SSD (two of them, in that case)? I wouldn’t expect Apple to expose it at the bottom of the machine where the RAM is, but I wonder if it’s still accessible/replaceable if you disassemble the machine deep enough.
 
One thing we can't complain about is the CPU grunt in the new Minis.

According to both Userbenchmark and Geekbench, even the base CPU in the 2018 Mini (8th gen, non hyper-threading, quad i3) is a decent jump up from the CPU in the top model 2012 Mini (3rd gen, hyper-threading 2.6GHz, quad i7):

Userbenchmark (2018 i3 v. 2012 i7)
73rd v. 246th out of 1135.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-8100-vs-Intel-Core-i7-3720QM/3942vsm1619

Geekbench (2018 i3 v. 2012 i7)
Single-Core = 4575 v. 3295
Multi-Core = 13381 v. 10520
https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/2395
https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/743

The top model of the new Mini (i7 hex core) gives more than twice the multi-core performance of the top model 2012 Mini:
Single-Core = 5304 v. 3295
Multi-Core = 23010 v. 10520

EDIT: Please note that the Geekbench figures are for processors, not the full machine. That is because we do not yet have figures for the full 2018 machine to do an apples-with-apples comparison.

But even the full machine figure for the top 2012 model is still below that for the 2018 i3 processor (11479 v. 13381).

So the basic point still stands: The new base model Mini is more powerful than the previous most powerful Mini.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Luap, Spectrum, Yvan256 and 4 others
IG88 said:
Not really. It's more like 96 GB of ultra fast storage. SSD write performance begins to suffer around 75% full.
Click to expand...

Only really applies to random write performance, minimal with a good controller and adequate spare, and it most definitely does not make the rest of the available storage not ultra fast, just less so.
 
Looking at replacing a 2013 iMac, which is essentially a living room family computer. I may look more seriously at the Mac mini now that it’s been refreshed.
 
Well I’m a bit disappointed personally, no hard drive changing, I have an SSD and HDD in mine, and ridiculous prices, with the Space Grey colour this is clearly the Mac mini Pro that was rumoured, so no, the normal Mac mini has yet to be updated.

I mean I can’t remember exactly how much I paid for my 2008 model but I’m sure it was close to half this base price and the 2012 model wasn’t much more. I feel like Apple just want people to buy an iMac.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imageWIS
Emanuel Rodriguez said:
If you don't understand the difference between SATA and PCIe performance, perhaps you shouldn't be arguing specs. PCIe SSDs are very expensive compared to their SATA counterparts.
Click to expand...
You can compare the SSDs in the Mac Mini with a Samsung NVMe 970 Pro.
It costs 198$ (512 GB).

Apple charges 400$ extra for 512 GB SSD and 200$ for an additional 128 GB. Since the price always doubles, the 128 GB were probably calculated with 100$.
Thus, a 512 GB SSD costs 500$ at Apple, which is 2,5 times higher than the value on the free market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG88, imageWIS, ipponrg and 1 other person
I think the new Blackmagic eGPU Prowould be a great fit. Vega 56, not bad. But together with a 5K display, the MacMini costs probably as much as an iMacPro :p.
 
Whats the GPU like on the new Mac Mini?
I need a FCPX machine and a Mini with maxed CPU would be nice, but would I be forced to purchase the eGPU (which, the last I read, made no difference to FCPX performance anyways)???
 
I'm in the market for an iMac (in the £2400 region), and also have a 2011 Mac Mini (server - with two HDDs).
The new Mac Mini *could* tempt me along with an eGPU instead of an iMac. Would I be daft to go that route? I have a pair of Dell U2415's (1920x1200 res). I appreciate they're not in the same league as a 5K Retina screen - but could be tempted to get a single larger screen to go with Mac Mini + eGPU.
Thoughts?
 
Ifti said:
Whats the GPU like on the new Mac Mini?
Click to expand...
Looks like the Intel 630 integrated graphics that's been unchanged since the 7th Gen 2016 chips. So iPad has the better graphics by far. I like the new 2K NBA game for iPad. You can see the sweat beads on the players.
 
chatin said:
Looks like the Intel 630 integrated graphics that's been unchanged since the 7th Gen 2016 chips. So iPad has the better graphics by far. I like the new 2K NBA game for iPad. You can see the sweat beads on the players.
Click to expand...

Wait - the iPad has better graphics then the Mac Mini?????
 
If only it had a better GPU option I would probably take one over an iMAC for editing via FCPX.
I don't want to buy a Mac Mini and have to get the eGPU with it!
 
k27 said:
You can compare the SSDs in the Mac Mini with a Samsung NVMe 970 Pro.
It costs 198$ (512 GB).

Apple charges 400$ extra for 512 GB SSD and 200$ for an additional 128 GB. Since the price always doubles, the 128 GB were probably calculated with 100$.
Thus, a 512 GB SSD costs 500$ at Apple, which is 2,5 times higher than the value on the free market.
Click to expand...
imageWIS said:
If you make an effort to read the thread, you'll see that PCIe SSD prices have been compared already and Apple is charging at least double for the exact same thing. Example: https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16820147692 2TB is $580. Apple charges $1400 FOR. THE. SAME. THING.

Any other questions?
Click to expand...
There is a lot more to specs than the bus type or size. How fast is the drive? How reliable? Does it do well under high load? Can the components be trusted to be secure? It isn't the simplest thing if you want to get the best component money can buy. Not saying Apple's tax isn't a bit high here, but it certainly isn't as simple as finding some cheap freely-available SSD and assuming it'll function just as well.
 
Last edited:
It is expensive (but nowadays almost everything sold by Apple is expensive) but Apple really put some effort in pleasing everybody needs and wants.

Powerful CPUs, user expansible memory (probably a first or close second time that Apple's goes back on one of its "courageous" decisions), most ports everybody wants.

OK, no GPU, almost impossible in that enclosure, and even a great mobile GPU would soon be outdated and would never please the users that now will end going the eGPU way.

Also no user expansible SSD, but in a desktop with several ports that is less of a problem. Someone will (probably exists already) build a beautiful Mac Mini like enclosure to put under the Mini with extra drives.

A lot of people waiting on the Mac Pro are now ordering Mac Minis and will never look back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yvan256
Emanuel Rodriguez said:
There is a lot more to specs than the bus type or size. How fast is the drive? How reliable? Does it do well under high load? Can the components be trusted to be secure? It isn't the simplest thing if you want to get the best component money can buy. Not saying Apple's tax isn't a bit high here, but it certainly isn't as simple as finding some cheap freely-available SSD and assuming it'll function just as well.
Click to expand...
Take a look at the Samsung specifications and reconsider your statement. A certain premium is OK but the prices are too high.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imageWIS and thisrocks
Emanuel Rodriguez said:
Don't think it really matters when you can go eGPU, and basically have a GPU upgrade path for life?
Click to expand...

It does when they now cost 1.6x the cost over the previous model selling last week. If I have to buy a discrete graphics card over an above that price hike, what is the point? I can build my way 80% of the way to a VR gaming rid for the price of a mini. Steve Jobs touted during the first mac mini release that it had a discrete graphics card, not an integrated one like today. How far Apple has fallen.

What's worse is the 2014 model mini was on par, spec wise, with the 2012 model. So this isn't a 60% speed boost in four years, but rather a 60% boost in 6 years. That's dreadful. You are getting a 60% faster machine, over 6 years at 1.6x the cost. 666 Satan confirmed lol Jk. But no seriously, this is garbage, you are getting less relative bang for your buck today than you were 6 or even 4 years ago. You can ONLY get away with this if your user base is insulated from hardware prices and specs. Which I am not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: grayskies and dewski
Price way too high. 128gb is not usable at all so in reality the starting price is going to be over $1k
 
Two problems.

1. Embarassing graphics. UHD 630? That's barely capable of running HS/Mojave, and lags just resizing windows.

2. Soldered and absurdly priced storage. $200 to go from 128 to 256? That is taking the piss.

Solid CPU, great ports, great form factor (though not a fan of space gray).
 
Naimfan said:
Two problems.

1. Embarassing graphics. UHD 630? That's barely capable of running HS/Mojave, and lags just resizing windows.

2. Soldered and absurdly priced storage. $200 to go from 128 to 256? That is taking the piss.

Solid CPU, great ports, great form factor (though not a fan of space gray).
Click to expand...
I was wondering about this. I've been looking at specs and the OpenCL benchmark for this UHD 630 graphics is 22036 (a current iMac 27" does 107000 OpenCL so it is indeed limited). But I am currently running HS on a iMac 2010 with an ATI Radeon HD 5750 graphics with 1 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory and it does an OpenCL of 7787 according to Geekbench tables. That is still *usable* (yes there is some lag on resizing/moving windows) so why wouldn't the three times as fast UHD 630 be usable?

And talking about the UHD 630: what kind of monitor would this comfortably drive?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElectronGuru
MacRumors said:
mac-mini-800x500.jpg
Click to expand...

Who the hell keeps a cactus on their desk less than a foot away from their keyboard?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jev425, fairuz and redfirebird08
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back