They use the U processors for thermal reasons because of the size of the Mac mini.
It's Apple. how thin something is is more important than how usable it is.
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
They use the U processors for thermal reasons because of the size of the Mac mini.
It's Apple. how thin something is is more important than how usable it is.
Sorry, I was going by "We need a quad core i7 machine with decent graphics (Iris Pro or discrete graphics at a minimum) for an affordable price" and was basing that off the graphics request. Of which there has never been a Mini with anything above moderate graphics capability. Even the original Mini G4 that was touted for having discreet graphics was still just marginally good at the time.
To get Iris Pro (which is nice) or a discreet that is really a noticeable upgrade from Intel HD graphics you do have to move up the product line.
Kind of sounds like you have lost touch with what an intro/user-friendly machine is. The entry model now at $499 is perfect for that person.
It's Halloween so don't forget to see the classic Stephen King movie, THINNER!
Trust me, it's NOT always better.
OH, and don't forget to hide behind the chain saws too. That always works in every horror movie.
Signed,
Geico
You mean after 2 years they suddenly felt the need to hurry?
*looks at Mac Pro*
Glassed Silver:mac
OMG how many times do we need to say that the iMac is not a viable replacement. We bought the 6 core for faster multi-core render times, which is essential for our business. We aren't idiots.
Do you work for Apple? Because that is exactly what Apple wants: "oh look why not just buy an iMac? I know you already own your own screens and like a different screen size than we offer. I know you don't like our glossy, reflective screen, soldered in RAM, completely non-portable computer like the iMac....but you HAVE to buy it now since we killed the product that worked best for you so we could make more money. Or how about $3000 for a Mac Pro...sure it is triple what you paid for your last Mac Mini with almost the same performance, but you have no choice now right!!!"
"Be sure to take a look at the new iPad on your way out of the store - it is thinner than a pencil!"
Do you work for Apple? Because that is exactly what Apple wants: "oh look why not just buy an iMac? I know you already own your own screens and like a different screen size than we offer. I know you don't like our glossy, reflective screen, soldered in RAM, completely non-portable computer like the iMac....but you HAVE to buy it now since we killed the product that worked best for you so we could make more money. Or how about $3000 for a Mac Pro...sure it is triple what you paid for your last Mac Mini with almost the same performance, but you have no choice now right!!!"
"Be sure to take a look at the new iPad on your way out of the store - it is thinner than a pencil!"
I think you can run it in ESX(i) with a "patch".
I can't see our vSphere-Admins at work running that script on one of our servers, though. Rather, hell would freeze over....
Because it's conneted to electricity at all times... It saves energy. Not battery power but, over time, kilowatts. Not that I'm defending this decision by apple...
Excuse me? Was the quad core i7 $499? Get a grip. Is it news that two newer cores were slower than four older ones?
I agree that this update sucks, but at least compare the same models. The newer entry level has better performance than the old entry level. But the maxed out new one gets beat by the maxed out old one in raw power, because it has twice the cores.
However, for the average consumer, the new one will be quicker based soley on PCIe storage, much better integrated graphics, and a smaller nm architecture.
I can see the logic, don't like it but I can see it:
1. Mini = Mum/Dads on a budget, school and homework related tasks
2. iMac = Prosumer, Mums/Dads with money, teenage or young adults uni/highschool, work at home type clients
3. MacPro = Professionals need only apply who can make use of the GPUs more than anything (if you don't price check a Lenovo or Dell and see how much more you get for the same money of course)
1. Mini = Mum/Dads on a budget, school and homework related tasks
2. iMac = Prosumer, Mums/Dads with money, teenage or young adults uni/highschool, work at home type clients
3. MacPro = Professionals need only apply who can make use of the GPUs more than anything (if you don't price check a Lenovo or Dell and see how much more you get for the same money of course)
I think it has more to do with the heat generated by a desktop class CPU in such a small case. Every micro PC uses an Ultrabook processor, because there just isn't enough room for a good thermal solution.
I'd imagine if they were to upgrade to quad core across the line (in a future revision) they could essily use this as an opportunity to advertise "2x faster CPU than the last model".
And if you don't want to buy a useless screen, or spend 3-4 times than you used to, you are being shown the door by apple.
People who have gravitated to macs usually do so because they are escaping windows. Now we have no recourse but to go back*, simple apple does not care for us as customers anymore.
*=could have said Linux, but software and hardware support is very spotty for normal use.
Not actually true. They used a 35watt processor and 45watt processor for the 2012 version, and the cases are basically identical between 2012 and 2014.
Weirdly enough, when you consider the hardware inside the thing, the MP is a good deal cheaper than a PC counterpart with the same specs.
Yeah, you can get a cheaper workstation PC, but you can't get one cheaper with that same hardware.
They lost three from me too. Relatives are up for new computers. I'm not going to suggest any Apple products. They don't "just work" anymore, and they keep crippling things. Forget it.
The $499 ones comes without taking advantage of the PCIe storage - so no benefit.