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

Intel 6th Generation Skylake-S Processors Officially Confirmed for Q3 2015

The Apple Mac mini released on October 2012 is quad-core with eight threads. The above chips can be used in a Mac mini as well.
 
Marx55 said:
The Apple Mac mini released on October 2012 is quad-core with eight threads. The above chips can be used in a Mac mini as well.
Click to expand...

There are hyperthreaded mobile quad-core processor, but those listed above are the desktop chips, the last ones used were Ivy Bridge-M chips (Apple has since moved to dual-core -U chips only).

The ones listed above for Skylake are all -S desktop chips (reflected by their TDP, which are all too high for current mobile processors).
 
Last edited:
It's the never ending dream of Mini-fans to get a Mini that is basically at the same power and capability as an iMac but without the screen. Sorry, but I don't think that will ever happen. In fact, given the processors available in the current Mini, and the recently released new MacBook, I think we will see the next Mini in a redesigned, smaller case that shares a lot of the components of the next MacBook update. In other words: the current MacBook will get updated with Skylake processors and such, and the next Mac Mini will probably use similar, if not identical, internals. This means no fan, requiring low TDP. If Apple makes the power supply external, it can be even smaller.

The Mini has, and always will primarily be, the entry level Mac computer, and I don't see Apple changing that ethos.
 
Marx55 said:
The Apple Mac mini released on October 2012 is quad-core with eight threads. The above chips can be used in a Mac mini as well.
Click to expand...

The late-2012 minis with quad core Ivy Bridge CPUs were still mobile processors (they used the i7-3xxxQM series).

Just because it's an i7 quad core doesn't mean that it's a desktop CPU. There's loads of laptop CPUs with quad core i7s as well.
 
The Core i7-6700T looks like it would work nicely.

14nm, 4/8 cores, 2.8 GHz, 3.6 GHz boost, 8 MB cache, DDR4 2133 MHz memory, 35W TDP.

The 2012 models had 45W TDPs. So this 35W should work out just fine with the current power-supply.
 
oneMadRssn said:
The Core i7-6700T looks like it would work nicely.

14nm, 4/8 cores, 2.8 GHz, 3.6 GHz boost, 8 MB cache, DDR4 2133 MHz memory, 35W TDP.

The 2012 models had 45W TDPs. So this 35W should work out just fine with the current power-supply.
Click to expand...

The TDP is fine, but the chip's packaging isn't. As mentioned above, Apple is only going to use mobile parts with the associated chip packaging. Not bulky LGA chips like the i7-6700T. And spendthrift apple isn't going to design a special logic board to house the quad core version either as that's the excuse being used why the Haswell quad core mini (which uses a different chip size than the dual core) never came out. We got lucky with the Ivy Bridge as Intel designed the dual and quad core's to use the same chip packaging size. Unless Intel creates a one-off chip like they did with the original MBA, the chances of a quad core Mini are 0.
 
toddzrx said:
It's the never ending dream of Mini-fans to get a Mini that is basically at the same power and capability as an iMac but without the screen. Sorry, but I don't think that will ever happen. In fact, given the processors available in the current Mini, and the recently released new MacBook, I think we will see the next Mini in a redesigned, smaller case that shares a lot of the components of the next MacBook update. In other words: the current MacBook will get updated with Skylake processors and such, and the next Mac Mini will probably use similar, if not identical, internals. This means no fan, requiring low TDP. If Apple makes the power supply external, it can be even smaller.

The Mini has, and always will primarily be, the entry level Mac computer, and I don't see Apple changing that ethos.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The quad core 2.6 Mini bests all the latest Mini models when it comes to multi-core applications. The new Minis only have a distinct advantage with single core apps (in most cases) and certain video performance which turns out not to be all that much. So I would not call the 2.6 quad Mini a simple entry level Mac computer. However, I will agree that was the original intent before it got a following AND before Apple itself started offering Minis as Server models. - the latter is something to think about with Apple's perverse marketing scheme.
 
The 2014 minis makeup for their dual core chips with better IO (TB2 and wifi AC), faster SSD (PCI-E) and better graphics (intel iris) than the 2012.

keep holding on to your 2012 quad core, it'll be obsolete sooner than you think thanks to that intel 4000 chip and sata interface
 
Hopefully the current generation will sell very badly and they'll bring a new generation with a quad-core option and Iris Pro.
 
brdeveloper said:
Hopefully the current generation will sell very badly and they'll bring a new generation with a quad-core option and Iris Pro.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, they might as well as add in a new product line - the Mac Mini Pro.

The regular Mac Mini would continue to use the same logic board as the baseline MBA and 13" rMBPs, while the Mac Mini Pro would use the same logic board as the 15" rMBP.
 
yjchua95 said:
If that's the case, they might as well as add in a new product line - the Mac Mini Pro.

The regular Mac Mini would continue to use the same logic board as the baseline MBA and 13" rMBPs, while the Mac Mini Pro would use the same logic board as the 15" rMBP.
Click to expand...

Well, the 2012 quad i7 Mini matched the rMBP 15" in specs (quad core i7, ivy bridge, hd4000), but didn't have a dGPU.
 
phrehdd said:
What are you talking about? The quad core 2.6 Mini bests all the latest Mini models when it comes to multi-core applications. The new Minis only have a distinct advantage with single core apps (in most cases) and certain video performance which turns out not to be all that much. So I would not call the 2.6 quad Mini a simple entry level Mac computer. However, I will agree that was the original intent before it got a following AND before Apple itself started offering Minis as Server models. - the latter is something to think about with Apple's perverse marketing scheme.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and that's history. I'm talking about the future and what I think Apple will do with the Mini given it's recent update and the release of the new MacBook.

yjchua95 said:
If that's the case, they might as well as add in a new product line - the Mac Mini Pro.

The regular Mac Mini would continue to use the same logic board as the baseline MBA and 13" rMBPs, while the Mac Mini Pro would use the same logic board as the 15" rMBP.
Click to expand...

Doubt it; I see the Mini getting smaller than it is now using the MacBook internals.
 
Appart from the obvious benefits of Skylake, for me the most anticipated feature is the Alpine Ridge Controller which will support full HDMI 2.0 capable of 4K60p 4:4:4, in other words perfect for those looking to use Mac Mini with a 4K TV.
 
What are you talking about...

phrehdd said:
What are you talking about? The quad core 2.6 Mini bests all the latest Mini models when it comes to multi-core applications. The new Minis only have a distinct advantage with single core apps (in most cases) and certain video performance which turns out not to be all that much. So I would not call the 2.6 quad Mini a simple entry level Mac computer. However, I will agree that was the original intent before it got a following AND before Apple itself started offering Minis as Server models. - the latter is something to think about with Apple's perverse marketing scheme.
Click to expand...

There are no more server models and many modern low level servers use atom or even arm low power processors...

As mentioned above we got lucky with ivy bridge as the quad core mobile parts used the same die size and chip set as the dual core ones and so they could all go on the same logic board. Unless intel do that again (not happening in skylake as far as I can tell) then we will not see another quad core mac mini...

Just think of the mac mini as a 13 inch rMBP without a built in screen and keyboard because basically thats what it is....
 
Samuelsan2001 said:
There are no more server models and many modern low level servers use atom or even arm low power processors...

As mentioned above we got lucky with ivy bridge as the quad core mobile parts used the same die size and chip set as the dual core ones and so they could all go on the same logic board. Unless intel do that again (not happening in skylake as far as I can tell) then we will not see another quad core mac mini...

Just think of the mac mini as a 13 inch rMBP without a built in screen and keyboard because basically thats what it is....
Click to expand...


I am unsure why you even bother mentioning low powered servers that are nothing more than a fancy NAS unit. The Mini Server was far more capable that what you mention in both power and certainly OS.

The degrading of the Mini with respect to CPU is what remains suspect. Apple certainly has its tiered marketing schema with respect to hardware for the masses and along with that, are plenty of people who wont (anymore) fit into their schema. I will say we agree that Apple will continue to somewhat parallel the Mini's CPU/mobo abilities with that of a given laptop offering.

As for me, I'll happily accept a dual core future Mini if it at least matches the across board scoring of the quad 2.6 Mini model. Until such time, I'll have to look elsewhere for a solution and for those that like the latest Minis, I am glad for them.
 
poematik13 said:
The 2014 minis makeup for their dual core chips with better IO (TB2 and wifi AC), faster SSD (PCI-E) and better graphics (intel iris) than the 2012.

keep holding on to your 2012 quad core, it'll be obsolete sooner than you think thanks to that intel 4000 chip and sata interface
Click to expand...

How soon do you think 6Gbps will be obsolete? Or 10Gbps of TB1? And as for Intel 4000, as long as it can render the OS X UI, it's not going to be obsolete until OS X no longer supports it, except for gaming which it wasn't that good for even on day1.

I can't speak for everyone, but I know many of us on this forum use the mini as a sort of basic browsing / photo editing / word processing / emailing / home server / itunes server. For those tasks, I am comfortable that it will work equally well, if not better, than a 2014 model.

As for obsolete, the day the 2012 model is obsolete is the same day the 2014 model is obsolete. In 5+ years, they won't be that different to matter.
 
oneMadRssn said:
And as for Intel 4000, as long as it can render the OS X UI, it's not going to be obsolete until OS X no longer supports it, except for gaming which it wasn't that good for even on day1.
Click to expand...

The only other thing I can think of is video playback; we're not there yet but at some point in some time in the future, the HD 4000 will struggle with high-def and more recent video formats because GPUs have built-in hardware acceleration based on current codecs - at some point, it'll be too behind the times to keep up.

As I said tho, we're definitely not there yet.
 
crsh1976 said:
The only other thing I can think of is video playback; we're not there yet but at some point in some time in the future, the HD 4000 will struggle with high-def and more recent video formats because GPUs have built-in hardware acceleration based on current codecs - at some point, it'll be too behind the times to keep up.

As I said tho, we're definitely not there yet.
Click to expand...

I agree that video playback will give the HD4000 some trouble. However, even if doesn't support a future hardware decoding standard, the 2012 Mac Mini overall won't be obsolete until the CPU is too slow to software decode that video standard.

Though, that is also a problem I welcome and cannot wait to have. The day video encoding gets so sophisticated that a quadcore cannot keep up, I hope it will mean that it is a lossless compression of an 8k movie that fits into a 4GB file. When that happens, I will gladly get a new Mac.

Pide Piper!
 
toddzrx said:
It's the never ending dream of Mini-fans to get a Mini that is basically at the same power and capability as an iMac but without the screen. Sorry, but I don't think that will ever happen. In fact, given the processors available in the current Mini, and the recently released new MacBook, I think we will see the next Mini in a redesigned, smaller case that shares a lot of the components of the next MacBook update. In other words: the current MacBook will get updated with Skylake processors and such, and the next Mac Mini will probably use similar, if not identical, internals. This means no fan, requiring low TDP. If Apple makes the power supply external, it can be even smaller.

The Mini has, and always will primarily be, the entry level Mac computer, and I don't see Apple changing that ethos.
Click to expand...

Ah, but there's the big gaping gap between the mini and the mac pro. Apple has filled this gap with the iMac, which is great unless you don't want an iMac and want to be able to choose your own screen.

I have a 2012 Mini and a nMP and I actually think what is the current Pro should be just a 'Mac' (ditch Xeon for core i7 and add single fast desktop GPU), and a more expandable machine becomes the Pro. Then it wouldn't be so bad if the mini became the 'macbook without a screen' and redesigned to use an even smaller case.

What do i know though, I only buy this stuff....
 
oneMadRssn said:
I agree that video playback will give the HD4000 some trouble. However, even if doesn't support a future hardware decoding standard, the 2012 Mac Mini overall won't be obsolete until the CPU is too slow to software decode that video standard.

Though, that is also a problem I welcome and cannot wait to have. The day video encoding gets so sophisticated that a quadcore cannot keep up, I hope it will mean that it is a lossless compression of an 8k movie that fits into a 4GB file. When that happens, I will gladly get a new Mac.

Pide Piper!
Click to expand...

Lossless 8k 90min movie, 4GB? Dream on...be happy if they ever manage to cram it into 40GB
 
EnesM said:
Lossless 8k 90min movie, 4GB? Dream on...be happy if they ever manage to cram it into 40GB
Click to expand...

I am dreaming :cool:

In theory, if such a dreamy compression did exist, I'm sure my 2012 QC Mini wouldn't be able to keep up. ;)
 
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