Hands-On With Apple's New 2018 Mac Mini

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Nov 13, 2018.

  1. Sabelonada macrumors regular

    Sabelonada

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2018
    #376
    All of them are faster than your 2012.
     
  2. deviant macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    #377
    Even an i3 is better than your 2012
    The i5 would just demolish it
     
  3. DesterWallaboo macrumors 6502a

    DesterWallaboo

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Location:
    Western USA
    #378
    Incredibly overpriced. We were actually hoping for these for our render farm... but the prices are beyond ridiculous for the performance you get.
     
  4. Wie Gehts macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    #379
    I use Logic and I'm not a tech head but I think Logic, as well as various vst's and plugins, take advantage of this hyper threading thing.
    I would think that in order to get a real significant performance boost I'd need to go to the 3.2 i7.
    That, a 512gb drive and at least 32gb over my previous 16, will do me, but that's 2,1k. compared to the $1100 or so last time. Yeah some of that due to inflation but jeez.

    The whole thing with computers was that more power was commensurate with lowering prices. It's just the opposite.
    Also freaked over ram prices. Seems its literally on par with the cost of ram requirements
    20 years ago in that a 32mb rail was a $1,000!!
     
  5. Sabelonada macrumors regular

    Sabelonada

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2018
    #380
    Even the i5 option has 6 threads.

    Assuming you are running the i7
    3720QM
    from 2012, the i5 8600 smokes it.

    https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-3720QM-vs-Intel-Core-i5-8600/m1619vsm477251
     
  6. ValueArb macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    #381
    The base Mini encodes video at least 10x faster than the previous Mini. What's that worth?
    --- Post Merged, Nov 23, 2018 ---
    Let's point out they were evidently testing the 128Gb SSD. The write performance is based on number of write channels to the SSD. The 256Gb has twice the channels the 128Gb has, the 512Gb has 4x the channels and the 1Tb has 8x. The Mini 1Tb SSD offers the fastest write/read performance of any Mac, including the iMac Pro, and faster than any equivalent PC. The 256Gb and 512Gb are very fast as well.

    The read performance isn't affected by SSD size, so it's lightning fast on all of the Mini SSD's.
     
  7. msh macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Location:
    SoCal
    #382
    They tested a 256GB version. They have since updated the review with a 512 GB version which shows much faster write speeds. It seems pretty clear that write speed performance is a function of SSD size.
     
  8. Bas Meijer macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2018
    #383
    According to Apple Thunderbolt 3 (=USB-C) is even up for 40 Gb/s !! https://www.apple.com/mac-mini/
     
  9. deviant macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    #384
    i5 is, like, twice as fast as your i7.
    Ram you can upgrade yourself, even though ram is still super expensive, compared to a couple of years ago. I don’t know why.
    The sweet spot is the i5 with 256 ssd. No need for 512, and it will cost you 1100 or something. Plus the crucial 32gb if you really need 32.
     
  10. brofkand macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    #385
    Something I realized today is the ecosystem that Apple curates really only works well when all the pieces of the pie are intact. When a user is forced away from macOS or iOS due to the current pricing and feature trends, the stickiness of the other platform is reduced significantly. Users no longer have iMessage or Facetime on the desktop, Continuity is gone, bye-bye to universal copy/paste, etc. Many of these features exist between Windows and Android, so who knows - maybe Apple is on the cusp of jumping the shark.

    I don't want to sound alarmist but I am concerned that Apple is not really worried about sales declining or the reduced enthusiasm for their products. I'm really interested to see how the next year or so shakes out for Apple.
     
  11. mountain macrumors 6502

    mountain

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    #386
    You’re amazed that the i5 is twice as fast as the 2012 i7? I repeat 2012, that’s 6-7 years old cpu.

    I guess people are willing to defend anything apple throws at them including the crazy prices.
     
  12. chatin macrumors 6502a

    chatin

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    #387
    The whole machine is a throwaway after five years because the SSD cannot be replaced. Total cost of ownership is sky-high as AppleCare insurance is a must. Apple wants the iPad to be the cheapest option.
     
  13. DesterWallaboo macrumors 6502a

    DesterWallaboo

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Location:
    Western USA
    #388
    So.... we waited on the Mini and are greatly disappointed in the price structure. This week we are building 8-core i9 Hackintoshes with Nvidia 1080's.
     
  14. Wie Gehts macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    #389
    That's what I don't get. Before, the i5 was (like the numerical designation implies) a pathetic slow processor v the i7. Now it smokes it, lol. Granted, maybe the 'older' one... but then why call it an i5? Like I say, Im not a computer spec person. ;)
     
  15. Zdigital2015, Dec 4, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2018

    Zdigital2015 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2015
    Location:
    East Coast, United States
    #390
    It is all about branding, even when it does not make sense. The base model Mac mini with the Core i3 CPU is faster than all other previous Intel-based Mac mini's and yet a Core i3 is not well regarded as it has been considered by many to be much closer to the Celeron and Pentium CPUs, even though it wears Core i-branding. The CPU has been slowly evolving into a better and better option ever since the release of the 6th-Generation versions (i3-6100, -6300 and -6320). The Core-series brand was first introduced in 2006 and has not really changed much since then, until the introduction of the Core i9 branding in May of 2017.

    The difference this time around is that the new Mac mini uses 4- and 6-core 65w TDP desktop CPUs as opposed to the dual-core 15w and 28w TDP mobile CPUs that Apple equipped the 2014 Mac mini with, which used lesser energy, but also provided less computational power. The 2011 and 2012 models used a mixture of dual-core 35w TDP and quad-core 45w TDP mobile CPUs. The point being is that it is easier to look at mobile CPU generations and compare to subsequent generations of mobile CPUs and desktop to desktop and see the differences, whereas Apple really mixed things up this time (in a good way) by moving to desktop CPUs.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 4, 2018 ---
    If you are willing to deal with all the quirks that come along with building a Hackintosh, I wish you good luck and not too many headaches. MW Technology recently did a comparison of a Core i9-9700K and the Mac mini that you might find helpful -



    The bottom line - A fair amount of issues since the Z390 PCH and the CPUs are so new and not as well know compared to even the Z370 and the Core i7-8700K, which seems to be pretty stable even though Apple did not have an 8th Generation-based desktop computer for sale until the Mac mini was introduced.
     
  16. DesterWallaboo macrumors 6502a

    DesterWallaboo

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Location:
    Western USA
    #391
    We have built lots of Hackintoshes over the years for our render farm. We have a couple Hackintosh workstations, but most are still Mac Pros. But we are moving some of them over to 2017 iMacs as well as Hackintoshes.
     
  17. MacRS4 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    Location:
    London, UK
    #392
    Video here shows the performance of the Mac Mini with the Blackmagic eGPU:

     
  18. Sabelonada macrumors regular

    Sabelonada

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2018
    #393
    This is a for profit business running on pirated software?
     
  19. Bacillus Suspended

    Bacillus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    #394
    I share that concern
    Now add the number of switchers - and you may predict when “slow markets” will “induce” Cook to abandon the platform
     
  20. WC7 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2018
    #395
    This is perfect for me. Nothing but browsing and lite office work (with the included Mac applications). Should work fine. Will post when I set it up.
     
  21. Sabelonada macrumors regular

    Sabelonada

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2018
    #396
    I suspect they are locking the platform down with the T2 (and whatever comes after it) chips. It's not difficult to imagine a Mac OS where only Apple App store apps can be installed. The gateways to the Apple environment, the iPhone and iPad, already operate in such a fashion.

    This could start as the default. Then if one wants to install non-App store apps, one has to validate that the machine is indeed Apple hardware, which would be done using the T2 chip. All apps from the App store will only run on T2 validated machines in such a scenario.

    The fact that I have read about people selling Hackintosh hardware, by their own admission, with Mac OS installed. Then there are a number of businesses which are apparently stealing the OS from Apple to install on their hardware so that they can operate. This is all lost revenue to Apple, who in turn charge more for their hardware.

    I don't agree with some of the decisions which eliminate upgradability. I also don't agree with theft of Apple IP. If people are so eager to lambaste Samsung for copying hardware design, why are they so accepting of outright theft of the OS from Apple?
     
  22. Bacillus, Dec 13, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2018

    Bacillus Suspended

    Bacillus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    #397
    I can see that happen but it’s a damn wicked strategy that I resent.
    Apple better make their products state-of-the-art and competitive again instead of locking customers in in their walled (prison) gold garden of luxury and lamentation.
    If they would have kept up with the competition, there wouldn’t be a hackintosh market at all: nobody would even want to escape the garden.

    Those customers who take that complicated side-step do so as they’re fed up waiting at Phil’s lower backside for innovation or ports to happen, halfbaken solutions in the consumer line - all at inane prices
    If staying competitive is asked too much from Cook in terms of investment and resources, let him sell off the computer division to Dell (or any other company that cares more and complicates less)
    If they had a vision, they’d had their own (A12 instead of T2) cpu’s in Macs by now instead of Intel and had prevented the departure of their Pro customers to other platforms.
    I don’t care how many billion joe sixpacks get excited about Tim’s “Pro” campaign for iGear.
    Real Pro’s hate it as it is just substitute for the real thing

    This is exactly the same customer lock-in strategy that earlier IT-companies tried (IBM with their 3970 architecture, DEC with their PDP line in the 70s’) to prevent their decline after losing competitiveness.
     
  23. WC7 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2018
    #398
    Also, I should say, I realize a lot of people are configuring the Mac mini for more significant requirements ... but how many people are just using the Mini for the basics? I'm coming from my i5 3 Ghz iMac at home and I just needed something to work with the peripherals at work. The 'plan' is to get nearly the same level of 'performance' by using the i3 mini model. I don't do video or pictures, other than the odd cropping for an attachment. Mostly, my 'workflow' is just reading, writing, using a small spreadsheet, and sending email. Most of my slowdown is not with the computer, just with my brain. A quiet little computer seems like it could be fine.
     
  24. brofkand macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    #399
    If you don't need a full OS, you may be happy with a ChromeOS machine. Have you ever experimented with them?
     
  25. Sabelonada macrumors regular

    Sabelonada

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2018
    #400
    The i3 will probably work fine. The i5, $1099 version comes with more storage and 6 cores. I think the i3 is more for a server environment. It's the least expensive and with an i7 and 10GB Ethernet upgrades, it makes a great rack mount device.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 13, 2018 ---
    I don't know about those older lines of computers. But a company preventing theft of their IP by validating that their OS only works on the hardware for which it is designed doesn't seem the same. Were people making their own versions of 3970 or PDPs and selling them with IBM or DEC software installed? Were people taking the OS and installing it on their own hardware in direct violation of the EULA? That's happening now.

    Every Hackintosh user is a pirate and stealing from the people who actually pay for Macs.
     

Share This Page