Did anyone see the BTO 2.6 Ghz on the new Mini?

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by blanka, Oct 23, 2012.

  1. blanka macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    #1
    I have not read it anywhere on the net, but I was configuring a new Mini, and this is a BTO option:
    That means the Mini can be made faster than basic top iMac 27 inch model! And it still leaves you 1100 bucks for a hellufagood monitor like the NEC PA271W!
     
  2. Poki macrumors 6502a

    Poki

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    #2
    Isn't the 2,3 GHz chip also just as fast as the 2,9 GHz i5 in the iMacs?

    Likewise, it is really a small little beast - just not for games.
     
  3. george-brooks macrumors 6502a

    george-brooks

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    #3
    Its a very tempting option! Nothing will replace a mac pro for my serious work, but this makes the mini a very viable option for a second machine or server.
     
  4. blanka thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    #4
    You can buy 4 quad 2.6 mini's for the price of 1 12 core MacPro, and that gives you a very capable render-farm that is twice as effective per kWh! Wonder if you can interconnect them over Thunderbolt?
     
  5. Poki macrumors 6502a

    Poki

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    #5
    No, because there's only one port per Mini.
     
  6. rezinous macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2010
    #6
    Still weighing up on the 2.3 vs 2.6Ghz. Probably the 1 thing I can't upgrade myself in the long term, so most likely should get 2.6.
     
  7. Poki macrumors 6502a

    Poki

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    #7
    When there are thunderbolt graphic cards, SSDs and PCIe-extensions, the only thing you can't upgrade is the CPU. ;)
     
  8. blanka thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    #8
    And at 100 bucks it is not the biggest deal. In the 2011 lineup, you needed the top model for the fastest number crunching, now you can just upgrade the mid model.
     
  9. Mojo1 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    #9
    You just have to decide if a 10% increase in speed is worth an additional $100.

    I think that the 2.3 is plenty fast for me. I'll put the extra $$$ into 16GB RAM.
     
  10. Westyfield2 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Location:
    Bath, UK.
  11. Mr Rogers macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    #11
    Ah, but excuse me, what's all the fuss over a 2.4Ghz Quadcore or 2.6Ghz quad core, basically, the higher CPU clock speed will do nothing to change the fact that you are stuck with crippled Intel HD4000 graphics - no discrete GPU option - and hence, as far as graphics work is concerned, its a bit of a non starter.

    So, for all those thinking how brilliant this is, had this been a Haswell chip with HD5000, then okay I can understand the lack of discrete GPU, that it is a Ivy Bridge laptop chip with crippled graphics worries me deeply - so deeply in fact that I'll not be purchasing this Mac Mini - rather stick with my 2010 model which still has 14 months of AppleCare left and invest in the Haswell model when that becomes available hopefully in less than 12 months time.
     
  12. mac jones macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    #12
    The 2.6 quad is the screaming deal of the decade.
    I'm going to get one for sure.

    ----------

    There are other endeavors than graphics work.
     
  13. blanka thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    #13
    Are there no TB hubs?

    BTW: for rendering gigabit with a router is enough.

    ----------

    The quad is great for graphics work: Photosoup, Cinema4D, FinalCut... all run great. What does not run great is games, but there's other machines for that. Yes Photosoup uses GPU, but only for crap features like white lines between pixels, panning with slide-through effect, annoying zoom-effects etc.
     
  14. Mr Rogers macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    #14
    The primary use of my Mac Mini is as a HTPC, with net surfing, email check - Exchange Server - and some gaming. I don't play games but my daughter does.

    Now, when I invest in Apple products I also purchase AppleCare and expect to get a minimum two years work/use out of each purchase, three if I'm lucky - so this Mac Mini revision whilst in CPU terms is head and shoulders above my old 2010 model, the fact is a Haswell equipped Mac Mini will blast this present one out of the water: Haswell to me equates to future proofing, whilst a Ivy Bridge equipped Mac Mini without option of discrete GPU just sucks!!!!!!
     
  15. Poki macrumors 6502a

    Poki

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    #15
    Don't think Haswell will be that great. Yeah, it will be better, but if Intel says it will be 20% faster than Ivy Bridge, it will be only 10-15% faster in real world. Not enough to wait a year in my books.
     
  16. Mr Rogers macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    #16
    When you say Haswell will be 10-15% faster than Ivy Bridge, that's not what I'm referring too, I'm actually referring to the built in graphics, HD5000, which will see as much as an improvement as HD4000 over HD3000 - by what I've read, HD5000 will be 2.5X faster than HD4000 - and basically catching up with AMD's SoC options.

    As others have noted, if the Mac Mini had a AMD chip with built in graphics, it would be a good machine.

    Moral of the tale - why can't Apple offer a BTO choice and its nothing to do with thermals on this occasion - greed more like!!!!
     
  17. Mojo1 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    #17
    I've been using a 13" MBP with an Intel HD3000 GPU running Photoshop, Aperture, etc. just fine. So the HD4000 will be an improvement for me.

    I need a new Mac now, so waiting until 2013 isn't in the cards... I already waited all summer for this update!
     

Share This Page