I used to think this was useful but it seems like almost every CPU update brings a new chipset with it. Do people upgrade inside the same generation?
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.
First Mac Mini Benchmark Surfaces Ahead of November 7 Launch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I used to think this was useful but it seems like almost every CPU update brings a new chipset with it. Do people upgrade inside the same generation?
not to mention, the comparison made by the "shopper" was only a dual core i3, not a quad core and only has as fast on Geekbench. So yah? lets compare apples to cockroaches and .......does not compute will Robinson, does not compute
Yes it is a good question I'd love to have answered by someone who actually knows. Overwhelmingly, judging from having watched thousands of reviews and lived many decades to know that the ordinary consumer is by definition deaf, when it comes to realistic expectations regarding no noise or low noise. That's why you have to pay a premium to get something that's ACTUALLY low or no noise, something Apple has failed at delivering, despite offering a "Pro" line-up, (partly, and this is pure speculation, due to the fact that most normal people are hard at hearing or very forgiving due to other noise in their subpar living or working environment), and given that the Mini does not have the "Pro" stamp of "approval" it becomes an even better question, which is why I ask.
Same here. Along with Bluetooth 5.0, ability to drive three 4K displays or two 5K displays, HDMI 2.0, four Thunderbolt 3 ports each capable of 40 GB/sec rates and two USB-A 3 ports, an option for 10 Gbit ethernet, and a built-in power supply.
And, Apple built-in SSD rates always seem to be class-leading. Looking forward to seeing how that plays out with the Mini.
Also, macOS updates will just work. No need to futz around with hackintosh issues.
Aren't the routers and networking still very high cost? I heard a 2.5 ethernet was coming out which was more affordable
I agree, Stellar. There's no reason to insult others. The original post was already clear in its intention (and irony).
The real joke is that until this year, the intel chips at the same price points weren't any faster, so even if you got an older computer, you didn't sacrifice much
Compared to current similar spec SFF PC's from other manufacturers they are not massively inflated.
Example: Intel NUC 7th gen i3 DUAL core with a (slower)128ssd, 8gb, and last gen intel 620 graphics is currently $500
I think some folk (myself included) just wished they had at least a dual core i3 version that was priced the same as the older model ($600 or thereabouts).
There's no way that anyone should compare the specs to a big black tower. You ARE paying extra for the form factor.
Intel says the chips are only 65 watts. Not sure if liquid cooling is necessary. (don't use Helium, though)
No, the 8700B is a BGA version of the 8700 which is socketed. This CPU is soldered to the motherboard. Besides, Buying the Core i3 and trying to add an 8700 later is just not that cost effective. Buy it now and be done with it, IMHO.
To whatever you run, maybe not. To the price, most definitely.
Once again for all the amateur benchmarkers out there, when you run benchmarks, make sure nothing else is running, the spotlight indexing, video renders, etc. One thing you always seem to see if way out of line benchmarks. when they are too slow, you haven't properly set the system up to run a reasonable benchmark.
PrimateLabs (geekbench) as much as they know their stuff, I have yet to hear their explanation of why the listed benchmarks are so much lower than what you get when you properly run Geekbench. It is like they use some form of average which includes all the poorly done tests. Test it yourself, look up a computer in the Mac OS chart, then search for that CPU in the CPU search and compare to all the Macs that come up.
PrimateLabs (geekbench) as much as they know their stuff, I have yet to hear their explanation of why the listed benchmarks are so much lower than what you get when you properly run Geekbench. It is like they use some form of average which includes all the poorly done tests. Test it yourself, look up a computer in the Mac OS chart, then search for that CPU in the CPU search and compare to all the Macs that come up.
damn, this looks close to the hackintosh I am about to build, save for the gpu. although my clock speed will be 5ghz. Seriously impressive little box.
True, so true. I loved my Mac mini server, then they stopped selling, so I never upgraded. My guess why they jumped the specs was that no one really wanted the underpowered Mac minis at any price
I ran Geekbench on my 2012 2.6ghz i7 mini and got single core 3,469 and multi core of 10,798. I'm sure you can find a gazzilion benchmark tests of the 2.3 online.
I agree that there’s an apple tax. And you’re going to pay a bit more to be in Apple’s ecosystem. But I don’t get why people ignore the fact that not all of that price difference is just to the “apple tax.” Apple does not charge for their operating system. It comes free with your machine. And you’re going to get free upgrades to that operating system. If you build a Windows machine, you’re going to have to buy the operating system. That eats up half of that $200 price difference you’re talking about.... and more if you count subsequent Windows versions.
Apple chose to incorporate a lot of those expsenses in their machine purchase prices. Developing a good OS isn’t free, or cheap.
Exactly. Could I buy or build a similarly spec'd machine for less? Absolutely. I've been building or upgrading machines for 20+ years. And running hackintoshes since pear OS in the early days. I have several fully functioning PC's at home now. And parts to build several more. More I've sold over the years.
I want macOS. I like their hardware. I want something more stable and compatible than a hackintosh.
10G switches where all ports are 10Gb are still expensive, but prices should be coming down. Some more affordable 1 Gig switches aggregate data to a 10 Gb port, which can then hook up to a Mini via Cat 7. There are system architectures where that aggregation can work well.
Also, some NASs (Synology, Qnap) have one or two 10 Gb ports that should connect directly to the Mini's 10 Gb port.
The iMac Pro's ethernet port is 10 Gb. I suspect future iMac's and Mac Pros will be as well.
One could use a Mini for remote storage/backup/server device and connect directly to an iMac Pro or MBP with a TB3 10Gb NIC. And someday to a more affordable 10G switch.
BTW, the Mini's 10 Gig ethernet option also handles Nbase-T Ethernet with support for 1Gb, 2.5Gb, 5Gb, and 10Gb Ethernet.
I see loads of network flexibility here going forward.
AFAIK, there are no subsequent Windows version. They've switched to a rolling release model.
To great chagrin of the Windows-sysadmin crowd...
Likely, they'll transition to a subscription model for the fat-client, too, in a couple of years.
I don't really mind the Apple tax. But I'm also not ordering now.
Though I'm looking forward to pair a 6c Mini with a 5k display (and maybe a 4k on the side). That'll be awesome.
And I don't care if I could have saved a bit if I had bought a NUC or some Asus thing.
I just like macOS.
It's weird how the desktop performs only as well as the laptop. Isn't the whole point of buying a desktop, that you trade portability for significant extra performance? In this case, you're just trading portability, and in exchange, you're getting... nothing at all.