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
According to CNet, only 17% of iPads sold in the US were of the mini variety (based on web usage surveys), and Samsung has struggled with smaller designs ever since they came out with larger phones. I guess Apple did the math and concluded that it didn't make sense to devote too much time and effort into a segment of the market that is being squeezed.
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
I thought Apple was bringing back the Intel Atom for next gen? Maybe we'll both be wrong, and they will use a 486 dx 2.
No, just reality. Apple doesn't make a quad-core entry level PC anymore. They used to, but don't anymore. No one should expect a dual-core Haswell to perform as well as a quad-core Sandy or Ivy Bridge. Apple has concluded that, at least for the time being, that there isn't a big enough market for the quad-core mini to keep making it. I guess they figure the 21.5" iMac at $1299 covers enough of the market that is looking for quad-core processors.
Probably the latter. Apple has likely concluded that the server market isn't big enough to devote time and energy to. They dropped the XServe a long time ago, and they have been slow to release the server versions of OS X.
----------
Are you describing what you are doing because Apple doesn't make what you want anymore?
"We've designed the new Mac Mini to be slower, so you can enjoy your content better. These days, we are in such a hurry that we fail to slowdown and appreciate what we're seeing. The new Mac Mini is about making the personal computer...personal again." - Jony
Last edited:
Apple:
"Pay no attention to those results. We are the Great Apple. Just think of the status of having that Apple insignia on your desk. Your friends, family, and colleagues will treat you with more respect. And it matches your iPhone, iPad, and iBeats headphones. That's what really matters. The Great Apple has spoken."
"Pay no attention to those results. We are the Great Apple. Just think of the status of having that Apple insignia on your desk. Your friends, family, and colleagues will treat you with more respect. And it matches your iPhone, iPad, and iBeats headphones. That's what really matters. The Great Apple has spoken."
Who uses "U" processors on desktop computers?
The mac mini is connected to electricity at all times, so why choose the crappy "U" processors? they are bad in performance and their main goal is to save energy, but who cares when dealing with desktop computers?
What is wrong with them? going from quad core to dual core?
It's the same thing with the Macbook Pro 13", if you go with 13" you are not a real pro and does not deserve quad core processor (yes, I know it consumes more energy).
The mac mini is connected to electricity at all times, so why choose the crappy "U" processors? they are bad in performance and their main goal is to save energy, but who cares when dealing with desktop computers?
What is wrong with them? going from quad core to dual core?
It's the same thing with the Macbook Pro 13", if you go with 13" you are not a real pro and does not deserve quad core processor (yes, I know it consumes more energy).
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).
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).
No, because Apple hasn't updated mini in two years or something like that. What's the harm of waiting another several months for Broadwell chips?
This is typical Apple really, sometime they go backward in upgrades.
Last edited:
The Mac Mini has always used Intel's mobile processor. They have advertised it as being very quiet and efficient, but I think the real reasons are cost, and to promote the idea that the Mac Mini isn't intended for those who want a high performance desktop.
As I've said in other places, and said about the dual-core iMac, too...
The CPU in the low-end model is one of Intel's most expensive mobile processors.
The 1.4 GHz chip is more expensive than many of the quad-core chips, including ones with Iris graphics instead of HD 5000 graphics.
Intel Core i5-4260U Processor - the only model that matches the specs of the low-end model; 1.4 GHz base speed, 2.7 GHz turbo, HD 5000. Max power draw 15 watts - $315
Intel Core i5-4308U Processor - 2.8 GHz base, 3.3 GHz turbo, Iris 5100 graphics. Max power draw 28 watts - the same $315 price
Intel Core i5-4670R Processor - quad core, 3 GHz, 3.7 GHz turbo, Iris Pro 5200 graphics. Max power draw 65 watts (desktop CPU, better than the midrange 21" iMac.) - cheaper at $276 - This should be the 'upgrade' processor.
The Mac mini line has used 65W-class CPUs before. I understand wanting to go low-power, but using a 15W CPU that is significantly slower than other, cheaper CPUs, in a desktop design is very strange.
Unless Apple is getting these i5-4260U CPUs as "failed power draw testing" CPUs, and they actually draw far more than 15W, so Apple is getting them for next to nothing, I fail to see the point of using these.
Apple does list "Maximum continuous power: 85W". With the parts mentioned, there is no way to get near that, even under max load. So the mini has the power and thermal headroom to fit a faster, 65W desktop-class CPU in there. (Because most of the chipset power is included in the CPU, 20W is enough for RAM and SSD or laptop HD, with room to spare for external peripherals.) If they don't think that's enough headroom, go for the 37W or 47W mobile CPUs, those would have plenty, and have both dual-core and quad-core models available in reasonable price range.