Late 2014 Mac Mini Benchmarks Indicate Decreased Multi-Core Performance

[MRrainer]

Ha!

I dare say, I'm rather satisfied with with my 2.3 i7 2012 model, acquired in spring and after-market upgraded to 16 GB and a 512 GB Crucial SSD.
I was suspecting something like this was going to happen, especially after the last 21.5" iMac "upgrade".
I do make use of the CPU-cores, via VMWare mostly.

The 2014 MacMini is probably good as a sort of Thin-Client for Sysadmins who have actual, powerful servers doing the heavy lifting.
Too bad I can't have one at the office.

 

[boulderarch]

It is true that to run OSX we are limited in choice. We can only buy Apple hardware. We have limited choices. Right now as evidenced by the strong reaction to this latest Mac Mini downgrade there are a lot of Apple users not thrilled with the current "best lineup in 25 years"

I am hoping next year they offer some sort of mid range quad core desktop with decent graphics. Either a quad core Broadwell Mac Mini or a less expensive Mac Pro. Otherwise this move is forcing my business to move on from Apple and OSX entirely.

This started with the move away from discrete graphics in the Mini. Now no quad core at all, no Iris Pro graphics (much less a discrete card) and soldered, vastly overpriced RAM.

 

[altaic]

Not really... Because those of us concerned with performance and not fixated on pricing are equally disappointed. The new machine isn't even really an upgrade. Where's the upside? The flash storage maybe? Doesn't help much if its a gutless machine.

It has a fusion hard drive. The flash storage is an $800 add-on

 

[westrock2000]

at least if you are going to use a dual core desktop throw an iris pro

As best as I can tell, there is no such animal from Intel. You only get Iris Pro on i7 models, and then you are at 47 watts of thermal dissipation, which is only 2 watts more then the outgoing i7 used in the 2012 Mac Mini, but still.

However Intel lists the price of the old i7-3615QM used in the Mac Mini as $378, where as the current Haswell i7-4960HQ is listed as $623. The price itself is not important because those numbers are negotiable. The importance is to see the difference the two.

I love the Iris Pro, but Intel is charging a premium for them.

 

[Treq]

True, but it will probably come down in price, possibly by quite a lot. Already here in the UK I see discounts of about $500 on the low end version and if you are a business you can reclaim the VAT if registered, which saves another 20% too.

So, still twice the price? No thanks. Also, this is apple. Prices don't change much... At least not that much.

 

[MentalFloss]

To answer your questions, I think you are pissed bc you feel Apple didn't make its Mac Mini powerful enough? (seems like a capable computer to me for what it was meant for) OR you might be pissed bc you want to upgrade but you don't want to fork out all of the extra cash for all of the power that you don't need. So that leaves me with another question. Do you need to update or want to update? If you need to update I suggest purchasing a mac pro. Bc you probably won't need to update for several years vs 2 or 3 ya know.

Sooner or later Apple will force me to upgrade by obsoleting my current Mac Mini, because they will release an OS X version that does not support it anymore. And, well, sooner or later, I simply want to upgrade to get closer to the state of the art again.

So you are seriously suggesting a Mac Pro? I could upgrade the Mac Mini three times before breaking even with the cost of a Mac Pro. So that is 9 years that the thing would have to last at my current upgrade cycles. And let's see when Apple decides to obsolete the Mac Pro I bought via OS X update. No, thanks.

Just to ground this discussion in reality: If we were talking about PCs, not Macs, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because for PCs, there is no gap in the product line. I could easily find a PC to upgrade to. If I were a Windows user, nobody would ever suggest a high-end $3000 Xeon PC for my scenario. People would find such a suggestion utterly ridiculous. The fact that we ended up with this utterly ridiculous suggestion should show that here is a major problem with Apple's product segmentation now.

 

[sergei19]

Shame on you Apple!

So, for the same money 2 years ago I could get almost 2x more powerful Mac Mini than today. Apple, WHAT ARE YOU DOING? I waited for this updated for a year, so disappointed now. I will go Hackintosh with Gigabyte Brix.

 

[westrock2000]

I use some software that converts certain video formats. When I used a dual core processor Mac, it would take 12-16hrs to convert. On my quad core Mini, it took about 30 minutes. You have no idea what others are using their Minis for. People buy the quad core because they know it will speed up the things they need to do.

There is something else going on for that big of a difference. Either comparing two very different generations or something else.

I do video encoding as well and it is pretty consistant with core and frequency. 12-16 hours is real bad. I think even an old Q6600 (quad core, but much less efficient) will do better then that on 1080p material.

 

[cycomiko]

I got harrassed elsewhere becuase I said apple went backwards...

yeah, slower cpu, locked down memory. Next step is the SSD locked into the system.

 

[Sean4000]

Hey insult, I'd like to introduce you to my best friend, injury.

 

[Kissaragi]

I just wish they would use a plastic case for the mini and drop the price further.
Its a wasted expense to have it made of aluminium and it could still look great in polycarbonate. They shave off costs with soldered ram and other things and then use a relatively expensive case thats not needed.

I thought the iPhone 5c might be the start of apple exploring other materials but it seems not.

Pretty sure it'll be the hackintosh route for me when i need to upgrade my desktop.

 

[marclondon]

So, still twice the price? No thanks. Also, this is apple. Prices don't change much... At least not that much.

Well surprisingly some resellers here are knocking £300 off the retail price and VAT at 20% knocks off another £450 or so. That's $1200 already for business users. I reckon the Mac Pro just isn't shifting and further cuts will come. I can also get a union discount of 8% but only if I buy from Apple.

 

[HyperZboy]

All I can say is what Steve Jobs would spin himself...

"It's an awesome feature you will love!"

 

[majkom]

officially not an evangelist any more... crippling ipad mini, mac mini, killing 4inch iphone... still being with as there is no better sw, but not an evangelist anymore...

 

[boulderarch]

Well if they don't make Iris Pro for a dual core cpu...fine - move back to a discrete graphics card or use the quad core processor. I know that works as it is in the current 21.5" iMac setup. Pretty sure Apple could figure it out. They choose not to. I would have bought 5 new Mac Mini's this year. Now...nothing.

The point is they could provide a quad core i7 desktop computer with decent graphics. They CHOOSE not to. They are forcing us to buy iMac's and buy their screen or overspend for Mac Pro's. The soldered RAM is so we are forced into buying Apple's overpriced RAM.

It is called GREED. pure and simple.

 

[gramtrax]

Yet another lame Apple move...

 

[HyperZboy]

I just wish they would use a plastic case for the mini and drop the price further.
Its a wasted expense to have it made of aluminium and it could still look great in polycarbonate. They shave off costs with soldered ram and other things and then use a relatively expensive case thats not needed.

I thought the iPhone 5c might be the start of apple exploring other materials but it seems not.

Pretty sure it'll be the hackintosh route for me when i need to upgrade my desktop.

I think it's safe to say that this will be the last MINI that people here will have to rant about in over a thousand posts! LOL

 

[Darby67]

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?

Sure they do, the new iMac is $2499. Why didn't you buy the 4-core nMP, upgrade to 6-core and leave the D300's? Could have saved yourself $500 knowing you didn't need the extra GPU. The Pro customer might be a gamer?

 

[Aloft085]

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.

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.

 

[HyperZboy]

This just in from the Wall Street Journal...

EBAY stock to hit record highs on recycled Mac sales boom! LOL

 

[Atlantico]

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).

Not to mention the the U processors are more expensive to boot. The only reason to use them is the low TDP, and Apple is obsessed with thinness.

 

[doelcm82]

Well if they don't make Iris Pro for a dual core cpu...fine - move back to a discrete graphics card or use the quad core processor. I know that works as it is in the current 21.5" iMac setup. Pretty sure Apple could figure it out. They choose not to. I would have bought 5 new Mac Mini's this year. Now...nothing.

The point is they could provide a quad core i7 desktop computer with decent graphics. They CHOOSE not to. They are forcing us to buy iMac's and buy their screen or overspend for Mac Pro's. The soldered RAM is so we are forced into buying Apple's overpriced RAM.

It is called GREED. pure and simple.

It's not greed. They gave up five sales to you alone, and they could have charged a lot more for them. There must be another reason they chose not not make you happy.

I'm thinking they just don't like you.

 

[Dorje Sylas]

OSX is not worth being jerked around like this anymore.

And especially not with what's coming in Windows 10. With Win8.1, as a loooonnnnggg time Mac user, I finally feel comfortable in a Windows environment. Still a bit rough in the file system/explorer UI but getting there.

I'm basically to the point of stopping recommending Macs as "intro/user-friendly" machines to technophobic family and friends. Even the build quality/durability is starting to drop off sharply. Apple can have fun with their "appliance" PCs while the market lasts for them.

My next personal computer has a very high likelyhood of being a non-Apple PC for the first time in nearly three decades.

=====

Apple needs to get their "Skinny" obsession under control. They are building anorexic devices across the range and it's bringing 0 functional benefit.

 

[mac2net]

Time to hassle Apple

I get worked when I see Apple do things a la Spindler/Amelio.

I think Apple should be seriously embarrassed about this.

And we need to throw around the Spindler Amelio comparisons.

Apple was built on the backs of its mac loyalists.
We have to make sure if Cook starts behaving like a chump we keep him honest.

 

[Dramosith]

Ok Guys, Please help advice to me.

What i should buy Model 2012 or 2014 now?