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
There still are not many apps out there that use more than 1 core. Slowly, more are... but 98% of them only utilize one core. A person buying a mini isn't doing heavy lifting (advanced adobe type stuff)... so for the person the mini is marketed towards, its faster and improved.
Compared the to like option it replaces, its much improved. I bet the mini gets a refresh when the new chip sets come out, and that apple had intended that all along but intels delays are why we are only seeing this.
I guess I will take another look at the Mac Mini when it gets updated again in a few years. Intel has made some amazing progress on NUC though in performance, size, and price. You get even get GT3e on some models. That is going to improve even more so on Broadwell and Skylake next year.
I'd have thought the obvious solution to lack of a suitable quad core in the current line up, would have been to leave the existing 2012 quad core 'server' model in there alongside the new boxes.
It's still not a reason to leave the mini without updates. At this point if someone prefers the 2012 model, they have the option of purchasing refurbished or used for less money. What people didn't receive was an update to comparable components that use Haswell rather than Ivy Bridge parts. That was obviously deliberate on Apple's part, even if it is a bit misguided to worry about the Mini undercutting the imac. Both are smaller parts of the Mac lineup with the notebooks retaining a firm lead.
They need to see the fact that things have changed since 2005. In late 2014, this computer should now be the standard sized desktop, especially given how proud they are of miniaturization. There is no excuse for not allowing people to buy a good, headless non-Pro mac. I stick with my 2011 high-end mini for now, but if they don't get their act together for next year's Skylake release, I am going the hackintosh route.
Did they just compare a quad core to a dual core machine with the parallel processing test?
If you are going to encode blu rays, then yes its slower. Everyday use for enterprise and typical home use, get the dual core as its faster for that purpose.
If you are going to encode blu rays, then yes its slower. Everyday use for enterprise and typical home use, get the dual core as its faster for that purpose.
Well, this is a very interesting discussion about a very important and poor decision Apple has made in my concern.
Many here had mentioned a gap in Apple's product line - An affordable (comparing to the 3000 MP of course..) quad core desktop computer without a display (or just not the built in displays Apple wants you to buy...). The fact is, Apple forces its custumers that want a quad core computer to buy a display they don't want or need, or spend 3000$ on performance they do not need. That is a fact, there is no product in Apple's product line that fits this category, i don't think anyone here can debate that.
Interesting point in my concern is the ecosystem factor. Up until a couple of years, Apple was so much better in every product it made, that buying something else was just being dumb. Today, iPhone has been strugling maintaining its lead in the smartphone area with growing competetion from Samsung and Google (you know what, even HTC and Lg..). The iPad, which is the most dominant product in its category, is starting to feel real competetion from Android tablets which keeps getting better and better with each passing year. The Mac, to me the best computer by far thanks to OSX, is still the form factor that keeps people from moving to the Android dark side. From my personnal perspective, i can never see myself switching back to a windows PC after enjoying every bit of Apples ecosystem. The problem is, What will happen when i finish my degree and would want a decent desktop computer in my house to replace my amazing mid 2012 rMBP? (And again, the iMac is not an option for me - 21.5 is too small, 27 is too big, 24 is my choice...)
That's exactly the point - when Apple decided to discontinue the almost pro level, they have forced people to settle for something they don't want really, and in my concern, ultimately force many customers to buy a Windows PC (I think it is a lot of people, this is exactly the computer the average family or customer needs for many reasons - not to pricy, upgradable, will last for many years, comfortable in size, can be used for high performace computing like gaming, video/music editing, 3d renderings and so on). While doing that, the major and almost only advantage they have today, their ecosystem, would be breached. Eventually, after leaving the mac for a better computer (or more appropriate solution to their needs, a better bargain - call it whatever you want), people would start seeking their phones and tablets elsewhere, and this is a major, major loss and concern for Apple.
Many here had mentioned a gap in Apple's product line - An affordable (comparing to the 3000 MP of course..) quad core desktop computer without a display (or just not the built in displays Apple wants you to buy...). The fact is, Apple forces its custumers that want a quad core computer to buy a display they don't want or need, or spend 3000$ on performance they do not need. That is a fact, there is no product in Apple's product line that fits this category, i don't think anyone here can debate that.
Interesting point in my concern is the ecosystem factor. Up until a couple of years, Apple was so much better in every product it made, that buying something else was just being dumb. Today, iPhone has been strugling maintaining its lead in the smartphone area with growing competetion from Samsung and Google (you know what, even HTC and Lg..). The iPad, which is the most dominant product in its category, is starting to feel real competetion from Android tablets which keeps getting better and better with each passing year. The Mac, to me the best computer by far thanks to OSX, is still the form factor that keeps people from moving to the Android dark side. From my personnal perspective, i can never see myself switching back to a windows PC after enjoying every bit of Apples ecosystem. The problem is, What will happen when i finish my degree and would want a decent desktop computer in my house to replace my amazing mid 2012 rMBP? (And again, the iMac is not an option for me - 21.5 is too small, 27 is too big, 24 is my choice...)
That's exactly the point - when Apple decided to discontinue the almost pro level, they have forced people to settle for something they don't want really, and in my concern, ultimately force many customers to buy a Windows PC (I think it is a lot of people, this is exactly the computer the average family or customer needs for many reasons - not to pricy, upgradable, will last for many years, comfortable in size, can be used for high performace computing like gaming, video/music editing, 3d renderings and so on). While doing that, the major and almost only advantage they have today, their ecosystem, would be breached. Eventually, after leaving the mac for a better computer (or more appropriate solution to their needs, a better bargain - call it whatever you want), people would start seeking their phones and tablets elsewhere, and this is a major, major loss and concern for Apple.
Did anyone notice how the showed the "best product line in 25 years" from the side, leaving out the true desktop computers - Mac Pro and Mac Mini.
Clearly shows where their priorities lie - ultra thin toys.
Clearly shows where their priorities lie - ultra thin toys.
Skylake won't be out until H2 2015, so the mini probably won't get upgraded until October, 2015. At that time, what's to keep Apple from pulling a similar stunt.
I think someone in China should design a BGA-mounted RAM slot, so people can de-solder the Apple RAM and solder in the slot... so ordinary DIMMs can again be used to upgrade. And/or buy up large stocks of the 2012 model(s), and sell at a *slight* profit, with maxed-out RAM.
Kickstarting this... who's in?
Kickstarting this... who's in?
I lucked out on Friday at about 11am. Refurb.me can send you an alert when they're in stock.
No one in my family has ever had a Windows Machine last for more than a year. I would bet that Apple considered the scenario you presented already and still decided that this mini release was more important given their future plans if any for the mini.
Not quite so. The low-end 21.5" iMac is dual-core, all the others are quad. The Mini could have used the same strategy - dual-core at the low end, quad-core for medium and high models.
sounds good....because i did my feedback.
Honestly...i know there are people who don't see beyond the surface..but i hope everyone can see through what Apple really is...beyond the surface..and call them out if needed.
It's become a fetish. They are forgetting the lesson that Steve learned very well: people need tools that work. So they have a massively powerful Mac Pro that can only take 64 GB of RAM. Oh, but the machine is so much smaller than the previous generation.
I mean most creative professionals would obviously take more cores over clock speed any day of the week. Maybe Apple sees the Mini as a general consumer machine, rather than for Pros and the average Joe would benefit from a faster clock speed rather than quad cores?
Same here, I can hold out until Skylake. It's worth mentioning the reason I'm able to hold out that long with a macbook from 2008 is that I was able to upgrade the ram in it from the purchased config of 2GB -> 4GB -> 8GB. Along with changing out the stock spinning harddrive for an ssd.
I don't think they did this move because they don't care about Mac Mini since it is such a small market or that it was such a small percentage of overall sales. I think they made it because they saw an opportunity to make more money. They likely saw well quad core Mac Mini's were selling (even if low $$$ volume compared to iphones and ipads) and realized if they stopped offering that choice (quad core Mac Mini) they could push that market segment to more expensive products....iMac's and Mac Pro's. Seems pretty simple.
As for servers I have no clue what direction they are going. I don't think they are going to see many iMac's and Mac Pro's sold as server units.
Maybe they really did think some of the quad core Mini segment would shift to iMac or Mac Pro and the rest would wait until the Broadwell is out...
...if that ever happens.
As for servers I have no clue what direction they are going. I don't think they are going to see many iMac's and Mac Pro's sold as server units.
Maybe they really did think some of the quad core Mini segment would shift to iMac or Mac Pro and the rest would wait until the Broadwell is out...
...if that ever happens.