It seems that the mini is really meant for those that need something inexpensive, potentially portable and functional. Honestly, I would love to see a mini or a mid range (mini -> mac pro is a big jump) that has quad core and a gpu. It is sad that they decided to go the other way for the mini but maybe... they may be thinking of a mid range entry into the line up? we can hope.
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
Before I went to Macs I had a lot of Dell's, as well as many friends and family had a lot of Dells. They all had hardware issues, dead motherboards, etc. I wonder if Alienware's quality has changed since Dell bought them. I don't know if Dell's current products are any higher quality than they used to be, just no experience with them, but they used to be awful.
That's pretty high electricity rates. In any case, the Mini uses laptop-grade CPUs, so it isn't exactly a fair comparison. I do see what you mean, as electricity does cost money.
I'd argue that anyone conscious of that would sleep or shut down any computer they have, reducing the number of hours used in a day to around 8 (either at home, OR at work, but likely not both).
The difference becomes pretty minimal in the end, and as you'd expect the more powerful CPUs do need a little more power.
Those who care most about this could use the ultra efficient dual cores, while the people willing to pay more for a quad-core (laptop-class) can deal with the small bump in electricity.
For me, I'd like a powerful enough computer to do just about anything that I do -- except gaming -- for low operating costs.
My current rig is enough to heat the whole room... It's good for gaming, but otherwise....!
I just can't justify such a limited (while still expensive) computer with a short expected life (for me) as the current Mini.
How much can we really expect from Apple when they're busy building an "actual size" Noah's ark in the middle of the deep south using all of their profits? Oh, wait. It's in California. And it's a ridiculously shaped flying saucer that won't fly. But it is pretty big, maybe big enough to hold a pair of every type of product they currently have in production.
Let Apple know...
http://www.apple.com/feedback/macmini.html
Soldered ram?
No quad core option?
No discrete graphics option?
This is not the Mac I'm looking for...
http://www.apple.com/feedback/macmini.html
Soldered ram?
No quad core option?
No discrete graphics option?
This is not the Mac I'm looking for...
I don't know if it was mentioned here. But the 2012 i7-quad 2.3 showed up for $589 on the apple refurb site. I got in and it should be here tomorrow. Out of stock for now, but keep an eye out here: http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/mac_mini
Maybe write a cron job that checks for changes every 5 minutes with wget.
I just going throw in my DIY fusion drive and 1333-ddr 8x2 GB from my 2011 i5-Radeon 6630M and then throw the 4GB from the furb and 1TB from the refurb back into the 2011 and sell it on ebay.
Don't think it will be a loss of more than $200 and I get USB 3 and a nice quad core. I use VM's all day for work so it should be a nice upgrade.
A 2014-i7 Dual core+1TB fusion+16RAM would have cost $1399 and performed poorer with VMware than the 2012 Quad. I had no need for another thunderbolt and I seriously could give a rats...about power draw.
Ya, it sucks for today but I wouldn't put it past apple to release a quad core Skylake or CannonLake(10nm)
Maybe write a cron job that checks for changes every 5 minutes with wget.
I just going throw in my DIY fusion drive and 1333-ddr 8x2 GB from my 2011 i5-Radeon 6630M and then throw the 4GB from the furb and 1TB from the refurb back into the 2011 and sell it on ebay.
Don't think it will be a loss of more than $200 and I get USB 3 and a nice quad core. I use VM's all day for work so it should be a nice upgrade.
A 2014-i7 Dual core+1TB fusion+16RAM would have cost $1399 and performed poorer with VMware than the 2012 Quad. I had no need for another thunderbolt and I seriously could give a rats...about power draw.
Ya, it sucks for today but I wouldn't put it past apple to release a quad core Skylake or CannonLake(10nm)
Hey I was trying to be helpful, I pointed out a bad benchmark, which he insisted was right. I had made a screen shot of it, which I later sent to him with a side by side comparison after it had mysteriously updated itself, to show the difference, and told him "no charge for the proof reading".
Good idea. I clicked that link and gave them my feelings on what they've done. If enough users complain maybe, maybe, Apple won't do this nonsense in the future.
----------
That's the 2012 mini I have, they are nice machines. I had a 2010, upgraded to 2011, then upgraded to 2012. Each version got better and better, imo. The 2014 version still has me shaking my head. It certainly does not live up to Apple's stated goal of making the best products in the world.
Dude, I don't think you should be shaking your head. You might take out a whole city block.
Lol.... As I said, for those unfamiliar, Google and wiki have the answer...
The Macintosh 512K was introduced in September 1984. Hence the joke.
I had a feeling this would happen. That's why I'm so glad I upgraded from a entry 2012 to a mid level 2012 model in April this year (Scored the mid for $200 off at BB) so it ended up costing me next to nothing as I swapped memory with the old one I sold which also covered the cost of the OWC kit and SSD. Now if I can resist the calling of the retina iMac. My Ivy Hackintosh with 650ti and cheap 4k Seiki 50" is great but having an AIO stable platform would be great if I were not just editing Gopro 4 Black videos.
----------
Quad core will become the standard with SkyLake but who knows how long you have to wait. Power draw on the 2.3 quad 2012 mini is great. I also have a 5bay external that idles along with 2x 2bay SFF arrays and a LaCie LBD and the whole thing barely ever pulls past 130W. I have mine on all the time and I never see the cost on my energy bill (turn it off when on vacation, no difference)
----------
Quad core will become the standard with SkyLake but who knows how long you have to wait. Power draw on the 2.3 quad 2012 mini is great. I also have a 5bay external that idles along with 2x 2bay SFF arrays and a LaCie LBD and the whole thing barely ever pulls past 130W. I have mine on all the time and I never see the cost on my energy bill (turn it off when on vacation, no difference)
Here is what you wrote:
So what are you using your 6 core computer for?
Look, if you don't notice a difference between multi-core you don't need it. Stick with your dual-core for facebook, email, etc.
Not sure if anyone else has posted this, but Best Buy still has 2012 quad core mac mini in stock. I ordered one for instore pickup, but they're available to ship too.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/apple-m...89.p?id=1218548287565&skuid=4840689&sellerId=
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/apple-m...89.p?id=1218548287565&skuid=4840689&sellerId=
The first rule of Hackintoshing is that you never never never update until at least a few days after an OS X update drops. Then, before updating, check the Hackintosh forums for reports of any serious issues.
Also, always back up everything before updating so you can easily revert to your previous working installation in case you lose sound or whatever.
Second rule is to use exactly the recommended build parts recommended by the experts at Hackintosh sites. This will maximize your chances of everything working and enhances your ability to get help if something goes wrong (since other folks have probably encountered the same issue).
My primary machine at home has been a Hackintosh for about 4 years. Everything works... USB3, sound, iMessage, sleep, etc. With recent hardware upgrades my $500 Hack is about 2.5X faster than the fastest new Mac Mini.
FWIW I wouldn't recommend Hackintoshing for the casual Mac user, it's more for those who don't mind tinkering with stuff and who are fairly technical. It's not for early adopters either.
Actually provided feedback via the link.
This seems like a significant step backwards - no upgradability, dual core on middle and upper tiers, and only one usable drive bay (barring ordering it with a fusion drive).
Apple is starting to disgust me with consistent Mac "updates" that, as here, take a significant step backwards.
This seems like a significant step backwards - no upgradability, dual core on middle and upper tiers, and only one usable drive bay (barring ordering it with a fusion drive).
Apple is starting to disgust me with consistent Mac "updates" that, as here, take a significant step backwards.
That's my main issue with Apple computers. I don't want the display anymore and have been waiting around for a Mac Mini update. I currently own a late 2009 21 inch iMac (it's my first Apple computer), but will probably wait another year to upgrade. I have a 27 inch monitor that I would like to use for my next Mac.
I would be willing to get an iMac IF I could connect any device to it via HDMI and use the iMac as a monitor, but NO, Apple doesn't offer that feature anymore. If in another year there's still not a desirable headless Mac option, hello Windows 10.
Dabs:
http://www.dabs.com/products/apple-...epro-300--os-x-10-9-mavericks-95VG.html?src=3
This one has one machine at just £2k:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Apple-Deskt...8CO58/ref=aag_m_pw_dp?ie=UTF8&m=A6KMWLEAIIJTM
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
the guy posted some screenshots of activity monitor while using safari and mail as a means to make some sort of point about multiple core advantages.
I was talking to him.. somehow you come along and tell me I need 2core for email and safari and imply I have no need for a 6core machine.
I'm either unclear on what your point is or assume you're just looking to battle over something you've made up.
The point he was making is that modern software is generally optimized to use multi-core, which he showed with his screenshots. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that?
Sure, $120 per year more, or if he could save time on the graphic rendering or processing, even by cutting it in half the time, he would be able to move onto more projects, and the return is that he would be able to make more money, or at least have more free time for himself.
I think there is a much higher and a longer term view than just number of dollars and wattage usage. In the end, it's all up to each person to decide what's more valuable.
----------
I went thru the same issues with Dells too, and I would have said the same back then.
Like Apple, there was/were/is/will be a good time to buy it's product, and when to avoid it. No one is going to be perfect from day 1 and continue that way. That is why we have competition. If you don't get back on your feet, you're out of the game. Right now, I think Apple is just riding on their momentum and their reputation, particularly from Steve Jobs, and they're just taking it for granted. I hope I'm wrong.
That's why I may consider the option of building a machine myself. If a component fails, I know what it is as I diagnose it and return/exchange as needed.
The nice thing with Dell is that if I was to put together the parts for a machine similar to what Dell offers, Dell would win in the total cost, because they bought all the parts in bulk, no retail box, no extra cables, no extra printed materials, and in turn, passes the extra savings onto the buyer. Buying from Newegg is paying retail price, or they may discount it a bit to compete with other e-commerce, but I will always be paying slightly higher building it myself. Going with Dell/HP/etc. would be a good choice for those who are new to computers or aren't looking to hassle with putting parts together. And of course their warranty covers all parts of the computer. It's all a personal decision for everyone.
Just in case someone wants to delete my posts, how does all this relate to Mac mini? Well, you guys seem to really like your CPU performance, your RAM upgrade-ability, and your storage flexibility. Why not go PC?
This isn't about PC vs Mac. Unless there's something you can only do with Mac, fine, stick with it. Otherwise, you're better off going elsewhere if you need better performance.
Money flows to where it is most appreciated.
Last edited:
This is all because the Quad Mini was too big of a competitor with Apple's more premium choices. You want 4+ cores? Apple wants you spending far more than ~ $650.
