This is one the the funniest posts I've seen on MR. Thanks for making my night AppleFan115.
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.
Late 2014 Mac Mini Benchmarks Indicate Decreased Multi-Core Performance
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is one the the funniest posts I've seen on MR. Thanks for making my night AppleFan115.
I can imagine the debate at Apple.
Person A "In order to update the mini we need updated chips from Intel that won't heat the house and spin the fan to liftoff. However Intel keeps delaying the chip updates."
Person B "Users have been clamoring for an update for years. We need something."
Person A "Well, the graphics are better on the chips Intel did put out. That may appease the 'mini-ites'."
Person B "Go with that."
Person A "Wait. I didn't tell you that the quad core CPU isn't pin-compatible with the dual core. We would need to design two system boards and the thermal output on the quad core will make it a mini toaster."
Person B "Sheesh.... (throws iPhone 7 prototype across the room) This isn't good. What is the current schedule for Intel for a decent upgrade."
Person A "Latest is sometime in 2015 but they have pushed that back several times already."
Person B "Well, we need something.... Ok. Let's do this. We have improved graphics and better dual core performance. We won't have a quad core option this time around. Design a board using everything we have from the laptops in order to minimize cost. We will pitch the new design as lower price than the current design and better graphics performance. We won't mention the negatives. Never mention the negatives...."
Person A "Ok. This is going to hurt."
Person B "I know. Hopefully Intel will finish the chips they have been promising and we can get back on track next year. I hope we don't lose too many customers over this."
Person A "Should we keep making the server version with the current design?"
Person B "No. We don't sell a lot of them and it would put a spotlight on the lack of a quad core in the new design. Let's hope that the improved graphics will make-up for the rest."
Soldered ram in a desktop computer? Half the performance of a *TWO* year old model? Huge step backwards. I'll be switching to Windows 10 with real hardware next year. Leave the disposable appliances to the children/fanboys.
I feel this is an indicator that Apple is becoming something else. They're just selling you limited time products that generally have an expiration date.
You wouldn't expect a watch to die so soon. My Casio G-Shock's battery can go for several years before it craps out. Even then, I can replace the battery, and it'll run for another several more years. And if I am rough with it, who cares, it was designed for that in the first place.
How frequently do you think you're going to need to replace the apple watch? once a year, like every iPhone? How about battery life? 24-hours?
Keep your watch, whether it's a Casio, Omega, or Rolex.
There's your Low-tier, mid-tier, and top-tier watch. They're all great quality too.
Welcome to the wonderful world of Tim 'The Bean Counter' Cook...
Upgrade the CEO in 2015.
But that is just it, Apple don't seem to care for their die-hard Mac Mini users, they haven't given them an upgrade path. Maybe Apple really don't think the market is large enough or they really are trying to kill off the Mac Mini market and make people move to other models (I can imagine sales of Mac Air's are mega compared to Mac Mini's now, unlike 6 years ago when then Mac Mini was a true entry level machine).
At the end of the day it must have been Apples decision to do this as it isn't hard to make a second board version that supports quad core.
The specs and price of the Mac Mini are a bit silly, even when taking in the "Apple premium" tax. The $999 Mac Mini is pathetically underpowered compared to a Brix Pro at $830 (Geekbench 14215)
Got five of them, how many have you got?If only all these people who complain would have bought a Mac Mini to begin with.
Let the man know.... tcook@apple.com
----------
Mini was my first computer. My father still has one. I think we've owned at least 4 of them since 2005.
----------
Mini was my first computer. My father still has one. I think we've owned at least 4 of them since 2005.
They also reduced the price for the 64 GB iPad mini (previously $599, now $499) and added a 128 GB option at the $599 price point.
The iPad mini essentially got a price cut by $100 (for the 16 GB, the 32 GB and the 64 GB models) and $50 (for the non-retina model) and a storage bump at the top. And some models (64 GB, 128 GB) got a TouchID sensor thrown in as well. It's only the 16 GB TouchID model that looks like a limited improvement model. However, everybody is focussing their criticism on this model only.
Apple simply didn't update the iPad mini much, it just lowered the prices.
Reminds me of time I went to buy a car and I wanted a v6 and a stick.
The guy didn't have one on the lot, so he offered me a Custom Wheel upgrade instead.
I guess at this point, Apple kind of wish they had not released the Quad-Core i7 Mac mini back in 2012, this wouldn't be a problem.
Too late. Apple. WTF?
The way this is going, the Mac mini will not be upgradeable in anyway, as well as the iMac, having the same fate as the Macbook Air. The only thing close to resembling upgradeable is the Mac Pro.
Time for some Newegg.com shopping. Just in time for Black Friday/Christmas at least.
Too late. Apple. WTF?
The way this is going, the Mac mini will not be upgradeable in anyway, as well as the iMac, having the same fate as the Macbook Air. The only thing close to resembling upgradeable is the Mac Pro.
Time for some Newegg.com shopping. Just in time for Black Friday/Christmas at least.
While I generally completely agree, this seems like a special case. It is not very often that new Mac models are equipped with CPUs that are actually slower than the ones they replace (is this the first time?) so waiting for Broadwell Minis might very well make perfect sense for those seeking a faster Mini than the 2012 Quad-core models.
Agreed. But, as you can see from the long threads on the latest Mini, some of Apple's most ardent supporters are mini tinkerers. It may be a small group but they make effective evangelicals who are worth a lot in word of mouth advertising. Cut them off from their toys to tinker with and you create a lot of negativity for your company.
I'll wait for real world tests and a tear down before I make my decision. Who knows, I may just buy a refurbished Pro as the software that I use can use the GPU instead of the CPU for image processing. I just wanted something uber small for a media server.
The $100 price drop has nothing to do with quad-core or not. Because the model whose price was dropped by $100 wasn't a quad-core model. But that might be too complex a thought.
If anything, that gave him less credibility as an "IT" professional. I think the main issue here ... and the only one that matters ... is the decrease in performance over older generation Mini's. It's completely and utterly irrelevant if you are a professional or average consumer ... you are paying more for a lower performing machine. That is the only issue here and there is nothing to argue against it.
Apple is getting a bit silly these days. You know ... sillier than usual. Really not a fan of this soldered on parts thing they're into now. I like Apple products ... I really do ... but their manufacturing choices are becoming more claustrophobic all the time. I'll probably keep buying Apple laptops, but I'm going to stick with Hackintosh builds for the foreseeable future. If I need a new drive, RAM, GPU, whatever ... I don't really feel like driving 2 hours to the nearest Apple store and then wait for them to fix it when I can just do it myself in 5 minutes with backup parts. It's beyond frustrating.
Quad core was a pretty common feature in 2009 and is a totally bog-standard feature of a desktop PC in 2014. With iOS encroaching on the low-end, now seems more like the time to drop the dual-core and make the Mini into a powerhouse - not to castrate it.
As things stand the Mini in 2014 can do almost exactly what the equivalent Mini did in 2011 - so will probably see lackluster sales as users fail to upgrade. Which will give Apple an excuse to again neglect it or possibly cut it in 2015.
As for not wanting to make the Mini too powerful to avoid cannibalising iMac or Mac Pro sales, Steve Jobs was never afraid of cannibalising products and I thought Tim Cook had said that he felt the same way, so that should not be the reason for this move. And if it is the reason, it's a bad one.
The list of stuff to dislike to far includes: processor options, soldered RAM, on SSD option on the low-end model, costly (£160) upgrade to a 256GB SSD on the mid-range, HD Graphics 5000 instead of Iris, Iris Pro or a discrete solution.
I'm really struggling to find something to love about this update.
As things stand the Mini in 2014 can do almost exactly what the equivalent Mini did in 2011 - so will probably see lackluster sales as users fail to upgrade. Which will give Apple an excuse to again neglect it or possibly cut it in 2015.
As for not wanting to make the Mini too powerful to avoid cannibalising iMac or Mac Pro sales, Steve Jobs was never afraid of cannibalising products and I thought Tim Cook had said that he felt the same way, so that should not be the reason for this move. And if it is the reason, it's a bad one.
The list of stuff to dislike to far includes: processor options, soldered RAM, on SSD option on the low-end model, costly (£160) upgrade to a 256GB SSD on the mid-range, HD Graphics 5000 instead of Iris, Iris Pro or a discrete solution.
I'm really struggling to find something to love about this update.
Well, then we both should be disappointed.
By the way, wrote Steve Jobs once and he called me a liar (he was lying).
Broadway isn't that much faster than Haswell - it's more power efficient though. Given that a Mini is plugged in...
See this is where you need to think. The performance isn't less. It's less FOR MULTICORE APPS. It's more for single core apps and for apps that benefit significantly from faster graphics processing.
If someone tells me that they're a serious, power user of apps that stretch multicore performance and then tells me they rely on Minis for this, I'll tell them they're fools. Any serious high end user of such apps should have an iMac or a Pro.
So what hardware are we supposed to be running Server.app on now? iMacs make no sense, and Mac Pros are way overpowered GPU-wise for server tasks.
