I can't wait until a Mac Mini Air is released... It will look like a Magic Trackpad with USB3 and TB2 ports. At least then we could give them credit for making it thinner and lighter. 
Last edited:
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
I reckon different reasons
I reckon the reasoning could have something to do with power consumption. U processors use way less power than QM/HM, so they can brag even more about it being the desktop computer that uses the least power. And the people who buy MacMinis aren't performance hungry anyhow. Plus the better GPUs make the tradeoff worth it for consumers.
I reckon the reasoning could have something to do with power consumption. U processors use way less power than QM/HM, so they can brag even more about it being the desktop computer that uses the least power. And the people who buy MacMinis aren't performance hungry anyhow. Plus the better GPUs make the tradeoff worth it for consumers.
HA! The requirements I had for the first new car I ever bought was a six cylinder and a stick! As I wanted a Jeep Cherokee (I lived in the Sierra Nevada at the time and needed a good snow car), it was somewhat rare as nearly all were automatics. It was the end of the year and, as luck would have it, the dealer had one in stock. The car was pretty much exactly what I wanted but I walked away anyway in order to get a better price. It worked. End of the month and end of the year buying a car that had been on the lot for some time, the dealer dropped the price and I went for it.
Or even an just an iMac if you don't need all the horsepower of a Pro. Honestly, the Mini is an entry-level computer, it's not meant to be a powerhouse, so why do people complain when it is given an update that vastly speeds up entry-level (and even mid-level!) tasks at the cost of slowing down the highest-level tasks? It's preforming better at what it was meant to do.
On a side note, the top level Mac Mini with the i7 upgrade is an amazing headless computer for $1200.
"This would mean Apple would have to design and build two separate logic boards specifically for the Mac mini, while other Macs use the same logic boards across their individual line."
Heaven forbid a company with $100 billion in cash have to spend a little extra money for a separate logic board to avoid crippling a product line.
Well profit margin is more important than moving forward I guess. Apple is no better than any other corporation out there. Pay their worker peanuts to increase profits.
Fair enough, But when was the last time you opened opened up your PC or a clients PC and downgrade it? Ram and SSD are the same options as the 2 year old model and there is a slight GPU bump.
For certain users the CPU are not as important as RAM and SSD that is why my early 2009 Mac mini will always beat the 2014 base mini. Don't take my word for it, you SAID it!!
2009 mini 256 GB SSD (1,25 TB fusion), 8GB ram VS 2014 500 GB 4 GB Ram.
The RAM on the 2014 will not be able to be upgraded and If the PCIE (if the connector is even present) will most likely be proprietary and not be easily procured if ever Brand new.
I find it hard for an IT professional to try to spin this in a positive way in any form as Apple could have increased increased but GPU and CPU with this release. At the very least they could have just maintained the CPU performance. Locking down ram and having proprietary connectors are just there to add the icing onto the total fail of an update cake!!
The Retina iMac will do a much better job at cannibalizing Mac Pro sales than the Mac mini.
Consumers don't care what it was meant to do. They care what it DOES. And it does SUCK.
I think it's important to remember DUAL core performance will be better, and graphics. Obviously QUAD core benchmarks suffer.
Would I buy the new mini, probably not!
But then I own the 2011 mini server which is quad core 2ghz.
I think I might just buy the 2012 quad core mini server at a discount.
It's difficult, I also own the 2010 mini server which is a core 2 duo (dual core) at 2.66 ghz. I believe the mini was always designed to be that type of machine - like the 2010 mini - very power efficient. Cool even under load. When you add quad core you lose that power efficiency and things get hot. The 2010 mini is the most power efficient computer I have ever owned. At idle it draws almost nothing. And to be honest in real world use performance is comparable to the quad core model of the following year.
but the new mini lacks value I feel, and personally quad core is better for me but not the average consumer
Would I buy the new mini, probably not!
But then I own the 2011 mini server which is quad core 2ghz.
I think I might just buy the 2012 quad core mini server at a discount.
It's difficult, I also own the 2010 mini server which is a core 2 duo (dual core) at 2.66 ghz. I believe the mini was always designed to be that type of machine - like the 2010 mini - very power efficient. Cool even under load. When you add quad core you lose that power efficiency and things get hot. The 2010 mini is the most power efficient computer I have ever owned. At idle it draws almost nothing. And to be honest in real world use performance is comparable to the quad core model of the following year.
but the new mini lacks value I feel, and personally quad core is better for me but not the average consumer
Last edited:
If they didn't put in Haswell quad cores then theres no logical reason why they would do quad core Broadwell on just CPU performance alone. If the 2014 mini tanks Cook would be more likely to just let it stagnate with Haswell then take it off the store in 3 years.
I doubt the Broadwell U series chips are going to be that big of an improvement over Devils Canyon Haswell.
Do you understand how cores work? Honestly, I feel like people here have no idea how processors function. More than likely, you will never be using four cores at once. The multi-core scores of a system with four cores are going to be higher than one with two, but if you never use more than those two cores, it's not going to matter. You'll see an improvement, for Christ's sake. If you are really in a situation that calls for tons of cores, buy a computer designed for high-level usage like an iMac or Mac Pro.
Say one thing, do the opposite
Apple talks a lot about how environmentally responsible they are, yet they did two things that make a huge impact on the length of a device's usefulness:
Soldered RAM - Instead of buying what you need now and upgrading it one or two times through its lifetime, you are stuck with what you initially purchase. Of course it's impossible to know what your requirements will be 4, 5, 6 years from now.
Quad-core - Quad-core is not only useful for people that do real work with tasks like engineering, design, VMs, but it also ensures the device will be useful long into the future.
The new minis are nothing more than disposable appliances. It's also irresponsible of Apple to market a 4GB/5400rpm spinning drive computer to new Mac users in 2014. Through how many OS upgrades will these bottom of the barrel, non-upgradeable machines run before the landfill?
Apple talks a lot about how environmentally responsible they are, yet they did two things that make a huge impact on the length of a device's usefulness:
Soldered RAM - Instead of buying what you need now and upgrading it one or two times through its lifetime, you are stuck with what you initially purchase. Of course it's impossible to know what your requirements will be 4, 5, 6 years from now.
Quad-core - Quad-core is not only useful for people that do real work with tasks like engineering, design, VMs, but it also ensures the device will be useful long into the future.
The new minis are nothing more than disposable appliances. It's also irresponsible of Apple to market a 4GB/5400rpm spinning drive computer to new Mac users in 2014. Through how many OS upgrades will these bottom of the barrel, non-upgradeable machines run before the landfill?
OMG you're right! I'm on my way to the Apple store right now to buy a new iMac or Mac Pro to replace my quad core Mini. I can't wait! Geez I feel like such an idiot. I didn't ever even consider those options, hell I didn't even though they made anything other than a Mac Mini until reading this forum. Thanks for pointing that out Apple apologists!
after seeing the direction that apple is going....maybe it is time to move on from apple?
----------
don't support apple.
----------
don't support apple.
Could people saying this point out an actual quad-core i7 Haswell that Apple might have used with the existing Mini motherboard? Intel doesn't seem to have an option.
A "pro" mini could be a distinct product for those that don't want a monitor or Mac Pro horsepower, but it isn't one Apple seems to want to spend a lot of extra effort on.
Personally, I'm more concerned with the way they are restricting configuration flexibility and locking more of their margins in (soldered RAM, unavailable options with base units). I need a basic OSX CPU solution right now, the base Mini would be fine, but I have to make an immediate decision for the 8GB, and I can't configure, say, a base unit with the 128GB SSD and no HDD, which makes those outrageous markups on memory and storage unpalatable.
I priced out the Intel Haswell i5-4250U NUC on Amazon US - $350+$45 each for 4GB RAM and 500GB HDD + $30 Wifi; no OS. It comes out to almost the $500 for a base 2014 Mini, which throws in OSX, Thunderbolt, SDXC, audio-in and general Apple goodness. Obviously Apple's scale means they are making better money on the base Mini, but it is surprisingly competitive, and I'm guessing that whatever overall revenue/margins Apple wants for the Mini segment, they've skewed it to the upgrades.
RAM and storage all seem to run 100-150% markups over street-price equivalents! Working it out, Apple values the 1TB HDD upgrade at $50, each 4GB of RAM at $100, the 128GB SSD at $200, and the upgraded i5 processor at $50.
You seem not to. The majority of apps use all the cores nowadays, you could have argued that 5 years ago but I'm afraid you're way out of date.
"...buy a computer designed for high-level usage"
oh you mean like the 2012 quad core Mac Mini?
oh you mean like the 2012 quad core Mac Mini?
I logged in just to up vote this, and make note that it's probably the best post I've ever seen on here don't post very often but always reading
don't post very often but always readingAbsolutely. If you don't think like the idea of purchasing a disposable desktop computer, look at some options. Personally, I was careful not to get locked into any Apple specific software in the last 6 years, so I can easily switch to something better.
Do you buy an iPad and get angry that it doesn't run OS X? Do you buy a Mac Pro and get angry that it has no display? On a different note, do you buy a fork and get angry that you can't eat soup with it? No, because we buy things for what they are meant to do. Your point makes even less sense since you talk about consumers en masse. The average consumer doesn't need a quad-core. The average consumer will buy whatever is cheapest, and even the MBA i5 setup in the $499 Mini will do everything they need it to.