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.
Mac mini 2013/2014 refresh.
- Thread starter animatedude
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Clearly, yes.
Apple can design the 2013 Mac mini thinner, even if they use HDDs + PCIe-SSDs:
http://www.wd.com/en/company/pressroom/releases/?release=61ae4202-70b0-4bad-a810-a40e9affccf7
5 mm, 7 mm WD Blue specs:
http://www.wd.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=800#tab3
The only problem is, that the new WD HDDs use the SATA 6 GBit/s interface, which means they are probably unstable in MBP-Opti-Bay configurations.
I've just seen the Intel NUC which a Techspot article seems to describe as essentially coming with the MBA processors and no SATA ports because 'classic' 2.5" hard drives are big and a source of heat.
http://www.techspot.com/news/52846-...l-more-ports-and-fanless-aluminum-option.html
I like the concept even though the NUC cases I've seen pale next to a Mac Mini in concept and perceived build quality.
If Apple were to create a Mac Nano they could clearly do something with the Macbook Air parts bin, removing all internal storage and going PCIe flash to save space and reduce the heat budget. Essentially, this moves the Fusion drive back to the iMacs only.
Using HD5000 graphics would make it worthy desktop computer for basic tasks and base models could come with 128Gb of Flash with larger options plus the ability to add your own external storage.
If they don't want to lose that much CPU muscle they could go with my earlier possibility of using the 28w Haswell dual core i5 or i7 for a bit more grunt. Once again, to save the heat budget they could opt for flash only storage internally to keep the size down.
This could create a market for Thunderbolt attached storage solutions or hubs not unlike the Belkin Thunderbolt Dock or Sonnet Echo 15.
Both options wouldn't make for a cheaper computer, however, but it would certainly be smaller and/or run cooler and quieter which for some people is very worthwhile.
I don't know those "Most People". I can see it for laptops, not desktops. Ethernet isn't going anywhere.
The current Mac Mini uses
i5 3210 35W ==> $225 ( http://ark.intel.com/products/65708/Intel-Core-i5-3210M-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-3_10-GHz-BGA )
i7 3615QM 45W ==> $378 ( http://ark.intel.com/products/64900/Intel-Core-i7-3615QM-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_30-GHz )
i7 3720QM 45W ==> $378 ( http://ark.intel.com/products/64891/Intel-Core-i7-3720QM-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz )
Moving to those two is a big leap in CPU costs.
i5 4250U 15W ==> $342 ( http://ark.intel.com/products/75028/Intel-Core-i5-4250U-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-2_60-GHz)
i7 4750QM 47W ==> $440 ( http://ark.intel.com/products/76087/Intel-Core-i7-4750HQ-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_20-GHz )
That is a $117 ( or 19% of a $599 Mac mni price ) and
$62 ( or 8% of a $799 Mac mini price ) respective increases in costs.
Nevermind that the 'U' model is geared to ultra books and as soon as you hit both the CPU and GPU at the same time the theoretical performance increase of the GPU sags a bit:
" On average, Intel's HD 5000 offered a 15.3% performance advantage over Intel's HD 4000 graphics. Whether or not that's impressive really depends on your perspective ....
The range of performance improvement really depends on turbo residency. ... "
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7072/intel-hd-5000-vs-hd-4000-vs-hd-4400
Picking them almost purely on desired GPU is likely not to be correct. They'll be picked on price. About the same price as before. That likely means HD4600 graphics not HD5000 . Either that or mini prices are going up ( e.g., $699 and $899 ). I'm not sure most folks are going to find ~6-13% better [note the above is ultra book HD4000 versus ultra book HD5000 ; not full speed.) graphics worth another $100 ( that's a 16% increase for the $599 model) . Or being stuck with an ultrabook CPU that fades under hard work.
The MBA sytems can tolerate the i5 4250U because their price is $200-400 higher. ( some of that goes to screen and keyboard but there is some left over for CPU also. )
Last edited:
Mini is not a laptop
Just gown is the mini a laptop?
A second TB port might be inline, but cost of the port will be key,
Luck,
Jed
Just gown is the mini a laptop?
A second TB port might be inline, but cost of the port will be key,
Luck,
Jed
Out of all predictions of how Mac Mini 2013/2014 gonna be, some that I will be afraid of are:
- removal of audio line-in port
I plan to buy and use mac mini for audio recording purpose. Seeing the trend Apple has on their computers now, I am just worried they will do the same to Mac Mini. One of the main features of Mac Mini to me is the number of ports it has.
- removal of Ethernet
a desktop without ethernet port? Come on Apple.
I hope it will have dedicated GPU and std base 8GB RAM for the next iteration. Make it come true Apple!
- removal of audio line-in port
I plan to buy and use mac mini for audio recording purpose. Seeing the trend Apple has on their computers now, I am just worried they will do the same to Mac Mini. One of the main features of Mac Mini to me is the number of ports it has.
- removal of Ethernet
a desktop without ethernet port? Come on Apple.
I hope it will have dedicated GPU and std base 8GB RAM for the next iteration. Make it come true Apple!
Firewire is far from dead. Unless you're one of those people who always saw as it some proprietary alternative to USB.
There's plenty of Firewire Pro Audio interfaces that don't play well with the Thunderbolt to Firewire adapter (which in turn ends the Thunderbolt chain).
There's also plenty of non-RAID drives that perform almost as well over Firewire 800 as they do via Thunderbolt because of the limitation of hard drives.
Must keep Ethernet
I cannot imagine the Mini, or any Apple desktop, without an Ethernet port. Saying you can plug into the Ethernet port on the Apple Thunderbolt Display would mean you would have to buy a $1000 display to get Ethernet connectivity, or else use up your one Thunderbolt connector to get a Thunderbolt Ethernet adaptor, or go with a USB-based adaptor. My home network is wireless with an AEBS, so I am not currently using the Ethernet connector, but I don't think they should get rid of Ethernet.
One of the great things going for the Mini is the ability to upgrade the RAM, which Apple took away from all the new iMacs unless you are willing to pony up for the 27" machine. I bought a stock Mini from the Apple Store with 4 GB and upgraded the RAM to 16 GB a couple of months. Best upgrade I could have made. I just wish I could have sprung for another $300 to do a BTO with an SSD. The local Apple Store has told me that they will not install even an Apple-branded SSD into my Mini.
I cannot imagine the Mini, or any Apple desktop, without an Ethernet port. Saying you can plug into the Ethernet port on the Apple Thunderbolt Display would mean you would have to buy a $1000 display to get Ethernet connectivity, or else use up your one Thunderbolt connector to get a Thunderbolt Ethernet adaptor, or go with a USB-based adaptor. My home network is wireless with an AEBS, so I am not currently using the Ethernet connector, but I don't think they should get rid of Ethernet.
One of the great things going for the Mini is the ability to upgrade the RAM, which Apple took away from all the new iMacs unless you are willing to pony up for the 27" machine. I bought a stock Mini from the Apple Store with 4 GB and upgraded the RAM to 16 GB a couple of months. Best upgrade I could have made. I just wish I could have sprung for another $300 to do a BTO with an SSD. The local Apple Store has told me that they will not install even an Apple-branded SSD into my Mini.
Yes, it does appear that a lot of published Intel cpu options, especially those ones with Iris Pro or improved graphics, are very pricey for the Mini. Let's remember that Apple were the ones who pushed for improved iGPU options from Intel and they are putting a pair of powerful GPUs into the next Mac Pro so I would say that Apple are taking display performance seriously with 4k displays around the corner.
It all rather depends on what processor options Apple chooses for their Macbook Pros as the Mini clearly can't dictate its own dedicated line of CPUs separate from other Apple models. For me, the future of the Mac Mini is currently tied in to what Apple thinks of the classic Macbook Pro 13 and 15 since that is where their CPUs are shared.
The future of both machines is clouded as both lines could end up Retina only and that line needs improved GPUs.
The quad core picture looks clouded as Apple could end up with either an expensive HD5200 Iris Pro solution to keep the heat down at the expense of graphic capability or they could continue with a discrete GPU paired with possibly a CPU with native HD4600 GPU.
Let's look at the 2 cpus likely in my opinion to end up in the Retina Macbook Pro 13 - both are U series official overclocks with dual core cpu and HD5100 graphics. Yes, the entry price is now $117 (£100) over the existing price of the Mac Mini CPUs:
i5 4288U 28w HD5100 GPU ==> $342
i7 4558U 28w HD5100 GPU ==> $454
If these chips are used in the Retina MBP to enable the rumoured thinner case, and the classic 13 was dropped or converted to using them too, then where would the i5 and dual core i7 chips for a Mini come from?
It's not on the Intel Ark site but the successor to the i5 3210 at $225 appears to be the i5 4300M or i5 4200M but Anandtech doesn't appear to suggest a price and in any case these cpus would have to be used in a classic Macbook Pro 13" to be considered for the Mini.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7021/introducing-the-dualcore-haswell-skus
Bang for the buck surely must be the two aforementioned CPUs with HD5100 graphics even if there's going to be a price increase to cover them. They just have special order for Apple written all over them but as you say, there's a cost involved with using them in a Mini.
I've already said I wouldn't be surprised to see the quad core Mini go by the wayside to enable a case change for lower TDP and to prevent cannibalisation of the new Mac Pro. Raising entry level price for the Mini would be a major decision but on the other hand, I find it hard to believe they would go with any Haswell model with only HD4600 graphics having launched Macbook Airs with HD5000 graphics.
Apple may have their own ideas of course.
What you can expect in the next mini:
Haswell CPU
The new wifi
What you can probably assume will be in the next mini:
Intel HD5000 graphics
Reasonable but less likely possible changes:
Changing the firewire port with a second TB port
Upgrading TB 1 to TB 2
Minor Appearance changes
Haswell CPU
The new wifi
What you can probably assume will be in the next mini:
Intel HD5000 graphics
Reasonable but less likely possible changes:
Changing the firewire port with a second TB port
Upgrading TB 1 to TB 2
Minor Appearance changes
Cross-posting from another thread, but interested to contemplate the next mini form factor.
This is interesting. I'm not sure the mini is due for a new design, but given the move away from optical drives in 2011, the move toward PCI-E based SSD storage (m.2, formerly known as Next Gen Form Factor or NGFF) it may be significantly smaller in both size and power consumption. There is already a great deal of unused space in the minis.
But a new form factor may not happen until 2014 given cost (the mini is the low-cost entry mac) and 2.5mm hard drives and SSDs should remain cheaper than the m.2 (or custom Apple-connector) PCI-E based SSDs. Having said that, the iMac is already using the smaller blade SSD.
I'm too confused to consider which CPU will end up in the mini. But, like others have said, cost must be the best guide.So we expect 4600 graphics with lower power consumption.
Any tests/comparisons to show graphics performance between ULV 5000 graphics from airs, versus 4600 graphics?
This is interesting. I'm not sure the mini is due for a new design, but given the move away from optical drives in 2011, the move toward PCI-E based SSD storage (m.2, formerly known as Next Gen Form Factor or NGFF) it may be significantly smaller in both size and power consumption. There is already a great deal of unused space in the minis.
But a new form factor may not happen until 2014 given cost (the mini is the low-cost entry mac) and 2.5mm hard drives and SSDs should remain cheaper than the m.2 (or custom Apple-connector) PCI-E based SSDs. Having said that, the iMac is already using the smaller blade SSD.
I'm too confused to consider which CPU will end up in the mini. But, like others have said, cost must be the best guide.So we expect 4600 graphics with lower power consumption.
Any tests/comparisons to show graphics performance between ULV 5000 graphics from airs, versus 4600 graphics?
I have never had a need for Firewire, nor have 99 out of 100 people I know. The whole concept of "competing" connections never did make sense to me. Let's just CONNECT FAST.
Then 99% of the people you know clearly either have 2 or more internal drives or only use external drives for back up and do absolutely nothing creative in the field of audio that's worth even acknowledging.
Firewire/Firewire 800 doesn't have the CPU overhead of USB and is full duplex therefore there's plenty of uses other than an internal drive in addition to the system drive and whatever backup someone uses where Firewire 800 was not only fastest, but had none of the CPU or throughput flaws of USB. Even the original 400Mbit Firewire is faster than the theoretical 480Mbit USB 2.0 in the real world.
USB 3.0 improved upon USB/USB 2.0 by offering dual simplex so it can read/write at the same time:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/25/superspeed_usb_3_guide/page2.html
Till USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt, Firewire 800 WAS the fastest connection for external devices other than eSATA or other variants of SATA/Ethernet and that only works with storage devices, not video cameras or high end audio interfaces so that's not even an issue of competition because it had none apart from storage.
Do you know that using the same 7200rpm drive a Seagate GoFlex with Firewire 800 absolutely obliterates a USB 2.0 connection but is only around 30% faster over Thunderbolt than it is with Firewire 800?
http://www.macworld.com/article/1165104/hands_on_with_the_seagate_goflex_thunderbolt_adapter.html
All the established uses of Firewire/Firewire 800 such as audio interfaces havn't become obsolete overnight just because of Thunderbolt/USB 3.0 but the Firewire 800 to Thunderbolt adapter people are being forced to use is an endless source of headaches you can easily read about for youself on Apple's forums.
Last edited:
Yep, the people I know do not do anything that requires it. I do not mean to get into a discussion, it is simply my opinion that it could be safely left out of the next mini. Time will tell who is right
When comparing facts with an opinion, no time needs to pass to validate the opinion over the facts because it won't happen. (unless I've got crossed wires here and you mean time will tell if the next Mac Mini has 2 Thunderbolt and no firewire, not time will tell if USB 3.0/Thunderbolt overtake Firewire for all of it's current uses)
Last edited:
If the NEW Mac Pro doesn't have firewire, why would the new mac mini have firewire?
Think about it....
Seems to me....
the Haswell CPU upgrade and ac WiFi are very likely candidates. A little bit less likely is a better graphic management. Same thing about TB2. But I can see a second Thunderbolt port added. Not so likely is a bigger HDD. And a no-no for form factor redesign.
But really, I only hope for a price drop, maybe in the $75-150 range. If that thing occur, I dont have a case against the mini, in any form.....
the Haswell CPU upgrade and ac WiFi are very likely candidates. A little bit less likely is a better graphic management. Same thing about TB2. But I can see a second Thunderbolt port added. Not so likely is a bigger HDD. And a no-no for form factor redesign.
But really, I only hope for a price drop, maybe in the $75-150 range. If that thing occur, I dont have a case against the mini, in any form.....
Time will tell if the next Mac Mini has 2 Thunderbolt and no firewire:
This is what I meant
Even if it didn't, situations where Firewire is the only option would still stand, the issues people have with Firewire devices via Thunderbolt would still be a problem and unless it has at least 3 Thunderbolt ports, 1 for Thunderbolt/Displayport output and 2 for Firewire because the Firewire to Thunderbolt adapter is an end of chain device, it would make the system less useful for a lot of people unless they spend even more money adding back connectivity with something like the Belkin Thunderbolt dock or trade in their already expensive hardware for something like the UA Apollo (£1900 starting price with the Thunderbolt option).
As far as bus-powered devices with no alternative because USB drives have a CPU overhead and don't work well as recording drives at all, leaving Firewire off a laptop that can't have a second, user installed internal drive makes it useless for multitrack recording. Not to mention the fact no high end, Firewire 800 bus-powered interfaces will work via Thunderbolt either because of the lack of bus power.
Last edited:
.. Or you can just place it at the end of the chain? If you add another TB-device such as an Apple Thunderbolt Display, you'll move your TB->FW to the back of your display instead.
The question is when! Not soon enough :-(
I just pre-ordered the 31.5" Asus 4k monitor, and unfortunately my current gen Mini is not going to be able to drive it, so will sell it along with the 27" TB display.
For now I picked up an inspiron 660s and a sapphire 7750 to drive the display, but I'm hopeful I'll be able to return to the mini after the refresh - hard to beat that form factor.
I'm also a huge fan of the intel NUC and have deployed them as less critical branch servers in many locations and they have been fantastic. Will definitely consider it as a potential alternative to the mini since it can simply be mounted on the back of the monitor.
I just pre-ordered the 31.5" Asus 4k monitor, and unfortunately my current gen Mini is not going to be able to drive it, so will sell it along with the 27" TB display.
For now I picked up an inspiron 660s and a sapphire 7750 to drive the display, but I'm hopeful I'll be able to return to the mini after the refresh - hard to beat that form factor.
I'm also a huge fan of the intel NUC and have deployed them as less critical branch servers in many locations and they have been fantastic. Will definitely consider it as a potential alternative to the mini since it can simply be mounted on the back of the monitor.