Since this "update" just "bumps up" the storage capacity, and doesn't seem to change the "chips that control things", I'm wondering if this "revision B" might still boot into Mojave ...?
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 Updates Mac mini With Double the Storage Capacity in Standard Configurations
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
We can but hope!
A 3.2 i7 with 1 TB SSD is now $1349 (Veteran/military store). That's better . . . but a refurb 3.7 GHz 6 core iMac for $1754 is still a MUCH better buy. (IMO, obviously.)
We all want different things. I love my late 2015 27" iMac Retina. I've always been a pixel junkie. I'd love it more with an affordable 27" retina 5K monitor option to make it dual monitor.
The SSD is not. The RAM is technically "self upgradable", but it's a much more complex process than it was in the twist-and-replace days -- you've got to have some specialized tools, and be ready to disassemble it all the way down to popping out the motherboard.
The MacBook Air has the 10th gen CPU with Iris Pro graphics while the Mac Mini retains the 8th gen CPU.
That's a very lame update. Storage alone is not that big a deal any more.
Give me a new processor, more ram, faster gpu etc.
Give me a new processor, more ram, faster gpu etc.
This reminds me of when they non-updated the Mac Pro's in 2017. They just changed the lowered the price for storage.
It's be a shame if they let the Mini linger again for another five years.
Then again, they seem to be doing that with all the desktops---the iMac was refreshed in 2015, 2017 and 2019
Intel never released a 9th Generation CPU using the socket the Mac Mini uses and not sure they have announced a 10th Generation in the socket so you can "thank" Intel for their being no CPU/iGPU upgrades at this time.
Last edited:
In the current global economic climate I think it's the obvious solution, literally no research required, just double the SSD capacity - parts that already exist in the supply chain as BTO parts and Apple get cheaply. Imagine the outcry if they did nothing? As it is, it's a 'refresh' after just 18 months are more value for money. Something they could have done for the 2014 model too.
The 2019 iMac might not get an update till October when it would be an 18 month old model - I would have thought that Apple would just improve the storage options on that and call it a day. They could go down the road of offering higher capacity Fusion parts eg 2Tb Fusion Drive in bottom and middle 27" SKUs (these come with 128Gb SSD component rather than 24Gb), and maybe 512Gb SSD in the top SKU.
For the 21.5" models, go with 1Tb Fusion Drive across lower and middle SKU with 256Gb SSD in top SKU.
Obviously any iMac Pro that gets released in this time would prove that model isn't dead - that's surely for another thread but an improved iMac Pro before 10 core iMacs come perhaps later this year would have a useful sales bump.
I have nigh on the same machine, just 3.33GHz and 96GB RAM instead. I do plan on upgrading to a new Mac Pro at some point but likely not for another year or two yet as there's too much other stuff that the money would be better spent on instead at the moment and I'd want to get a relatively high spec machine. I did last week get an i7 2018 Mac Mini with 64GB of RAM (upgraded by the seller) and 512GB SSD for only a little more than the base i5 model's current selling price. We needed a compact headless server for work but as we're still kind of as startup, I want to save money where I can so bought used. It's crazy fast for the size it is - similar performance to my MP multicore and about double for single core stuff.
Who says they have to stick with the same socket? Intel's i5-8259-U is a fine chip with Iris Plus graphics. And intel sells it in a NUC, which I almost bought (NUC8i5BEH). If it wasn't port-deprived (4 USB ports are not enough) I would have went for it. Instead I went for a AMD Linux system with a Ryzen 3200G. So far, so good. Apple is being really annoying about their graphics.
IMHO, storage is the thing Apple really needed to address. For example, I couldn't recommend a Mac with only 128gb SSD for my in-laws. Now with 256gb I probably can.
Upgraded processor would have been nice, but I'm not sure that Intel makes anything faster in the 65W TDP (thermal design power) category than what it's already using.
Newer bluetooth, wi-fi, hdmi, and/or thunderbolt would also have been nice, but I guess that would have taken more effort.
[automerge]1584554427[/automerge]
This is not something you need Apple to do. A third party should be just as good, no?
I'm not sure what it would take to get it in that form factor. It might have to be a laptop-class GPU.
Last edited:
Well, I didn't really expect any sort of upgrade, so I'll take it. Just waiting for my 2012 to die and then I'll potentially go with this mini.
... 2018 - 2014 is four years but ok.
I mean, you do realise that's an update every two years right?
You realise that's a worse chip than what's in the current i5 Mac mini, right? Maybe the iGPU is better, but the rest is much worse. You can add an eGPU. You can't add extra RAM capacity or CPU power.
My 2018 mini can drive a single 3840x2160@60Hz display at 10-bit deep color with no problem. It's connected via a usbC-to-displayport cable (I happen to be using an active cable, but a passive cable should also work for the 2018 mini) because an HDMI connection would be limited to 30Hz.
It's supposed to be able to drive a second 3840x2160@60Hz display using one of the other usbC ports (but not the port driven by the same controller as the first display) but I don't know how taxing this would be. I haven't tried it yet. I think it would be ok if you were running with 2x or 1x scaling, which would be appropriate if your display was 24" or about double that. If your display is 27" or 32" then fractional scaling is probably appropriate, and fractional scaling takes more computational power.
And that means, it’ll get a BATTERY, right? Maybe it will be called the MacPod and come with a tiny iPod style display.
Firstly, you wouldn't put the 3900W in this, but you would the 4900H or 4900HS thus alleviating the anemic GPU capacity of the Mac Mini, and a lower power envelop.
AMD Ryzen™ 9 4900H
AMD Ryzen™ 9 4900HS
Realistically, Apple would put the 4800U with it's 15W Default TDP and 10-25W cTDP.
AMD Ryzen™ 7 4800U
Shop AMD Ryzen™ 7 4800U mobile processor with AMD Radeon™ graphics from retailer's website & check for its availability, price & other information. Learn more!
As it stands it's not compelling me to buy and I need a new system.
Nope. Intel didn't make equivalent Coffee Lake Refresh chips, and it's unclear if they'll make ones for Comet Lake.
[automerge]1584560144[/automerge]
Firstly, you wouldn't put the 3900W in this, but you would the 4900H or 4900HS thus alleviating the anemic GPU capacity of the Mac Mini, and a lower power envelop.
AMD Ryzen™ 9 4900H
www.amd.com
AMD Ryzen™ 9 4900HS
www.amd.com
Realistically, Apple would put the 4800U with it's 15W Default TDP and 10-25W cTDP.
AMD Ryzen™ 7 4800U
Shop AMD Ryzen™ 7 4800U mobile processor with AMD Radeon™ graphics from retailer's website & check for its availability, price & other information. Learn more!www.amd.com
As it stands it's not compelling me to buy and I need a new system.
Why would Apple change the Mac mini from 65W to 15?
Is your MP using SSDs? If so, would you say the speeds of the MP SSD is much slower than the Mini?
I guess they could have gone with AMD, but that was probably a lot of work tinkering, tweaking and optimising in MacOS to actually make doing that beneficial. Not worth it for just one model. Outside of that latest 9th gen chips aren't particularly worth updating to over the 8th gen ones already in there.
Apple does. They'd have to redesign the Mac mini yet again just because Intel can't be bothered to make the same form factor twice.
OK, maybe? But that's a way worse chip than what the Mac mini already has, so not sure where you're going there.
It's nice to save some power, I suppose.
[automerge]1584560557[/automerge]
Err. Why?