Excited at the idea of finally getting the chance to replace my wheezing old Mid 2010 Mac Pro with a 32 GB-capable M1X Mac mini. Bring it on!
Last edited:
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 Working on High-End Mac Mini With Additional Ports and More Powerful Chip From Next-Gen MacBook Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Mac Mini was an entry computer for people who are not willing to pay the higher price, now looks like its competing against the iMac, as a headless Mac. Feels like iMac is just a MacMini with a screen, we will see if there is higher end ones with dedicated GPUs
The Mac mini has always competed against the iMac. In fact, occasional features were/are available in the Mac mini that weren't/aren't available in the iMac, like HDMI or 10 GigE.
There will be no discrete GPUs in any consumer ARM Mac. In fact I suspect the ARM Mac Pro won't get discrete GPUs either.
A bit of a non story really. Of course Apple are working on a new more powerful chip...that will always be the case. At present we know no more about it than we did weeks ago. Its alleged that TSMC are already producing the next chip, but no specs.
The article was very specific as to the specs. That is the main point of the article IMO. We got more information with this report in terms of the specs, and clearer information regarding the chip configuration, along with the codenames.
Sure put ports on all sides if necessary. Call it Mac Nano!
It would be interesting to see the Mini get better than merely the MBP-class mobile chips mentioned in the article, and instead be offered with top-of-the-line iMac-class desktop chips, which would give the elusive "headless Mac".
This is not something that has ever been offered in the Mini. But maybe with the improved efficiency of the M-series chips, the Mini will have the thermals to handle them.
Anyone know how the thermal capacity of the Mini compares to the iMacs?
This is not something that has ever been offered in the Mini. But maybe with the improved efficiency of the M-series chips, the Mini will have the thermals to handle them.
Anyone know how the thermal capacity of the Mini compares to the iMacs?
I think a lot of us probably have been comparing pricing of a M1 Mac mini to the new 24" iMac that is just being reviewed. Just look at the top configuration of both with 16 GB unified memory and 1 TB SSD in a comparison.
Headless Mac (Mac mini) this configuration is only $1299 without keyword /mouse which adds $208 (list). Add the LG Ultrafine 4K 24" display you only need to spend $699 and that as you know is not the best deal whatsoever out there. Anyway that adds up to $2,207.
Comparably the same options in a 24" iMac are $2,099.
I think it is good that the two offer essentially the same for about the same amount of money from the Apple store, still everyone know you can save a lot by not going that route except for the Mac.
This more powerful Mac mini with faster processors and more ports is just fantastic if it arrives. I have the same feelings for the M2 30" iMac that is coming also.
Waiting is just painful! lol
$100 says the vast majority of those who harp on about such a machine, would not be happy with that.
Actually $200.
I've never once see anyone who complains about the Mini being "too small" and the Pro being "too big" mention "CPU speed" as their complaint.
It's always:
- RAM slots, number and accessibility of them;
- Socketed CPU;
- PCIe slots;
- Internal storage;
- Upgradeable (i.e PCIe) GPU;
Agreed, people want all of those as well. But since this thread has been about the Mini's potential CPU upgrade, I was focusing on that instead.
And yes, people don't generally ask for processing power akin to what's available in the high-end iMac as part of their wish list for the Mini.
But saying that misses the point—the reason no one's been asking for this in the Mini isn't that no one has a use or desire for such capability. Rather it's because they've understood that, up to this point, it's not been possible—the Mini doesn't have the thermals for, say, an Intel Core i9.
But—and this is my point—with the far friendlier thermals of the M-series chips, it may now be possible to put high-end consumer-grade desktop processing into the Mini. Which would at least bring the processing power of the Mini in line with the headless Mac concept.
Last edited:
Do you like how desktops have to be plugged in to the wall, and instantly crash when the power goes out?
If you’re not using a UPS with your desktop you aren’t doing it right.
Yes! We need new display options to use with new headless macs. $1500 for the big pro display, down to $300 for small Retina displays. And they should all come with built in batteries so they can be used for a while on the kitchen table or the bed without being plugged in. And they should use Thunderbolt and charge or be charged by the Mini (the Mini should have a battery too). And, they should be Bluetooth or some new wireless video connection.
Are you being serious or joking? Yes I’m old so I use a UPS. But it weighs as much as the iMac, and I’ve got other equipment plugged in to it. Moving iMac from office to the kitchen without turning it off would require keeping it plugged in to the ups and moving them both at the same time. A built in UPS would be nicer. Do young people brought up with laptops know what a UPS is?
They don’t. Nor do people who live in countries with robust power delivery (*cough*).
If you’re buying a desktop computer to move it around the house while keeping it powered on, you aren’t doing it right.
Now THIS is going to be my next Mac desktop that I will purchase next year! A Mac Mini with the higher-end "M2" chip or whatever it'll be called. I'll even probably configure it in the order with 32 GB of memory and the 1 TB SSD.
I think the world may just be getting a top-notch Mac Mini soon. The current M1 Mac Mini is meant as a stop-gap low-cost option to get developers started on porting apps. It's also the base tier Macs, which include M1 iMac, MBA and 13" MBP.
There's still the higher end Intel Mac Mini for sale at the moment. I suspect when the 27" Intel iMac replacement is announced, the Intel Mac Mini will be replaced by a new Apple Silicon Mac Mini with comparable power as the 27" iMac replacement. Let's call these the mid-tiered Macs. If the M1 Macs is anything to go by, Apple may just give the same power to the mid-tiered Macs in different form factors.
Judging from the amount of empty space inside the M1 Mac Mini (assuming the chassis stays unchanged), I think it has quite a bit of thermal headroom. My M1 Mac Mini barely gets warm to the touch, and I stay in a location with hot climates. Apple Silicon Macs would be a very welcome piece of tech where I stay.
I have UPSes on all my systems, network gear, and alarm systems. The UPSes will even send battery status to your Mac when they kick. And your mac has settings to monitor these status messages and shut down when the battery reaches a certain amount of remaining runtime to prevent data loss.
Last edited:
I think the new high-end Mini could eventually become the low-end Mini when a third generation Apple Silicon Mini is released, similar to how some older iPhones remain in production, but at lower price points after newer ones are released.
Yes it does. That’s how I charge it. But if I want a device to carry around without using a cord, then I buy a phone, a tablet, or a laptop. Not a frighten desktop computer.
So let me see if I have this right:
People claim they want a "x Mac" with some PCIe slots, easy to access/user accessible RAM slots, ideally a socketed processor, and ideally user-accessible storage.
An article about higher performing CPUs prompts you to suggest that the current body of the Mac mini - which has none of the above features - could provide what's being asked for.
When I questioned this point - you claim people don't ask for higher performance CPUs because they know the mini can't fit it, due to thermal issues....
They weren't asking for a mini in the first place buddy. They also weren't constraining themselves to things that fit in a mini. How many PCIe slots do you think it'll fit?
Your logic is circular, and ignores what people actually asked for.
Yes a higher performance CPU in a Mac mini would be a nice benefit for some workloads. That's all you need to say - no need to make weird jumps of logic that a faster CPU is going to somehow appease people who want PCIe slots and a bunch of RAM slots.
how does this work? I thought discreet GPUs are a must for higher power capabilities. Its about the only thing Nvidia sells.