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
If it is true that Iris Pro and a quad core chip won't work inside the Mini, fine...at least offer a quad core with Iris graphics. Or offer a discrete graphics card or stick a quad i7 with only one graphics card inside the nMP cylinder. Or use your 100 billion in cash to figure something out. Pretty sure they could offer a quad core i7 cpu with decent (not top of the line, but decent) graphics in the $1000-2500 price range (allowing for a variety of memory, cpu, and storage options). Actually they do - the iMac, but not everyone wants that damn display.
Phil Schiller's Epic Fail
After seeing the new Mac Pro I had high hopes that Apple would continuing innovating and improving the rest of their computer line. Instead, we get only one new iMac, albeit an impressively upgraded new display, and one miserably disappointing meh-thanks-but-screw-you-for-waiting downgrade of the Mac Mini.
This newest model makes the Mini a beginner's computer again, rather than the powerhouse in a small box that it was starting to become. To me, Apple's almost complete indifference to the Mini line speaks volumes about their commitment to the future of Macs. It also makes me cynical about Tim Cook's promise of "Wait until you see what we have next," tease earlier this year. So far, we've gotten a decent but nothing awesome upgrade of the iPhone, a totally boring and lazy iteration of the iPad, these new and forgettable Macs, and an upcoming watch that doesn't look all that must-have either.
Come on folks, this is not the way to stay ahead of the pack.
After seeing the new Mac Pro I had high hopes that Apple would continuing innovating and improving the rest of their computer line. Instead, we get only one new iMac, albeit an impressively upgraded new display, and one miserably disappointing meh-thanks-but-screw-you-for-waiting downgrade of the Mac Mini.
This newest model makes the Mini a beginner's computer again, rather than the powerhouse in a small box that it was starting to become. To me, Apple's almost complete indifference to the Mini line speaks volumes about their commitment to the future of Macs. It also makes me cynical about Tim Cook's promise of "Wait until you see what we have next," tease earlier this year. So far, we've gotten a decent but nothing awesome upgrade of the iPhone, a totally boring and lazy iteration of the iPad, these new and forgettable Macs, and an upcoming watch that doesn't look all that must-have either.
Come on folks, this is not the way to stay ahead of the pack.
These are very true words. The craze about speed nowadays leads people to be walking basket cases. People want things NOW. Real life doesn't work like that.
All of the Ivy Bridge i7 chips are on Intel's site. The high end BTO 2012 Mini used the i7-3720QM, I think. It shows as 45 watts TDP.
Interestingly, it is quad-core AND Hyper Threaded. I though generally in the stuff Apple used, you got one or the other. With 8 virtual threads, that was indeed a nice little machine if you had the work to push through it.
I'm only pretty sure myself.
Thing is, on single core performance, the new Mini is a little bit faster than the old one. You're getting all the advantages of Haswell with it. It runs cooler, has a better integrated GPU, consumes less power, and so on and so on.
The problem is, the soldered ram, expensive upgrades, warranty killing DIY clause, and lack of a quad core option kills every single one of those advantages, and pretty much sweeps aside what made the Mini so good in the first place.
It's no longer Apple's Bang for the Buck option.
I disagree with pretty much everyone on here. The mac mini is a basic function streaming box with a few bells and whistles. It's not a screaming fast machine and never should be. It's cheap to get people into OS X but it's by no means slow, and graphics are adequate for it's main uses.
The mac mini is the odd ball and apple is just putting it into it's proper use case with reduced specs. It's the only apple computer apart from the mac pro that requires you to have tech knowledge to use and you need the separate parts to complete it. It just doesn't belong in consumer hands and i mean non techie mainstream society. It's the cheap mac pro for low end tasks.
Sure apple could have raised the price and given you quad core but they didn't because they know it's not going to attract the people who want a powerful work horse anyway.
I for one am happy to see low power consumption in what is mostly used for media playback, streaming and download. It's basically used like a NAS box and should have low power as it's number one aim.
My dual core macbook pro is plenty powerful enough for most tasks if you need extra power spend more and get an iMac or a pro , once you add in a monitor etc you might as well get one anyway and if you are using it with a TV then you probably don't need the power.
Personally think this is a great choice of parts from apple.
The mac mini is the odd ball and apple is just putting it into it's proper use case with reduced specs. It's the only apple computer apart from the mac pro that requires you to have tech knowledge to use and you need the separate parts to complete it. It just doesn't belong in consumer hands and i mean non techie mainstream society. It's the cheap mac pro for low end tasks.
Sure apple could have raised the price and given you quad core but they didn't because they know it's not going to attract the people who want a powerful work horse anyway.
I for one am happy to see low power consumption in what is mostly used for media playback, streaming and download. It's basically used like a NAS box and should have low power as it's number one aim.
My dual core macbook pro is plenty powerful enough for most tasks if you need extra power spend more and get an iMac or a pro , once you add in a monitor etc you might as well get one anyway and if you are using it with a TV then you probably don't need the power.
Personally think this is a great choice of parts from apple.
Was joking about speculation that the Mac Mini didn't get a full revamp due to Intel being behind in their processor release cycle(s). Figure, if you can't count on 'em, do it yourself.
I'm saying they could of made all the mini's quad core because that is the standard right now. Shame on Apple.
Can't Apple just, ya know, buy Intel?
Or Gigabyte and just rebrand the Brix Pro
I'm enjoying reading all of the commentary, but I have to admit... I do NOT agree. As an IT professional, I've noticed a continuous trend over the past 8 years or so.... & that is: CPU is the least important component in a home/business computer. This occurred right around the 3.06 ghz Intel Pentium IV w/ hyper threading. From about that point on, I haven't upgraded any personal, or any client's processors. It just doesn't make sense. The processor is NEVER the bottleneck in performance.
The money/time/energy spent upgrading a CPU would be MUCH better spent on
either the RAM, video card, or hard drive.
A spinning HDD will ALWAYS be the slowest point in a desktop system. Thankfully the popularity of SSDs & Apple's clever Fusion Drive solution seem to be solving that particular dilemma. Next, with demanding apps... a nice chunk of RAM is appropriate. I've yet to see a non professional Mac setup in need of 16gb, but 8gb certainly is a must. Next, when it comes to high end video apps... or games (probably two of the most intensive tasks you could perform on your system), a video card upgrade trumps all else.
Since all three of these upgrades are available on the new mini... I'm not seeing a huge issue. From what I see; the sweet performance/price spot is $899 for the 2.6ghz i5, w/ 8gb RAM, Iris graphics, & a 1tb Fusion Drive.
I think in almost any typical environment, you could expect 6-8 years from a machine specced like that.
If you are VERY demanding on your home system, but still don't quite need a Pro... the $200 to up it to 16gb would be worth it, and after 8 years- would be a $25/year outlay.
This is the upgrade & price I've been waiting for.
I will NOT be sitting this one out.
The money/time/energy spent upgrading a CPU would be MUCH better spent on
either the RAM, video card, or hard drive.
A spinning HDD will ALWAYS be the slowest point in a desktop system. Thankfully the popularity of SSDs & Apple's clever Fusion Drive solution seem to be solving that particular dilemma. Next, with demanding apps... a nice chunk of RAM is appropriate. I've yet to see a non professional Mac setup in need of 16gb, but 8gb certainly is a must. Next, when it comes to high end video apps... or games (probably two of the most intensive tasks you could perform on your system), a video card upgrade trumps all else.
Since all three of these upgrades are available on the new mini... I'm not seeing a huge issue. From what I see; the sweet performance/price spot is $899 for the 2.6ghz i5, w/ 8gb RAM, Iris graphics, & a 1tb Fusion Drive.
I think in almost any typical environment, you could expect 6-8 years from a machine specced like that.
If you are VERY demanding on your home system, but still don't quite need a Pro... the $200 to up it to 16gb would be worth it, and after 8 years- would be a $25/year outlay.
This is the upgrade & price I've been waiting for.
I will NOT be sitting this one out.
Good for you, but many of us see this as total CRAP. Because for our purposes, IT IS.
intel is clearly focused on delivering low power to compete on the mobile market instead of pushing compute performance. It does say single core performance is up compared to the previous model and so I expect the assumption being made by the engineers at intel and apple is that the user this machine is intended for does far more single core work then the user that the Mac Pro is suited for. they clearly expect to sell the mini to people who don't have heavy workloads and are just reading emails and web surfing and need a cheap machine to introduce them to the Apple ecosystem and to sell the iMacs to the middle market and the Pro to the people who run render farms etc.
I could have built a faster PC in the late 90s than this little Munchkin. There'll be no worries about this little hockey puck overheating, it should be $49.