Mac mini 2013/2014 refresh.

[giggles]

Let's hope Broadwell iGPU + further optimization on the software side will make the Fall 2014 Mac Mini (released at the same time with the 4K Thunderbolt Display)* a perfectly capable 4K machine as far as OSX GUI and day to day use (scrolling etc.) are concerned.


*speculation

 

[CavemanMike]

When when when??

I just checked the buyers guide and it suggested not to buy one now because it's over-due for a refresh.

So, WHEN WHEN WHEN??

I'm itching to get a mac mini, but will be sad if they come out with a refreshed model in 2 months.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Mike

 

[olegunnar]

The buyer's guide has been saying that for a long, long time.

 

[leftyMac]

for Apple, mac mini has been the "entry level" mac, just cheap enough to entice PC users to move over to Mac.

if they release a new cheaper entry level iMac (there has been a rumour about that), I don't think they'll update the mac mini. Most of the people waiting for performance boost from the next mac mini, should understand that, though the mac mini server is fairly powerful and many companies do use them as servers, mac minis are not supposed to be as powerful as iMac. if it was, why would you buy an iMac over mac mini? keep in mind that most people already have a monitor and USB keyboard / mouse. honestly, I thought it was very generous of Apple to include Quad Core in mac mini. they risked losing lots of potential iMac buyers.

and now that they have a new Mac Pro for those who need desktop mac, I'm losing my hope of getting the next generation of mac mini. if you need something in between, there are slew of MBAs and MBPs.

Don't get me wrong, I want to upgrade my setup to a new mac mini too!

 

[Crosscreek]

for Apple, mac mini has been the "entry level" mac, just cheap enough to entice PC users to move over to Mac.

if they release a new cheaper entry level iMac (there has been a rumour about that), I don't think they'll update the mac mini. Most of the people waiting for performance boost from the next mac mini, should understand that, though the mac mini server is fairly powerful and many companies do use them as servers, mac minis are not supposed to be as powerful as iMac. if it was, why would you buy an iMac over mac mini? keep in mind that most people already have a monitor and USB keyboard / mouse. honestly, I thought it was very generous of Apple to include Quad Core in mac mini. they risked losing lots of potential iMac buyers.

and now that they have a new Mac Pro for those who need desktop mac, I'm losing my hope of getting the next generation of mac mini. if you need something in between, there are slew of MBAs and MBPs.

Don't get me wrong, I want to upgrade my setup to a new mac mini too!

The Mini uses A mobile chip where as the IMac uses a desktop chip. If you check Geekbench for both, the only Mini that comes close to IMac performance is the 2.6/I7. Plus the IMac can be upgraded to more ram than the Mini and dedicated graphics. The Mini is not a threat to the IMac.

 

[kazmac]

for Apple, mac mini has been the "entry level" mac, just cheap enough to entice PC users to move over to Mac.

if they release a new cheaper entry level iMac (there has been a rumour about that), I don't think they'll update the mac mini. Most of the people waiting for performance boost from the next mac mini, should understand that, though the mac mini server is fairly powerful and many companies do use them as servers, mac minis are not supposed to be as powerful as iMac. if it was, why would you buy an iMac over mac mini? keep in mind that most people already have a monitor and USB keyboard / mouse. honestly, I thought it was very generous of Apple to include Quad Core in mac mini. they risked losing lots of potential iMac buyers.

and now that they have a new Mac Pro for those who need desktop mac, I'm losing my hope of getting the next generation of mac mini. if you need something in between, there are slew of MBAs and MBPs.

Don't get me wrong, I want to upgrade my setup to a new mac mini too!

I hope you're wrong about no more Mac Minis because of the rumored cheaper iMac. How much more can they remove from the low end iMacs anyway? Reducing the price of the entry level makes more sense,

but back on topic,

I really hope the Mac Mini is updated. Not only am I ready to own one (finally), but I love the idea of a tiny desktop machine with the freedom to choose any display, etc.. It's a wonderful part of the Mac line and I hope it continues to be made.

 

[iamthedudeman]

The Mini uses A mobile chip where as the IMac uses a desktop chip. If you check Geekbench for both, the only Mini that comes close to IMac performance is the 2.6/I7. Plus the IMac can be upgraded to more ram than the Mini and dedicated graphics. The Mini is not a threat to the IMac.

The 2.6 mini is actually faster than the iMac save for the i7 iMac. Even with haswell. The mini is faster across the board. The base i7 2.3 mini not the 2.6 is as fast as all iMacs save for the i7 iMac. I don't know where you are looking on the geekbench browser but the 2.6 i7 mini is faster than all iMacs other than the i7 iMac.

The mini uses last gen ivy bridge MacBook Pro CPU's. The MacBook pros were faster than the iMacs other than the i7 iMac for the ivy bridge iMacs. I don't know where the notion comes from that the iMacs are faster than the i7 mini's. They certainly are not. The only one that is is the i7 iMac.

Also the mini's are not meant to be slower or are not the entry level desktop that is inferior hardware. Only that it doesn't come with a monitor and mouse and keyboard makes it so, not inferior hardware.

Feel free to compare the i7 2.6 mini or even the 2.3 mini to whatever Mac you want. Still with ivy bridge compare very well.

http://www.everymac.com/ultimate-ma...ompare=all-intel-macs&0&prod1=MacMiniIntel021

The 2.6 i7 mini is faster than the base 2.0 i7 15 haswell MacBook Pro! The 2.3 mini is slightly slower than the same MacBook Pro with almost Identical benchmarks!

I feel that the late 2012 minis were made a little too powerful for their price point. They were and still are a lot of bang for your buck for raw power. That is part of the reason apple is in no hurry to replace them aside from manufacturing issues.

 

[Crosscreek]

The 2.6 mini is actually faster than the iMac save for the i7 iMac. Even with haswell. The mini is faster across the board. The base i7 2.3 mini not the 2.6 is as fast as all iMacs save for the i7 iMac. I don't know where you are looking on the geekbench browser but the 2.6 i7 mini is faster than all iMacs other than the i7 iMac.

The mini uses last gen ivy bridge MacBook Pro CPU's. The MacBook pros were faster than the iMacs other than the i7 iMac for the ivy bridge iMacs. I don't know where the notion comes from that the iMacs are faster than the i7 mini's. They certainly are not. The only one that is is the i7 iMac.

Also the mini's are not meant to be slower or are not the entry level desktop that is inferior hardware. Only that it doesn't come with a monitor and mouse and keyboard makes it so, not inferior hardware.

I got my information from here.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

 

[mess3mess]

Me too...

i hope you're wrong about no more mac minis because of the rumored cheaper imac. How much more can they remove from the low end imacs anyway? Reducing the price of the entry level makes more sense,

but back on topic,

i really hope the mac mini is updated. Not only am i ready to own one (finally), but i love the idea of a tiny desktop machine with the freedom to choose any display, etc.. It's a wonderful part of the mac line and i hope it continues to be made.

here here!

 

[Fishrrman]

[[ For Apple, mac mini has been the "entry level" mac, just cheap enough to entice PC users to move over to Mac...]]

That was then (way back when).
This is now.

The Mini has evolved since it was first introduced. With the demise of the rack-mounted Apple server, the Mini has become Apple's "server platform" as well.

With it's "new duty", it has to be able to provide server administrators with certain features, such as an ethernet port, replaceable internal drives, a suitable number of ports on the rear, etc.

It's not just an entry-level Mac any more...

 

[iamthedudeman]

I got my information from here.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

That is based on single core only. Haswell will give slightly better single core numbers. That is not multicore which shows raw computing power. You need to be looking at the link I gave you or here. No i5 iMacs beat the 2.6 i7 mini. Zero. Only the i7 iMacs do. 😉

Like I said the mini is one powerfull little Mac.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

Or here:

http://www.everymac.com/ultimate-ma...ompare=all-intel-macs&0&prod1=MacMiniIntel021

Like I said I don't know where the notion that the Mac mini uses inferior hardware. They use the same exact cpu's as last gen (2012) retina 15 MBP's. The 2.6 mini uses the same exact CPU as that same gen high end MacBook Pro. The 2.6 3720QM.

I am consistently getting over 13000 on geekbench!

 

[Crosscreek]

That is based on single core only. Haswell will give slightly better single core numbers. That is not multicore which shows raw computing power. You need to be looking at the link I gave you or here. No i5 iMacs beat the 2.6 i7 mini. Zero. Only the i7 iMacs do. 😉

Like I said the mini is one powerfull little Mac.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

Or here:

http://www.everymac.com/ultimate-ma...ompare=all-intel-macs&0&prod1=MacMiniIntel021

Like I said I don't know where the notion that the Mac mini uses inferior hardware. They use the same exact cpu's as last gen (2012) retina 15 MBP's. The 2.6 mini uses the same exact CPU as that same gen high end MacBook Pro. The 2.6 3720QM.

I am consistently getting over 13000 on geekbench!

I own a 2.5 and I love mine and will probably keep it in addition to the next release that I will probably max out. What I was saying is that the Mini uses the same chips as the laptop uses. The iMac uses a desktop chip. You can't compare 2 core I5s to 4 core I7s. I did not say anything about inferior hardware. You just misunderstood me or I didn't explain well enough what I was trying to say.

 

[barkmonster]

Based on multi-processor scores?

I got my information from here.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

Where a 3.1Ghz i7-based 2012 iMac is a pitiful 4.47% faster than a 2.6Ghz i7-based 2012 Mac Mini?

Where a 3.4 Ghz i5-based 2013 iMac is an even more pitiful 2.84% faster than a 2.3Ghz i7-based 2012 Mac Mini?

Or is it even lower down the 32-bit multi-processor performance scale where a 2.7Ghz i5-based 2013 iMac is an "impressive" 80.6% faster than a 2.5Ghz i5-based Mac Mini exactly half the price and half the CPU cores where the iMac really "Shines"?

 

[iamthedudeman]

I own a 2.5 and I love mine and will probably keep it in addition to the next release that I will probably max out. What I was saying is that the Mini uses the same chips as the laptop uses. The iMac uses a desktop chip. You can't compare 2 core I5s to 4 core I7s. I did not say anything about inferior hardware. You just misunderstood me or I didn't explain well enough what I was trying to say.

The Mini uses A mobile chip where as the IMac uses a desktop chip. If you check Geekbench for both, the only Mini that comes close to IMac performance is the 2.6/I7. Plus the IMac can be upgraded to more ram than the Mini and dedicated graphics. The Mini is not a threat to the IMac.

I understood exactly what you said. You posted geekbench numbers for single core only. Where the desktop chips with haswell are slightly better. You said only the 2.6 i7 mini comes close, which is false. No mention of comparing a mini dual core i5 to a i7 imac. No misunderstanding involved. 😉

You were basing your opinion on single core numbers. And you posted the link to geekbench single core benchmarks. Which is inaccurate for total compute power for a cpu. Which does not tell the whole tale of which is faster.

They are in single core benchmarks not because they are a desktop chip, but because of haswell. Just because a laptop has a mobile chip and a desktop has a desktop chip doesn't' mean the desktop is superior. That may have been true years past but that ship sailed long ago.

The mini core i7's are not inferior and the benchmarks back that up. Only advantage they(imac) would have would be because of haswell. Look at any benchmark you want besides geekbench.

You got caught with your hand in the cookie jar my friend.

----------

Where a 3.1Ghz i7-based 2012 iMac is a pitiful 4.47% faster than a 2.6Ghz i7-based 2012 Mac Mini?

Where a 3.4 Ghz i5-based 2013 iMac is an even more pitiful 2.84% faster than a 2.3Ghz i7-based 2012 Mac Mini?

Or is it even lower down the 32-bit multi-processor performance scale where a 2.7Ghz i5-based 2013 iMac is an "impressive" 80.6% faster than a 2.5Ghz i5-based Mac Mini exactly half the price and half the CPU cores where the iMac really "Shines"?

Those are single core benchmarks only. Multi-core tells a different story.

 

[Crosscreek]

The Mini uses A mobile chip where as the IMac uses a desktop chip. If you check Geekbench for both, the only Mini that comes close to IMac performance is the 2.6/I7. Plus the IMac can be upgraded to more ram than the Mini and dedicated graphics. The Mini is not a threat to the IMac.

I understood exactly what you said. You posted geekbench numbers for single core only. Where the desktop chips with haswell are slightly better. You said only the 2.6 i7 mini comes close, which is false. No mention of comparing a mini dual core i5 to a i7 imac. No misunderstanding involved. 😉

You were basing your opinion on single core numbers. And you posted the link to geekbench single core benchmarks. Which is inaccurate for total compute power for a cpu. Which does not tell the whole tale of which is faster.

They are in single core benchmarks not because they are a desktop chip, but because of haswell. Just because a laptop has a mobile chip and a desktop has a desktop chip doesn't' mean the desktop is superior. That may have been true years past but that ship sailed long ago.

The mini core i7's are not inferior and the benchmarks back that up. Only advantage they(imac) would have would be because of haswell. Look at any benchmark you want besides geekbench.

You got caught with your hand in the cookie jar my friend.

----------
My initial comment was to LeftyMac about why the iMac is not threatened by the Mini and why. You took my words out of context. You also contradict your self admitting that the Haswell IMac has better Geekbench scores. I am not taking anything away from your Mini. It is a very fast little computer at 13000. So don't take offense where no offense was intended.🙂

 

[barkmonster]

Those are single core benchmarks only. Multi-core tells a different story

Did you even read my post title or follow the link they posted? Those ARE multi-processor scores from the 32bit tab on the Geekbench results page they posted that I was referring to. If you're just being a contrarian for arguements sake, why bother? If you didn't notice the post title or bother following the link, you're not even responding to my reply in context and if you think single core performance is more important than multi-core, you obviously don't know about Logic, Pro Tools, Reaper, After Effects etc... where it's kind of a big deal and does close the gap between a quad-core Mac Mini and an iMac quite a bit (And a quad Haswell MacBook Pro and a quad 2013 Mac Pro too).

If the title "Based on multi-processor scores?" wasn't obvious, when I wrote

Or is it even lower down the 32-bit multi-processor performance scale...

it should have been a dead give away. YOU even quoted it back to me!

 

[Cape Dave]

Question, if they DID drop the mini (which I highly doubt, because they are not idiots at Apple) but if they did, what would a new in box latest i7 be worth the day after they announced no more????????

One thing many do not mention is that there is a fierce group that LOVES the mini. And they/we are all enthusiast types. Great word of mouth advertising for Mac in general. And the mini specifically.

And in the grand scheme of things, with all of their hundreds of billions of dollars, a redesign/refresh/update for the mini could not cost so much as to be anywhere near prohibitive.

So I am going out on a limb here and stating that I firmly believe that there will be at least one more refresh for the mini and most likely MANY more.

 

[Crosscreek]

Question, if they DID drop the mini (which I highly doubt, because they are not idiots at Apple) but if they did, what would a new in box latest i7 be worth the day after they announced no more????????

One thing many do not mention is that there is a fierce group that LOVES the mini. And they/we are all enthusiast types. Great word of mouth advertising for Mac in general. And the mini specifically.

And in the grand scheme of things, with all of their hundreds of billions of dollars, a redesign/refresh/update for the mini could not cost so much as to be anywhere near prohibitive.

So I am going out on a limb here and stating that I firmly believe that there will be at least one more refresh for the mini and most likely MANY more.

I'm with you brother!
What"s funny is a received a email from HP yesterday about they are bringing back the Windoze 7 machine.
I guess the PC is not dead and people don't like those Windoze 8 machines,

 

[iamthedudeman]

s

The Mini uses A mobile chip where as the IMac uses a desktop chip. If you check Geekbench for both, the only Mini that comes close to IMac performance is the 2.6/I7. Plus the IMac can be upgraded to more ram than the Mini and dedicated graphics. The Mini is not a threat to the IMac.

I understood exactly what you said. You posted geekbench numbers for single core only. Where the desktop chips with haswell are slightly better. You said only the 2.6 i7 mini comes close, which is false. No mention of comparing a mini dual core i5 to a i7 imac. No misunderstanding involved. 😉

You were basing your opinion on single core numbers. And you posted the link to geekbench single core benchmarks. Which is inaccurate for total compute power for a cpu. Which does not tell the whole tale of which is faster.

They are in single core benchmarks not because they are a desktop chip, but because of haswell. Just because a laptop has a mobile chip and a desktop has a desktop chip doesn't' mean the desktop is superior. That may have been true years past but that ship sailed long ago.

The mini core i7's are not inferior and the benchmarks back that up. Only advantage they(imac) would have would be because of haswell. Look at any benchmark you want besides geekbench.

You got caught with your hand in the cookie jar my friend.

----------
My initial comment was to LeftyMac about why the iMac is not threatened by the Mini and why. You took my words out of context. You also contradict your self admitting that the Haswell IMac has better Geekbench scores. I am not taking anything away from your Mini. It is a very fast little computer at 13000. So don't take offense where no offense was intended.🙂

Here is what you said.

The Mini uses A mobile chip where as the IMac uses a desktop chip. If you check Geekbench for both, the only Mini that comes close to IMac performance is the 2.6/I7. Plus the IMac can be upgraded to more ram than the Mini and dedicated graphics. The Mini is not a threat to the IMac.

Took your words out of context? Contradict myself? I said the i7 imac has better numbers, that is the only imac that does.🙂 No other imac has better numbers than the 2.6 mini. judgeing by your post I thought you were just based your info on single core geekbench scores.

Just going by what you said in the post. Sorry didnt mean to take what you said out of context.


I mainly use a Retina Macbook pro.

I also have 8 2013 mac pros. I love the mini, it is a workhorse and very fast for what it is. I have 27 of them. And various imac of differnet CPU's and sizes, years etc. All not used by me. 😀

 

[Crosscreek]

The horse was beat to death, It died. Have a good day at the office. 🙂

 

[iamthedudeman]

Did you even read my post title or follow the link they posted? Those ARE multi-processor scores from the 32bit tab on the Geekbench results page they posted that I was referring to. If you're just being a contrarian for arguements sake, why bother? If you didn't notice the post title or bother following the link, you're not even responding to my reply in context and if you think single core performance is more important than multi-core, you obviously don't know about Logic, Pro Tools, Reaper, After Effects etc... where it's kind of a big deal and does close the gap between a quad-core Mac Mini and an iMac quite a bit (And a quad Haswell MacBook Pro and a quad 2013 Mac Pro too).

If the title "Based on multi-processor scores?" wasn't obvious, when I wrote



it should have been a dead give away. YOU even quoted it back to me!

Haha. 😀

Are you serious? Follow the thread. Yeah I think single core is more important than multi-core.😕
I just took crosscreek's post out of contest and said exactly the opposite of what you are implying. Furthermore I was not replying to you. You do not know to whom you speak. 😀

Here you go.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

Relax buddy. 😉

----------

Question, if they DID drop the mini (which I highly doubt, because they are not idiots at Apple) but if they did, what would a new in box latest i7 be worth the day after they announced no more????????

One thing many do not mention is that there is a fierce group that LOVES the mini. And they/we are all enthusiast types. Great word of mouth advertising for Mac in general. And the mini specifically.

And in the grand scheme of things, with all of their hundreds of billions of dollars, a redesign/refresh/update for the mini could not cost so much as to be anywhere near prohibitive.

So I am going out on a limb here and stating that I firmly believe that there will be at least one more refresh for the mini and most likely MANY more.

Follow my post a few pages back. The mini has already been redesigned. They are having trouble with the thermals and manufacturing. Retooling for production in the US. Some will be produced here and some in china. If they cannot get the thermals in the redesign down they most likely will go with the current form factor until they can work on a new modified design.

My guess is that since the performance is still very high for the mini, that they are in no hurry to upgrade them and rush a redesigned mini to market when there is no need to.

The mini isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It is a integral part of Apple's lineup. Don't worry. 🙂

 

[barkmonster]

Haha. 😀

Are you serious? Follow the thread. Yeah I think single core is more important than multi-core.😕
I just took crosscreek's post out of contest and said exactly the opposite of what you are implying. Furthermore I was not replying to you. You do not know to whom you speak. 😀

Here you go.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

If you hit the 32 bit Multi-CPU tab on the page we're both referring to, you'll see my point. I hate to break it to you, but for a lot of us, it's better to have more cores and lots of RAM that a high clock speed and less cores. That's how I got my figures. By dividing the multi CPU scores of the quad i7 Mac Minis by the quad i7 and quad i5 CPU scores of the drastically higher clocked desktop CPUs in the iMacs. Thus proving that with hyperthreading and turbo boost, the Mac Mini is a little power house and the iMac is a giant glued together laptop for your desk! No confrontation intended.

 

[Crosscreek]

I'm going to dig this horse up one more time to chill down a misunderstanding of what I was commenting to leftyMac about and what I should of said that the 4 core I7/2.6 is not a threat to the high end IMac because it can be upgraded to 32gb ram and dedicated graphics. When asked to give the source of that information I sited Geekbench 32 single core because I had tested my 2.5 to compare to scores from the other macs which was free. It was my fault for not being clear on what I was comparing to. So lets put the horse back in the ground and move on. 🙂

 

[iamthedudeman]

If you hit the 32 bit Multi-CPU tab on the page we're both referring to, you'll see my point. I hate to break it to you, but for a lot of us, it's better to have more cores and lots of RAM that a high clock speed and less cores. That's how I got my figures. By dividing the multi CPU scores of the quad i7 Mac Minis by the quad i7 and quad i5 CPU scores of the drastically higher clocked desktop CPUs in the iMacs. Thus proving that with hyperthreading and turbo boost, the Mac Mini is a little power house and the iMac is a giant glued together laptop for your desk! No confrontation intended.

Try following the thread.

Actually i dont see what you are trying to prove to me as i devoted a whole page explaining what you just said. I never said less cores and higher clock speed are better. Actually i provided the link trying to prove other wise. I said exactly what you are trying to explain here. Where do you get i said other wise? I know more core are better and said as much.

I think you are confused on the matter here. I am the one who brought up the point in the first place and you are preaching to the wrong person.

----------

I'm going to dig this horse up one more time to chill down a misunderstanding of what I was commenting to leftyMac about and what I should of said that the 4 core I7/2.6 is not a threat to the high end IMac because it can be upgraded to 32gb ram and dedicated graphics. When asked to give the source of that information I sited Geekbench 32 single core because I had tested my 2.5 to compare to scores from the other macs which was free. It was my fault for not being clear on what I was comparing to. So lets put the horse back in the ground and move on. 🙂

I concur!

 

[iamthedudeman]

Just about a month to go! We should be seeing new mini"s. New model numbers are showing up in the supply chain.

Now these could be updated mac book pros but i doubt it. They would have updated processors and besides it is too soon.

We are seeing model numbers with haswell. A dual core i5 2.4. A quad i7 2.0. And a quad i7 2.3. All with HD's. My guess would be with a pcie ssd option but we cannot see that just model numbers. Wi fi ac is also a go. 🙂