Late 2014 Mac Mini Benchmarks Indicate Decreased Multi-Core Performance

[hachiman]

Wow. It's an Alienware that doesn't look so cheesy, I want to punch the person who designed it right in their big dumb face. I might actually consider getting one.

You're getting more bang for your buck, like 2TB hard drive, ac WiFi for fast wireless streaming, 8GB RAM, nVidia graphics rather than just the Intel integrated one, quad core i7. and a bonus Xbox 360 controller for $899. There are a few extras too, like a $100 giftcard if you preorder. I think it's for the dell store only, but you can use it on accessories.

It starts shipping next month.

On the main page, where it says "See the ins and outs of Alpha.", there are two video links, they extensively show you the software and the second video actually shows you the inside of it, and it's flexibility for upgrades.

At least Dell is honest and actually show you all the guts on the inside and let you do whatever you want with it.

 

[cfedu]

they'd rather choose an expensive ultra low TDP chip for less performance in a DESKTOP machine. Isn't that ridiculous enough? So to answer your question, for $200 I CAN cook a more powerful desktop than the mini.

desktop i3 - 4150T: benchmark 4537, $117
mobile i5 - 4250U:benchmark 3462, $342

To be fair, Apple probapbly get the mobile i5 for less than the desktop i3. If windows 8 did not suck so hard I would be back in a second.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

To be fair, Apple probapbly get the mobile i5 for less than the desktop i3. If windows 8 did not suck so hard I would be back in a second.

You should keep current. Windows 8.1 is out and it doesn't "suck" (at least not as bad as 8 did). You can make 8.1 look and behave just like Microsoft's Golden Child (Windows 7). Windows 10 is around the corner.

I could say, give the last year or so, many would say the same could be said about most of Apple's releases as of late. Pick your poison, I guess.

 

[BoulderAdonis]

Yes, it has poor value for people who don't need to take their work with them and work from anywhere in the world.

If someone buys a Macbook Pro and leaves it on the same desk for three years without moving it a single time, then that person has wasted money by buying a notebook without needing a notebook. Apple should not force people to waste money.

http://www.corecommunication.ca/4-s...sing-a-second-monitor-can-boost-productivity/

You're right - dual screen setups have poor value.

 

[Renzatic]

You're getting more bang for your buck, like 2TB hard drive, 8GB RAM, nVidia graphics rather than just the Intel integrated one, and a bonus Xbox 360 controller. Quad core i7 for $899. There are a few extras too, like a $100 giftcard if you preorder. I think it's for the dell store only, but you can use it on accessories.

It starts shipping next month.

It's tempting, and a helluva lot better than the Mini for the price, that's for damn sure. But the Retina iMac is tempting me just as hard. It does offer up a good bit of bang for the buck when you consider that screen, and the fact it comes with an SSD standard.

edit: you know, Apple's pricing doesn't make a damn bit of sense. I specced out the oldschool iMac with a 256Gb SSD, and upped the GPU so it's more in line with the retina model...

...and it's just $150 less. Either they got a tremendous deal on those screens, and they're passing the savings on to us, or they're really arbitrary with their pricing.

 

[hachiman]

It's tempting, and a helluva lot better than the Mini for the price, that's for damn sure. But the Retina iMac is tempting me just as hard. It does offer up a good bit of bang for the buck when you consider that screen, and the fact it comes with an SSD standard.

That's in a different class of product then.

We're talking Mac mini vs Alienware Alpha here.

Personally, I don't want the Retina iMac. The last thing I need is a dead retina display because some internal parts fail on me. Basically, its an 27-inch 5K TV with a computer built-in. It's great, until after the warranty is over, you're screwed when something burns out. You're putting all your eggs in one basket. For those who are looking for an upgrade to their current iMac, it's a great option, but I'd still rather have a standalone 4K or 5K monitor. I have a rMBP, but it's because I need a laptop, so it's great for me, so I'm not bashing on Retina displays.

At a $2500 price-tag, that's a different product.

 

[Espeonia]

That is simply not an option for me. I switched to the Mac, because I was sick of fiddling around with my computer to get it to work how I expect it to. My PC used to be my hobby. I used to build my own PCs, enjoying weeks of research to get exactly the perfect configuration. Later, I started buying complete systems instead. Still, I had to invest a significant amount of time. What finally killed it was when I replaced the graphics adapter in an existing system with a new one and couldn't get Win 7 to work stable anymore. After two weeks of reinstalling Win 7, installing various driver version, BIOS updates, etc., the system still kept crashing randomly. So I gave up. Now I buy a Mac, I put it on my desk, I turn it on, and it works, with very few exceptions. I pay a little more, but I get a lot of additional free time for that investment that I don't have to waste with looking for some newest updated driver.

I will not go back to that by trying to build a Hackintosh. If I do that, then I can just as well go back to Windows. And I think it's the same for many people who happily pay the "Apple premium" for the convenience offered by the Apple ecosystem.

I still enjoy fiddling with my computers, and I've never really had any permanent or serious issues on any of my computers that I couldn't solve.

To each their own; I know that in the future I'm going to have less free time and won't be tinkering with my computers as much.

 

[hachiman]

I still enjoy fiddling with my computers, and I've never really had any permanent or serious issues on any of my computers that I couldn't solve.

To each their own; I know that in the future I'm going to have less free time and won't be tinkering with my computers as much.

If you love it, you will always find a way. Even if you've got your own family, you would have your kids at the table tinkering it with you.

----------

You should keep current. Windows 8.1 is out and it doesn't "suck" (at least not as bad as 8 did). You can make 8.1 look and behave just like Microsoft's Golden Child (Windows 7). Windows 10 is around the corner.

I could say, give the last year or so, many would say the same could be said about most of Apple's releases as of late. Pick your poison, I guess.

I'm still using Windows 7. I've never used Windows 8.x except when I'm at Best Buy playing with the machines.

 

[Espeonia]

If you love it, you will always find a way. Even if you've got your own family, you would have your kids at the table tinkering it with you.

----------



I'm still using Windows 7. I've never used Windows 8.x except when I'm at Best Buy playing with the machines.

Eh, I just mean with classes taking up time. I'll always be doing it in some manner.

 

[MrCrowbar]

Well, that sucks for anyone doing multi-core stuff, like video encoding, virtual machines, editing... actually pretty much everything actually. That's a major bummer!

Booooo!

 

[hachiman]

Well, that sucks for anyone doing multi-core stuff, like video encoding, virtual machines, editing... actually pretty much everything actually. That's a major bummer!

Booooo!

Apple doesn't want your business unless you're willing to go iMac or Mac Pro.

I've shown you guys a few options, like that Alienware Alpha. Go check it out.

I've only had a Dell a long time ago (like 11 years ago) but never an Alienware, so it would be my first if I considered it over building one myself from Newegg.

 

[Renzatic]

That's in a different class of product then.

We're talking Mac mini vs Alienware Alpha here.

I don't want the Retina iMac. The last thing I need is a dead retina display because some internal parts fail on me. Basically, its an 27-inch 5K TV with a computer built-in. It's great, until after the warranty is over, you're screwed when something burns out. You're putting all your eggs in one basket. For those who are looking for an upgrade to their current iMac, it's a great option, but I'd still rather have a standalone 4K or 5K monitor.

At a $2500 price-tag, that's a different product.

Yeah, pretty much. You know, I've always said that Apple's low end pricing sucks, and their price vs. performance ratio is way out of whack below a certain range. It's only when you start dipping your toe in the $2000+ range that it starts getting competitively priced.

Apple's biggest problem is that they have no middle tier, especially not for their desktops. The Mini used to do a good job of straddling that line, but...no more.

 

[hachiman]

Yeah, pretty much. You know, I've always said that Apple's low end pricing sucks, and their price vs. performance ratio is way out of whack below a certain range. It's only when you start dipping your toe in the $2000+ range that it starts getting competitively priced.

Apple's biggest problem is that they have no middle tier, especially not for their desktops. The Mini used to do a good job of straddling that line, but...no more.

But now their $2000+ range is not so good either. The new Mac Pro might look cute, but you can't really upgrade it. The hardware is specialized. The SSD is stuck into one of the video card. If in the future you want a more powerful set of video cards, how are you going to find a compatible set of it for your Mac Pro with an SSD slot for it?

Even back when Apple made the mac towers, you had to find a special Mac edition of the video card, and there was barely any option for it. Even when they did have one (just 1 option!), it would be a few years outdated already but they would still charge you full retail price. That's the same kind of BS Apple is doing with RAM, overcharging you for older RAM generation/speed.

Yes, I had one of those Mac aluminum tower, it was great when I first got it, but starts to suck when I needed to upgrade. It will suck more with the new ones when you have to upgrade, because there's not much you can do with it. Back then, the difference was the EFI Bios or whatever that was needed for it to work with the Mac. Now you need an Apple approved hardware version of whatever video card, if Apple decides to make it available. What would Apple rather have you do, upgrade your Mac Pro, or buy a whole new machine? Even if they have it, it would probably only be available at the retail price, and limited in what you can choose. You can't go to Newegg.com and pick the latest nVidia graphics.

 

[Altis]

...
They have nothing in their lineup, which offers the price/performance ratio i'm after.
They have the weak mini, which is cheap, but quite incapable of anything more demanding than normal office stuff.
Then there is a better 21in imac, but you need to pay for the screen, you still get weak graphics, and zero upgradability.
And the 27in imac is finally capable of some 3d, with upgradable ram, but is way too expensive on account of the screen.
And then there is the mac pro, which costs over 4000USD(base model) where i live(central europe).

Basically, the only capable machines are the 27in imac and the mac pro. I was going to bite the bullet(of the weak GPU - yes, IRIS is still weak for what i want to do) and get the mini, as i expected to at least be able to upgrade the RAM and SDD and make it into a semi decent machine for a reasonable price. Now with that out of the window, i really don't know if i want to stick around in the apple ecosystem, as they don't seem to care about the segment i'm in.

Apple builds some great devices(retina imac, new mac pro), but maybe their designers, making as much as they do, got themselves out of touch with the "regular folks", like me, who don't have thousands of dollars sitting on their account, so they can get the latest and greatest, so they can get the same performance PC users can get for mere hundereds of dollars.

Same boat here, really. I have a 2007 PC desktop that I want to replace with a Mac mini for most of my stuff (and retire the PC to gaming).

The Mini is not wise long-term, what with it's soldered parts and dual core CPU. Part of the reason my 7 year old Intel Q6600 still does so well is that it's a great quad core, and programs are more and more optimized to use that. I can't see a dual core being worthwhile in just a couple of years.

I don't want an iMac because I already have a 27" IPS 1440p Dell monitor that only cost me $600 CAD, and the prices of the iMacs are not what I would consider to be reasonable by any measure (aesthetics aside).

The Retina iMac will be grossly underpowered by a mid-tier laptop GPU, and a total brick upon even a minor failure out of warranty.

The Mac Pro starts at $3,000, making it way out of reach for non-commercial use. Ironically, the MP could push the 5K display quite well, but apparently won't be able to as the Cinema Display has yet to be updated to retina, and you can't use the retina iMac as an external monitor.

The laptops are good, but for anyone who doesn't need a laptop, it makes no sense to spend all that extra money on one.

There really isn't anything in the whole lineup that I consider to be all that reasonable right now.

I'd have to spend nearly $1,000 CAD to get the mid-tier mini with dual core i5, and upgrade to SSD myself (5400 RPM is a joke).

Or I could spend $500-$700 on a much better spec'd PC (dual boot with Linux).

Or even just upgrade the CPU/motherboard/RAM on my existing one for about $400, and have a far more powerful machine than any of the minis.

I like OS X, but not enough, Apple.

 

[DanCorleone]

So you went to Mac because you opened your PCs and broke it?

You are acting like a troll. The original poster, Mental Floss, stated it appeared to be a driver or BIOS problem related to the graphics adapter. It really isn't that hard to install a graphics adapter. But having built and upgraded Windows rigs, I can understand about a graphics adapter or sound card simply not working despite trying different drivers and even BIOS updates.

 

[hachiman]

Same boat here, really. I have a 2007 PC desktop that I want to replace with a Mac mini for most of my stuff (and retire the PC to gaming).

The Mini is not wise long-term, what with it's soldered parts and dual core CPU. Part of the reason my 7 year old Intel Q6600 still does so well is that it's a great quad core, and programs are more and more optimized to use that. I can't see a dual core being worthwhile in just a couple of years.

I don't want an iMac because I already have a 27" IPS 1440p Dell monitor that only cost me $600 CAD, and the prices of the iMacs are not what I would consider to be reasonable by any measure (aesthetics aside).

The Retina iMac will be grossly underpowered by a mid-tier laptop GPU, and a total brick upon even a minor failure out of warranty.

The Mac Pro starts at $3,000, making it way out of reach for non-commercial use. Ironically, the MP could push the 5K display quite well, but apparently won't be able to as the Cinema Display has yet to be updated to retina, and you can't use the retina iMac as an external monitor.

The laptops are good, but for anyone who doesn't need a laptop, it makes no sense to spend all that extra money on one.

There really isn't anything in the whole lineup that I consider to be all that reasonable right now.

I'd have to spend nearly $1,000 CAD to get the mid-tier mini with dual core i5, and upgrade to SSD myself (5400 RPM is a joke).

Or I could spend $500-$700 on a much better spec'd PC (dual boot with Linux).

Or even just upgrade the CPU/motherboard/RAM on my existing one for about $400, and have a far more powerful machine than any of the minis.

I like OS X, but not enough, Apple.

If you built your own, you could built a desktop machine with a desktop class Intel i7, 980 GTX, even dual 980 GTX, SSD, and still be way less than $3000. A single 980 GTX is more than enough to push games in 4K resolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFsRnvT_wAU
There's my favorite game, Battlefield 4, Max graphic settings (Ultra), at 4K resolution.

At this point, the only difference between mac and and your own built machine is the OS and Apple's hardware design. Apple makes great looking design, but it's very limited if you want value and flexibility. But at least you have countless options of cases you can choose from, and whatever hardware you want to fit in it.

 

[0000757]

The $100 price drop has nothing to do with quad-core or not. Because the model whose price was dropped by $100 wasn't a quad-core model. But that might be too complex a thought.

I was talking about the lower performance overall.

 

[nick42983]

Shows their priorities: 2 logic boards for a headless mac is too cumbersome. The (semi-)professional user will be hit hard by Apple in forthcoming years as Apple is quietly drawing back from this market.

Who exactly is a "semi-professonial" user? Everyone other than a professional? If you rely on Apple tech for your business, get the equipment you need. Yeah it sucks that Apple is putting inferior tech into their low-end products, but if someone gets "hit hard" by this decision, they're not serious about whatever they're doing in life.

 

[Renzatic]

But now their $2000+ range is not so good either. The new Mac Pro might look cute, but you can't really upgrade it. The hardware is specialized. The SSD is stuck into one of the video card. If in the future you want a more powerful set of video cards, how are you going to find a compatible set of it for your Mac Pro with an SSD slot for it?

Considering that the GPUs in the Pro aren't standard PC parts, but are shaped specifically for it, I don't think that's a problem anyone will ever have to worry about.

I'd respond to the rest in full, cuz you do bring up some good points about Apple's historically lackluster upgrade options, but I'm running short on time here.

 

[hachiman]

Considering that the GPUs in the Pro aren't standard PC parts, but are shaped specifically for it, I don't think that's a problem anyone will ever have to worry about.

I'd respond to the rest in full, cuz you do bring up some good points about Apple's historically lackluster upgrade options, but I'm running short on time here.

That's alright, I've got to head out soon too.

 

[cfedu]

You are acting like a troll. The original poster, Mental Floss, stated it appeared to be a driver or BIOS problem related to the graphics adapter. It really isn't that hard to install a graphics adapter. But having built and upgraded Windows rigs, I can understand about a graphics adapter or sound card simply not working despite trying different drivers and even BIOS updates.

You are a troll. Why not buy a windows pc already made and not upgrade the Graphics adapter whatever that is.

If it is Mac or a PC there will not be a problem if you do not upgrade it. he broke his system and wasted time. There are much better examples of why one would switch from PC to Mac, being tired of problems caused by your own actions should not be one of them IMO.

Hey bob I tried to tune up the engine on my dodge viper, its all messed up now. the kit i bought should have worked. I have decided to sell the car and buy a stock corvette and I will not mess around with it. I can't believe how crap dodge is!!

 

[cocacolakid]

So everyone that's clamoring for Apple to lower prices is surprised when the low-end, $499 computer is slower?

Got it.

But if you read the article correctly, the low end version is only 7% slower while the more expensive, higher end versions are 70-80% slower.

It's extremely disappointing and head shaking that any computer company would think this makes sense.

 

[cfedu]

You should keep current. Windows 8.1 is out and it doesn't "suck" (at least not as bad as 8 did). You can make 8.1 look and behave just like Microsoft's Golden Child (Windows 7). Windows 10 is around the corner.

I could say, give the last year or so, many would say the same could be said about most of Apple's releases as of late. Pick your poison, I guess.

I will admit that I'm not up to date as I should on the windows side, but I did use a few 8.1 computers. I have never owned a windows machine since 7. If apple can not compete with a broadwell Nuc when it comes out, it is Bye Bye MAC for me. I will try hackintosh first and if that does not work I will try Windows.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

I wonder if this is some misguided Apple effort to be green. Reduce power consumption for less CO2 emissions? Seems to be the only explanation.

I know one theory bouncing around when the iMac got the ultra-low-end CPU was this. That there was some large government contract that the iMac drew slightly too much power to qualify for that they put the 1.4 GHz chip in to hit that power target.

But the faster quad-core chips were still available on other models.

On the mini, the low-power chips are the only option now, with no quad-core, not even a low-power-draw mobile quad.

And if Apple's concern was that almost all of the lower-cost quad-core mobile chips have the slower HD 4600 graphics, that shouldn't be a problem - Intel has been known to create custom chips for Apple, before. I'm sure they'd be willing to throw together a low-end HD 5000 or Iris quad-core chip that has higher power draw than the standard 'mobile' chip, but still in the same form factor, for ease of integration.

 

[mkldev]

Building his own machines, he can always find a newer, more powerful chip as long as it's the same socket on the motherboard.

What are the odds of that? At best, 50/50, I think. By my recollection:

Core Duo: Compatible.
Core 2 Duo: Same socket, but not compatible with early Core Duo chipsets.
Nehalem: New socket.
Westmere: Compatible.
Sandy Bridge: New socket.
Ivy Bridge: Compatible.
Haswell: New socket.
Haswell refresh: Compatible.
Broadwell: Same socket, but not compatible with early Haswell chipsets.

So basically, they're changing the socket with every non-minor-speed-bump release, and with some of the minor speed-bump releases. This translates to about a two-year incompatibility cycle. Most people don't upgrade their CPUs more often than that, so in practice, motherboards are now disposable even if you build a machine yourself. The only things you can usefully reuse are the case, the power supply, and mass storage devices.

IMO, the entire industry might as well switch to soldered-on CPUs. There's no real advantage to socketed CPUs at this point, given the relatively short upgrade window. Ditching sockets would halve the number of SKUs (no need to stock the CPU and motherboard separately), would reduce effort for system builders (both in choosing parts and in installation), and would improve reliability.

I'm sure his reason for the mac mini is mainly space-to-computing power. Newegg has all kinds of miniaturized cases and he can fit a desktop class quad core, 6 core, or even 8 core CPU in it. If he doesn't want to build them, Dell has some Alienware ready to go. They're quad-core i7.

There's a downside, of course. Most Haswell machines on the market draw 30W idle consumption or higher. At $0.38 per kWh (what I pay for additional consumption), assuming the machine runs 24 x 7, that translates to $67 per year more in your power bill, or a couple hundred bucks over a three-year product lifetime. Heck, the Alienware I looked at idles at 46W, or $120 per year more in power costs. That adds up rather quickly.

I'd *love* to find a PC that draws 10W or less when idle, with a desktop-class Haswell Core i7. In theory, I'm told that it is possible to build systems that are roughly in that ballpark, but most of the systems out there don't get close.