Alot of music producers and video editors use the mac mini quad cores because the price and ability to fit in a 1u rack space. Dual core won't be able to handle those tasks. If by average consumer you mean Internet surfer, then yes you are right, and the average consumer ends up getting a windows also.
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
but at least they'll still be earning billions off this stuff, so it makes apple cool. amirite?
a cheap hackintosh > this pile of turds
a cheap hackintosh > this pile of turds
Sorry, I haven't read through all the posts so this may be a repeat of what others have said but, at least there's a possible explanation in this article as to why Apple didn't offer quad-core. I really don't think they're just trying to "screw us over". I think that's why Phil Schiller said that Mac Mini is a small update and rushed through the announcement. They wanted to give those wanting a new Mini something but they're waiting for Intel to produce new chips before redesigning it fundamentally.
If you look at that picture carefully, you'll also notice the MBA is missing. Seems strange.
That might be, which is why I'm waiting for Skylake to either switch to Windows 10 or build a hackintosh.
I think they would've been better off to not update the mini at all.
These comments need to go straight to the feedback. This is just sad
http://www.apple.com/feedback/macmini.html
http://www.apple.com/feedback/macmini.html
Why couldn't Apple have offered the new ones at $499, $699, and $799 with the old quad core, dual 1gb, and 16GB of RAM at $999?
I mean they are charging a $300 premium for the high end model for a fusion drive and .2ghz speed improvement.
I mean they are charging a $300 premium for the high end model for a fusion drive and .2ghz speed improvement.
I sent feedback complaining that the CPU is too slow, no quad-core option and the RAM is not user-upgradeable. They seem quite arrogant about their mistakes lately, given the iOS 8 mess but maybe they'll turn a new leaf soon.
It all depends on what you get. I've got a machine that's been going strong for nearly 8 years now. Got a friend who has a 10 year old Dell desktop that's still chugging along just fine. Even the computer I thought would crap out in a couple of years, the little Gateway laptop I got my mom 'n dad for $400 so they'd shut up about having a computer, has lasted 6 years now. Beyond that, I know tons of people who have computers that are 3 and 4 years old that haven't given them any problems.
The worst thing about Windows world isn't that it's all crap. There's plenty of stuff out there that's just (or nearly) as good as what Apple offers. It's that you have to do some research, spend a little effort, to know what you're getting. The biggest advantage with going with Apple isn't that they're the only good option in a sea of crap. It's that you pretty much know exactly what you're getting.
I've wanted something like this for a LONG time. If they could do a headless mac with an i7-4790 and gtx970 (or gtx980) combo, or similar, I would be all over it. Especially something in a package similar to their mac pro (but with a cheaper finish to cut costs). I imagine a lot of people would go for it. It would cater for the upper end mac mini segment they've now destroyed, would cater for people who want to use a single computer for mac work and gaming. It would cater for those whom the xeon class cpu's in the mac pro are overkill, but still want great performance for their pro apps. It would entice so many of the hackintosh crowd over to buying real mac hardware and forgo the slight hassles of hackintoshing.
It seems as the years go on, Apple are simply making less products I'm interested in, and I dont think my interests are that far removed from that of the general public, who are increasingly becoming tech savvy and not dumb fodder for Apple to take advantage of.
I never understood why people rant and rave in the comments section on forums that are never seen by Apple. Instead shoot Tim Cook an email at tcook@apple.com. In the past, Apple has caved to consumers (the bumper case program comes to mind) when they have yelled loud enough. It wouldn't surprise me if people complained loud enough if a CTO option magically showed up for both a quad-core processor and/or discrete/IRIS graphics card option.
I'm certain the Broadwell delays are part of the problem. However Haswell based quad cores are very power hungry. We are talking 47 watts design power and often going higher than that in bursts. I don't think they could get the hardware to fit the power budget especially considering that they need another ten what's in the budget for the extra TB2 port.
I know there is a bunch of whining going on about RAM and now this benchmark but I see the hysteria as nonsense. Many of Intels CPUs for mobile only address 16 GB to begin with. The lack of a quad core solution is a problem but on the other hand Apple gave up nothing performance wise for the cores we did get. More so it really doesn't make sense to compare a dual core to a quad core chip.
----------
Or they doubled GPU performance. Strong GPU performance is far more important than some want to acknowledge here.
It does look like Intel screwed up Apples plans. Given that though I really like the design of those Minis. We are getting a far better GPU, TB2 (2) ports which are a huge benefit for the mainstream user.
I know there is a bunch of whining going on about RAM and now this benchmark but I see the hysteria as nonsense. Many of Intels CPUs for mobile only address 16 GB to begin with. The lack of a quad core solution is a problem but on the other hand Apple gave up nothing performance wise for the cores we did get. More so it really doesn't make sense to compare a dual core to a quad core chip.
----------
The new Mac Mini.
We've managed to cut the speed in half.
That's something only Apple can do.
Or they doubled GPU performance. Strong GPU performance is far more important than some want to acknowledge here.
$500 for a computer that will last 7+ years is not high price. My mom is still using a Mac mini from 2007 that works the same as the day she bought it. These small and low-cost computers have a lot of life in them.
(this is not a defence of Apple, just the quality of the Mac mini and the value of its price)
Apple should've worked harder to at least match the performance of the previous generation. Releasing a product with less performance is inexcusable. I fail to see the point.
In all likelihood, my next computer will be a Surface Pro. I know they are not quad core (right now) either, but I really love the idea of having one device like the Surface Pro.
What is happening to Apple is kinda sad to me. I switched to Apple in 2004 when I got my first iMac and iPod. At one point not too long ago, everything in my house was Apple gear. Routers, Apple TVs, iPods, iPhones, iMacs, Macbooks, iPads, etc. Now all that is left is the computers and AppleTVs. And it is likely that when I upgrade those, it won't be with Apple products.
What is happening to Apple is kinda sad to me. I switched to Apple in 2004 when I got my first iMac and iPod. At one point not too long ago, everything in my house was Apple gear. Routers, Apple TVs, iPods, iPhones, iMacs, Macbooks, iPads, etc. Now all that is left is the computers and AppleTVs. And it is likely that when I upgrade those, it won't be with Apple products.
I believe most people will skip this version. The problem would be the Haswell processor. I didn't expect the Mac Mini to show up in the Mac 2013 line because of the huge different between both dual-core and quad-core. I don't know why they would make two different sockets when Haswell can truly run with one socket and share it with the entire Haswell line. I don't think Apple truly saw this coming. Luckily both the iMac and MacBook Pro posses two version which allows them to have both Dual Core and Quad Core Haswell Processor.
What Apple should have done (and I don't know why they are not doing it when they have the time) is have the baseline Mac Mini with a dual-core Haswell and redesign the other model of the Mac Mini so it can run a quad-core Haswell processor. I don't think the people who buy the top tier Mac Mini care so much about pricing.
You are correct that the CPU performance is not the full picture, and it's possible that the other enhancements do make up the difference, so real-world performance will likely be better with this latest release.
The fact that Apple is being held back by Intel is dejavu... same thing happened when Apple was waiting for Motorola to release a 3.0GHz PowerPC, which led to Apple switching to Intel. Thankfully, Steve had the foresight to prepare for that (over 5 years)... does today's leadership have that same foresight?
Just imagine when Apple announces that they have their own CPUs that kick Intel's butt!! That would be a day to party!
Yeah, it's so important that the new "improved" Mini is half as fast as the previous Mini.
You do know the difference between the GPU and the CPU right? The GPU should be seeing some rather significant speed ups. That is what drives the pixels.
Did you not read the article?
Did you not read the article?
The **** they doing with them?? I have a windows machine from 2011 still running fine. I have an imac from 2010 that had its HDD fail on me over the weekend. Swapped out the SSD and it's as good as new. Funny thing is I knew the hdd was failing, and was waiting for the awesome October Apple event to replace it with a super mini. Apple just missed out on up to $2,000.00
. This old quad core imac i7 from over four years ago feels as snappy as my i7 4770k 16gb ram gtx 770 gaming machine. It's a falicy that macs last longer, it's the same damn hardware, it's just pc guys tend to upgrade more for gpu performance as more software is available to them.
And I'm not by any means a windows lover, I hate it but I use it every day and have to know it.