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

Customizations are too expensive?

I

iop

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 15, 2011
275
227
8 -> 16 GB RAM and 128 -> 512 GB SSD makes it $600 more expensive. A 512 GB NVMe SSD just doesn't cost $400 these days. Besides, why even use NVMe when a SATA SSD would be good enough for mac mini? I guess the only way to save money here is to get the 128 GB model and then use a SATA SSD with a USB adapter. $200 for extra 8 GB of RAM also sounds excessive although that's easier to swallow than the cost of the SSD. Finally, why is there no i5 (edit: quad-core i5) option? I think i7 is an ovekill for a mac mini, but i3 sounds like a very risky choice as it likely won't last more than a few years before becoming obsolete.

I think it's unfortunate that Apple decided to "premify" the mac mini.
 
iop said:
8 -> 16 GB RAM and 128 -> 512 GB SSD makes it $600 more expensive. A 512 GB NVMe SSD just doesn't cost $400 these days. Besides, why even use NVMe when a SATA SSD would be good enough for mac mini? I guess the only way to save money here is to get the 128 GB model and then use a SATA SSD with a USB adapter. $200 for extra 8 GB of RAM also sounds excessive although that's easier to swallow than the cost of the SSD. Finally, why is there no i5 (edit: quad-core i5) option? I think i7 is an ovekill for a mac mini, but i3 sounds like a very risky choice as it likely won't last more than a few years before becoming obsolete.

I think it's unfortunate that Apple decided to "premify" the mac mini.
Click to expand...


Benchmarks will be useful but I don’t see the i3 i5 i7 as being the same as on previous machines.

The i3 is a quad core part at 3.6Ghz which should make it faster than what my head sees as an “i3” part.

Whether it’s worth going to the i5 for the 6 core and extra storage I’m not sure yet.

I sold my 2012 earlier in the year and now have a 2016 non touchbar pro....

I’d like the new mini but realistically don’t need a quad core desktop for using safari.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr_Brightside_@
An i3 being obsolete in “a few years” seems unlikely. Wait for a tear down to see if SSD is replaceable, then potentially buy with base specs and upgrade the ram yourself and purchase a separate USB-C SSD as needed.
 
Yeah, they're expensive, but we've all come to expect overpriced RAM and storage from Apple. I think I'm going with a 256 GB SSD and upgrading the RAM myself.
 
iop said:
Besides, why even use NVMe when a SATA SSD would be good enough for mac mini?
Click to expand...

Because SATA sucks for boot drives. I'd never buy a computer these days with a SATA boot drive. Modern NVMe drives are around 7 times faster than SATA SSDs and even ordinary users will notice the difference. After using NVMe drives in laptops for so long, ordinary SATA SSDs almost feel like spinning hard drives to me. It's one of the main reasons I want to upgrade my PC.

I agree that their options are overpriced though. Their storage prices are insane, even for Apple. Then again, it is Apple after all. They've always charged a lot for RAM/storage.
 
thisismyusername said:
Because SATA sucks for boot drives. I'd never buy a computer these days with a SATA boot drive. Modern NVMe drives are around 7 times faster than SATA SSDs and even ordinary users will notice the difference. After using NVMe drives in laptops for so long, ordinary SATA SSDs almost feel like spinning hard drives to me. It's one of the main reasons I want to upgrade my PC.

I agree that their options are overpriced though. Their storage prices are insane, even for Apple. Then again, it is Apple after all. They've always charged a lot for RAM/storage.
Click to expand...
NVMe's primary performance advantage is in sequential access. When it comes to random access, which booting primarily consists of, NVMe doesn't really benefit:

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...-or-sata3-pcie-adapter.2132618/#post-26356459

While NVMe does have better random access it isn't nearly as significant as sequential access and doesn't really show when it comes to booting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miat
iop said:
8 -> 16 GB RAM and 128 -> 512 GB SSD makes it $600 more expensive. A 512 GB NVMe SSD just doesn't cost $400 these days. Besides, why even use NVMe when a SATA SSD would be good enough for mac mini? I guess the only way to save money here is to get the 128 GB model and then use a SATA SSD with a USB adapter. $200 for extra 8 GB of RAM also sounds excessive although that's easier to swallow than the cost of the SSD. Finally, why is there no i5 (edit: quad-core i5) option? I think i7 is an ovekill for a mac mini, but i3 sounds like a very risky choice as it likely won't last more than a few years before becoming obsolete.

I think it's unfortunate that Apple decided to "premify" the mac mini.
Click to expand...

Coffee Lake i3 is 4 core, 4 thread - in other words effectively the same as Kaby Lake i5. You could argue the toss over amount of L3 cache, the loss of turbo boost (vs a Kaby Lake i5), or the price, but any way you look at it the i3 is good value.

A Coffee Lake i3 at this stage should last years.
RAM is looking potentially user replaceable
Storage can be improved because of the versatile Thunderbolt 3 ports with a variety of solutions, even bus powered ones if you look at the Samsung T5 or X5.

i7 probably is overkill, especially if you run jobs on it that will make all threads fire up because of the increased power draw and therefore heat/noise. There are similar arguments running for the i7 in recent 27" iMacs but we won't know until benchmarks show if it throttles under sustained load. But one thing that you can't argue is whether or not it's a rip off as previous i7 upgrades in the iMac have been. Depending on the exact spec as paid to Apple, would the i7 upgrade be worth it? Your mileage may vary, especially after benchmarks.
 
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