Late 2014 Mac Mini Benchmarks Indicate Decreased Multi-Core Performance

[mandoman]

I think the new mini for my main application as a media server is a pretty good update. For an always on media server, from it's predecessor it has lower power and goes from 1xTB1 to 2xTB2, quadrupling the IO bandwidth for external storage. Both great things.

I think the design goal to make it low power with Intel's present offerings is why we are don't have a quad option ('U' processor) and have soldered memory (LPDDR3). Lack of quad option is my biggest gripe since my other main application is media encoding.

These threads hearken back to the day Apple ditched discreet graphics on the mini. Those thread counts got pretty long too. But we all got over it once Intel integrated graphics started getting decent. The high end mini was actually headed in the right direction getting better and better until this update, almost satisfying those of us that want a respectable performing mac without a built in monitor. Let's hope Apple gets back on track next year.

We'll never get the machine us techies on a budget want. The mythical 'xMax' we all dream of with desktop i7 components, discreet gamer quality graphics cards, and no built in monitor will never be made. Let's just hope, however, that Apple get's the mini back on track where it left off in 2012 for it's high end offering when Intel finally get's off their hind quarters and releases it's next gen processors.

I would still recommend this computer to my less techy family and friends over anything PC. I myself will hold out until next year.

My wish list for 2015:
1) Updated mac mini with Quad core option and Iris Pro graphics.
2) Return of the 17" MBP.
3) Maintenance only full OSX release with no new features, but optimizes the OS for stability (i.e., Snow Leopard like release).

Back to Mac 2015!

 

[Count Blah]

The Mini Has never been focused on the professional market.



How is it that they are drawing back from the professional market when they just released a bleeding edge IMac?

Because not everyone wants to spend $1000 on a monitor they don't want, for a starter.

 

[lowepg]

So much teeth gnashing over this release.... :-(

Anyone desperate to replace a mini, perhaps it time to consider a Hackintosh Mini?

I suspect one could take that $1000 price point and build a damn rocket sled machine with premium (non-Mac) parts....

Anyone done this recently (with a quad-core)? Yosemite?

 

[BoulderAdonis]

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)

So buy a "Brix Pro" then. It's amazing to me how emotionally butt hurt people get over what apple does or doesn't do (not specifically saying *you*). Vote with your $$s. That's the beauty of a free market. More value for your $$, somewhere else? Great - go buy it. If Apple provides better value next year - when Intel actually ships the needed chips - great, then buy that.

 

[inscrewtable]

Bought the gf a 2012 quad core at a knock down price a few months ago 'cause the windows businessman I got it off couldn't get used to mac OS. Then I added a 512gb MX100. Just saw the benchmarks on my rMBP, and I used the new hand off feature to hand the page over to my iPod to show her. How cool is that?

 

[wizard]

Yeah, it's so important that the new "improved" Mini is half as fast as the previous Mini.

I realize this is Macrumors and that you guys have trouble reading for content but you need to realize that this disparity only exist when compared against the quad core Mini doing multi threaded chores. Beyond that the GPU is faster and frankly that is very important when it comes to supporting modern displays and running Yosemite.

Don't get me wrong I'd be the first to pay for a quad core machine but I don't see a way for Apple to deliver such a machine considering what Intel has on offer. Bitch all you want but a quick trip to Intel will give you all of the specs they have. To get quad cores in this machine would require for Apple to uprate the power supply to handle the quad core chips well.

In any event this is why I've often advocated for an XMac. That is a Mac using more powerful chips without a concern for wattage.

 

[scott911]

Bought the gf a 2012 quad core at a knock down price a few months ago 'cause a windows businessman couldn't get used to mac OS. Added a 512gb MX100. Just saw the benchmarks on my rMBP, and I used the new hand off feature to hand the page over to my iPod to show her. How cool is that?

lucky you bought then... used Craig's List quad cores are selling for more than new in my area now...

 

[Moto G]

Apple USED to sell what people wanted. Now, all they sell is what they want you to want.

Never underestimate Apple's capability to overestimate it's customer's loyalty.

 

[kazmac]

I said this yesterday, but it bears repeating:

Apple appears to be using the i5-4288U and i7-4578U, both of which are 28W chips. For quad-core, they'd have had to go up to 47W, as the 37W designs use the HD4600. The chips Apple is using are pretty old, and by now Broadwell was supposed to have been out before Intel delayed it multiple times. Perhaps this is a case of Apple making do with a stopgap update for the base market, with plans for a more proper update next year when the Broadwell chips finally come out (and not just the underpowered M series). I think that's also when we'll see the 12" MacBook.

OTOH, Skylake is supposedly on target, so don't be surprised if 2015 is a year of double updates to a lot of designs (Apple and otherwise).

My one consolation is that there was a stopgap Mac Pro release before the 2013, so I hope this will be repeated for the Mini. I'm glad it was upgraded, it's just a disappointing upgrade even with this knowledge.

I hope you are right about the double updates to their computers at least.

 

[fa8362]

I realize this is Macrumors and that you guys have trouble reading for content but you need to realize that this disparity only exist when compared against the quad core Mini doing multi threaded chores. Beyond that the GPU is faster and frankly that is very important when it comes to supporting modern displays and running Yosemite.

Don't get me wrong I'd be the first to pay for a quad core machine but I don't see a way for Apple to deliver such a machine considering what Intel has on offer. Bitch all you want but a quick trip to Intel will give you all of the specs they have. To get quad cores in this machine would require for Apple to uprate the power supply to handle the quad core chips well.

In any event this is why I've often advocated for an XMac. That is a Mac using more powerful chips without a concern for wattage.

Why is irrelevant. Apples and oranges are irrelevant. The 2014 Mini is half as fast as the 2012. That's what's relevant.

 

[Moto G]

So much teeth gnashing over this release.... :-(

Anyone desperate to replace a mini, perhaps it time to consider a Hackintosh Mini?

I suspect one could take that $1000 price point and build a damn rocket sled machine with premium (non-Mac) parts....

Anyone done this recently (with a quad-core)? Yosemite?

The only thing worse than a Mac that under-delivers on value AND specs, is a hackintosh... that's no solution, that's an invitation to stress and time wasting. If you're going to do *that*, you may as well just suck it up and (re)-learn Windows - you'll have support, which is critical, at least.

 

[weaverra]

The problem is that they don't offer a single quad core processor DESKTOP computer for under $3000. That is simply ridiculous. The pro customer (graphic designers, architects, photographers, gamers, etc.) needs quad core desktop computing at affordable prices. I'm an architect and yes we bought a new $4000 6 core Mac Pro. It works well even if our software doesn't take advantage of the extra GPU - hence we overpaid for how we use the machine. However, we don't need and can't afford ALL of our machines to cost $3000 or more. We also want to upgrade our server eventually....with what now?

A lot of us have invested in the Mac Mini product line, hoping we could upgrade it into the future. I don't care if some of you want to define a Mac Mini as a "low end" or "entry level" Mac. They had an affordable quad core computer and now they don't. It cost us $1300 for the old quad core Mac Mini (after aftermarket RAM upgrades). We have 5 of them in the office = $6500 The graphics cards are not great, but they run our 3D software well enough. To upgrade now we are being forced to buy an iMac or a Mac Pro. The Mac Pro starts at $3000. Times 5 machines = $15000. So now we need to spend an additional $8500 for Mac Pro's??? No thanks Apple. That is more than our original 5 Mini's cost.

And WE DO NOT WANT TO UPGRADE TO IMAC'S. Too glossy and reflective, not the right screen size for us, we already own 10 great looking, non-reflective, affordable screens since we were in the Mac Mini product line, there is no matching second screen (sorry we are not paying $1000 for the 27" outdated Apple display), you can't easily transport the iMac, etc... The iMac works for some business just great, but not for us. At a minimum we would like to CHOOSE an iMac or a desktop just as the low end and high end customer can do.

They didn't replace it with anything. It is simply gone. What about that don't those defending Apple get? To add insult to injury they soldered the RAM and didn't even throw in Iris Pro graphics on the high end dual core.

We need a quad core i7 machine with decent graphics (Iris Pro or discrete graphics at a minimum) for an affordable price. NOT the iMac. The iMac is not what we want as a replacement. For some reason you can buy a cheap desktop and a really really expensive one, but nothing in the middle. They need to stop up and fill the middle again.

They could easily solve this by adding back a Mac Mini quad core option, hopefully with Iris Pro graphics. Or make a less expensive Mac Pro option: quad i7 with a single Firepro graphics card.

We will ride out our 2012 quad core Mini's as long as we can. If they don't have a mid level machine in the $1200-$2000 range next year we will transition to PC's. Which for me also means when I upgrade my phone and tablet it is time for Samsung.

If Apple is not going to support small business design professionals, then we are not going to support them.

Apparently Mike Kelly has no problems producing his stunning work on a 27" glossy reflective iMac.

 

[wizard]

lmao who cares about the 499 price point if performance is going to be almost halved from a 2 year old previous generation. Apple did to the mac mini as EA did to all of its video games

You do realize that the quad core was the top end machine. Further the entry level machine about matches CPU performance while giving us a better GPU when compared to last years machine at a lower price. It really isn't a bad deal at all and the faster GPU really helps with Yosemite.

 

[Treq]

Apparently Mike Kelly has no problems producing his stunning work on a 27" glossy reflective iMac.

Who is Mike Kelly?

 

[NY Guitarist]

So this was the 'It's Been Way Too Long' announcement?

Very COOL!!!

Jony Ive: "The performance is much THINNER than the previous Mac Mini!. And we made it so simple you'll never upgrade the memory'.

 

[Larry-K]

I lucked out on Friday at about 11am. Refurb.me can send you an alert when they're in stock.

Thanks, I was trying to remember that site. Maybe I can still get a 2.6.

 

[Moto G]

My wish list for 2015:
1) Updated mac mini with Quad core option and Iris Pro graphics.
2) Return of the 17" MBP.
3) Maintenance only full OSX release with no new features, but optimizes the OS for stability (i.e., Snow Leopard like release).

Back to Mac 2015!

A **late** 2014 Mac mini was just released, and you want a 2015 model? No chance.

 

[SusanK]

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.

Just one word of caution about mailing Cook. I did that once. About two weeks later someone from Apple administrative or executive office (don't remember) called me at home.

He was very polite but talked so slowly and at length. It was worse than listening to Jony. The Apple rep went on forever. It totally cured me. never again. I have a real life and no time to listen to such foolishness.

Again he was courteous to a fault but they could have charged me for administering general anesthesia.

Hope it works better for you.

 

[wizard]

Why is irrelevant. Apples and oranges are irrelevant. The 2014 Mini is half as fast as the 2012. That's what's relevant.

This is the problem it is only slower than the top of the line Mini from last year for this one specific test. In every other regard it is much faster, that is what is important. For the vast majority of users the benchmark means nothing, they can rightfully use the report for toilet paper.

What is really pathetic here is how this message so easily jerks people chain. Come on people, digest what has been printed before whining.

 

[usarioclave]

Instead of a hackintosh, just get a 2008 8-core Mac Pro (3,1). I just grabbed one for $300 on eBay. Stick 32GB of RAM in it and it does more than a mini, faster. Total cost: 430, including shipping.

Of course, it's a lot bigger than a mini. It'll make a fine media + VM server. My i5 mini is going to be repurposed as a desktop.

 

[Count Blah]

So buy a "Brix Pro" then. It's amazing to me how emotionally butt hurt people get over what apple does or doesn't do (not specifically saying *you*). Vote with your $$s. That's the beauty of a free market. More value for your $$, somewhere else? Great - go buy it. If Apple provides better value next year - when Intel actually ships the needed chips - great, then buy that.

If OS x could run on non-apple hardware, I think most folks here who are complaining would be long gone. But it doesn't. Hackintoshs are a big pain whenever any update from apple comes out, so it's not really an option if you like to keep your hair, versus pulling it out in frustration.

So the "just leave" attitude is BS, since most are heavily invested in the apple ecosystem.

 

[youradhere4222]

Apple is just trying to stay on cruise control after the Steve Jobs-era.

 

[jasnw]

Mini as Home Server

I bought a Mini last year (got tired of waiting) to be used as a home server. I looked at some nice NAS hardware as an alternative, but even with a strong Linux background I didn't want to be spending time making the Linux NAS play nice with my otherwise-Apple home network. I don't need a power system, but I do want one that can handle what I throw at it and one that fits well into the Apple ecosystem. An iMac as a server? Right.

After looking at the sad offering on the "new" Mini I am really glad I didn't hold off. Since there isn't a serious third-party option for Mac-capable hardware (no, I don't want to fight with a Hacintosh any more than I wanted to fight with a non-Apple NAS) Apple should keep in mind that there is a market for a good solid Mini, or perhaps it is that they just don't care and have a Jon Ivy sounding "let them eat Windows" attitude these days.

 

[weaverra]

Who is Mike Kelly?

He is an architectural photographer.

 

[Moto G]

...most are heavily invested in the apple ecosystem.

Aren't we seeing lots of compelling evidence of why staying invested in Apple's locked-loop may no longer be *such* a prudent idea? Yep.