pretty crazy, the 800 mac mini is about 4 times as powerful as my 2009 macbook pro and 4 times bigger hdd. time to sell the mbp and grab a mini
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.
Apple Introduces New Mac Mini With Faster Processors and Quad-Core Option
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And you are giving them great ammunition.
1. US prices are always quoted excluding tax. So European prices will always be higher due to 20% or so VAT.
2. Costs in Europe are higher due to better consumer protection laws. When you buy a computer in Europe, the seller has to fix problems beyond Apple's one year manufacturer's warranty. Guess what: You are paying for it.
Well they have evidently made this machine for quite a number of people thrilled to get discreet graphics in the last model??? Point moot. Apple 'should' offer configurations for the desires of everybody they possibly can. That is good business. Happy customer base. (As many customers as they can get!)
No skin off my back... Personally I have the last i7 server model. Too bad they didn't do a quad w/ better video. They would have sold a good number of them to us. There are us out here that may want to use our own dual display setups. Nothing wrong with Apple's beautiful 27" displays, but you put something w/o glass beside it? Ruins the dual display happiness factor. Lots of us can't afford 2xApple 27" displays.
Only ever owned one imac in my life (original bondi 233mhz), but I may just sink it on a new 27" and see if apple continues to try to turn my desktop OS into iOS.
Lackluster upgrade to the mini line but the 'server' is still and UPGRADE. And I would be perfectly happy with one. (or a new 27" iMac
)
Last edited:
It will definitely be faster. The 3 GHz Mac Pro 1,1 is approximately equivalent to a Core 2 Quad at the same speed (well 2 Core 2 Duos but performance wise basically the same). The first i5/7s were about 25% faster clock-per-clock compared to the Core 2 Duo/Quad lines per processor. Subsequent generations have added up to ~10%. I'd say the current i5/i7 Ivy Bridge generation is about 40% faster than the Core 2 Duo/Quad generation clock per clock.
So the base 2.3GHz Quad model will be a little faster than your Mac Pro. The 2.6GHz will be a good bit faster. Of course, this is ignoring any potential benefits hyper threading will get you which in some cases is nothing but in others significant. The code I use for work (not HT optimised but single threaded stuff that I run multiple instances of) scales amazingly well with HT.
I think the HD 4000 is about 2/3 as powerful as the 8800 GT but I doubt you'll be using much of that in photoshop.
In a nutshell, yes, this will be faster than your existing machine. Put an SSD in there (Crucial M4 512GB if you feel confident putting it in yourself) and it will fly in comparison.
I'd guess iFixit should have something.
Sorry, unable to provide a link, as I used Apple's service manual.
Easily. The 2010 aluminum unibody mini was engineered to fit a 12.7mm optical drive - while a hard drive is much smaller. Server versions replaced the optical drive with a plastic carrier/tray thing holding the drive in place. Looks and works the same internally, though the unibody aluminum enclosure on server versions lacks the external disc slot.
2011 mini uses a bascially unchanged layout internally. Installation is even a bit easier, as it doesn't have individual temperature sensors on the drives (as opposed to the 2010 model). Because it is still based on a design which originally included an optical drive, there is ample room for the 2nd internal HD. The plastic tray isn't pre-installed on non-server versions but works just the same.
Upgraded processor, kept FW800 port, and upgraded to USB 3.0 are all great. Processor upgrade from quad 2.3 i7 to quad 2.6ghz i7 for only $100 more is not a bad deal (I'm surprised it was not more!).
Bummer that the hybrid drive upgrade is $250 - ouch! Lack of discreet graphics is a bit of a bummer too, though the 4000 is probably better than what is in my core duo 2 I have now. These last two bummers will probably keep me from upgrading for now. I'll wait and see what the Mac Pros look like when they are upgraded in 2013 before deciding what to get.
Bummer that the hybrid drive upgrade is $250 - ouch! Lack of discreet graphics is a bit of a bummer too, though the 4000 is probably better than what is in my core duo 2 I have now. These last two bummers will probably keep me from upgrading for now. I'll wait and see what the Mac Pros look like when they are upgraded in 2013 before deciding what to get.
"It's a whole "I'm taking my ball and going home." [about not buying a mini for some lack or another.]
That is the whole point of a free market. If you do not like the current Mini, DO NOY BUY IT!
If the product does not meet my needs or expectations for the price I'm willing to pay, then I don't buy it. I never liked the mirror-displays on the iMacs, so I did not buy one. I have no use for an iPad, so I did not buy one. Mountain Lion offers me nothing I value, so I did not buy it. Etc. Etc. and so on.
By the way Apple, I will be sticking with my 2009 mini for some time yet. The various detractors are right, the new mini has little to recommend it over what I have.
That is the whole point of a free market. If you do not like the current Mini, DO NOY BUY IT!
If the product does not meet my needs or expectations for the price I'm willing to pay, then I don't buy it. I never liked the mirror-displays on the iMacs, so I did not buy one. I have no use for an iPad, so I did not buy one. Mountain Lion offers me nothing I value, so I did not buy it. Etc. Etc. and so on.
By the way Apple, I will be sticking with my 2009 mini for some time yet. The various detractors are right, the new mini has little to recommend it over what I have.
The server looks very nice indeed. I've come to the conclusion that the end-user models are rather a disappointment -- no option for an optical drive, and no discrete graphics. Maybe with Haswell they could have gotten away with it, but dropping the discrete graphics option now is premature.
Since it seemed to get lost in all of the announcement fury, I'll ask again:
Can you just use something like this to get around the graphics card issue?
http://blog.macsales.com/14601-owc-introduces-mercury-helios-pcie-thunderbolt-expansion-chassis
Can you just use something like this to get around the graphics card issue?
http://blog.macsales.com/14601-owc-introduces-mercury-helios-pcie-thunderbolt-expansion-chassis
Interesting, thanks. Might be worth the upgrade then, instead of just waiting for the new Mac Pro. I guess I could use the old one as a file server or Windows box.
You sure could. But why spend all that money on a mini when you could just take that extra money and put it towards an iMac which offers even better performance?
Well, I'm a software developer and I do a lot of things on my PC. I can understand if someone needs more RAM, faster HDD or SSD, better CPU, etc. But HD4000 will render your desktop and UI with same speed and quality as standalone chip will do. Of course 3d games is different thing. But because you use your computer only to play games doesn't mean everybody does!
But now seriously, I really want to know, is there any reason to have more GPU power other than 3d games? Or photoshop is so advanced now that it uses GPU for filters? Maybe 3d modelling tools?
I was looking for a bargain-basement way to use some Mac-specific media tools, specifically BoinxTV / BoinxTV Home and maybe Kinemac, in an ultra-portable box where I could BYO monitor/keyboard, etc. I specifically wanted something mains-powered WITHOUT a battery (I've had heaps of battery-related problems on Macbooks in the past, including several replaced under warranty). The new Mini, had it had discrete graphics, would've been ideal.
The developers of Boinx TV / Boinx TV home, on their own forums, said that their products would have struggled a bit on the old Mini. They also say that for their software, the GPU is much more significant to performance than CPU speed or system RAM. I was hoping that the new Mini would have made using this software more workable, while retaining the low price point and ultra-portability, and without having to buy a laptop to get a keyboard and monitor that I don't need.
That said, this software is intended primarily for higher-end gear, but I figure I could do some useful stuff with it even at the lower end of the tech scale. Maybe I still can (probably with the Home version), but I'm unsure whether a the new Mini with Quad-core and the Intel HD4000 would be a better bet than the 2011 model with discrete graphics. If either.
Not sure about these latest ones but I'm running the last gen with the discrete Radeon with a Crucial M4 SSD and 16GB RAM. Powers a 30" display for Adobe CS6 Suite beautifully.
Can't deny the fact im happy about this. My 2011 Mac mini with the upgraded 2.7ghz i7, and the 6630m sounds even better today than it did yesterday. Only real improvement I see in these news Mac minis is USB 3, which isn't a big deal really.
Wondering of I can find one somewhere. Might get the older one.
----------
Shouldn't the i5 be better than the i7 for graphics in most cases.... Especially since the ghz is higher and most apps still aren't quad core optimized.
will go for the mid range one with the fusion option will buy the 16gb ram separately
will buy the 16gb ram separately
Last edited:
Ok so here is a question for you guys...I am a photographer (so i work with tons of RAW image files, photoshop, Lightroom etc.) and am looking to upgrade my current machine, which is a 2008 Mac Pro with the following specs:
-2 x 2.8ghz quad-core xeon
-10GB 800mhz DDR2
-ATI Radeon HD 2600 256mb
-1TB 7200rpm boot drive
I have been needing to upgrade for quite some time now, my current machine just feels sluggish. I have wiped the machine clean multiple times with a fresh install of OSX, but it never really seems to help. I think the hardware is just old in this machine. So my questions is, would the new Mac Mini with the following specs be a better performer than my current machine?
2.6GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
16GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x8GB
1TB Fusion Drive
I know everyone is slamming the non-discreet graphics, but is it really any worse then my old Radeon 2600? I really can't afford the new iMac at this time, so this is my only option if I want to upgrade. Or would I be better off keeping my Mac Pro and adding some SSD drives, a new graphics card, and more memory?
Thanks!
-2 x 2.8ghz quad-core xeon
-10GB 800mhz DDR2
-ATI Radeon HD 2600 256mb
-1TB 7200rpm boot drive
I have been needing to upgrade for quite some time now, my current machine just feels sluggish. I have wiped the machine clean multiple times with a fresh install of OSX, but it never really seems to help. I think the hardware is just old in this machine. So my questions is, would the new Mac Mini with the following specs be a better performer than my current machine?
2.6GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
16GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x8GB
1TB Fusion Drive
I know everyone is slamming the non-discreet graphics, but is it really any worse then my old Radeon 2600? I really can't afford the new iMac at this time, so this is my only option if I want to upgrade. Or would I be better off keeping my Mac Pro and adding some SSD drives, a new graphics card, and more memory?
Thanks!
The Intel HD4000 is exactly was is needed for AirPlay mirroring and that far outweighs the need for Nvidia and/or AMD. In my opinion Apple made the right choice. It would not have made sense to have both the 4000 video and Nvidia in a Mini. It would have increased the price. As it is the entry $600 Mini makes for a great little media player and much more. The $800 gets you an i7 system. Not bad actually.
philip
I wonder if this graphics is better than my current GMA 950 in the mini I have now . It's running most 1080p fine, but it starts to show some age and want to replace it.
I'm guessing the HD4000 is kind of ha hell a lot better than GMA 950, and even does some hw acceleration on some video formats right?
. It's running most 1080p fine, but it starts to show some age and want to replace it.I'm guessing the HD4000 is kind of ha hell a lot better than GMA 950, and even does some hw acceleration on some video formats right?
I'm wondering what sort of heat the 2.3 and 2.6 quad cores are going to produce.
The 2011 mini server was a bit toasty, with fans set at minimum 2300 rpm
I wonder if it will be different with the 2012 model - and if 1 or 2 HDDs make a difference as well
The 2011 mini server was a bit toasty, with fans set at minimum 2300 rpm
I wonder if it will be different with the 2012 model - and if 1 or 2 HDDs make a difference as well