Mac mini 2018 Reviews Roundup: Long-Awaited Update Should Impress Fans and Pro Users, But Upgrade Options Can Get Pricey

[Morgenland]

I would spend 400 dollars more on an Apple monitor to avoid eye contact with a third party **** product.
I hope that Apple will soon have monitors that will run the MacMini with FaceID.

My current MacMini still has the Apple CinemaDisplay, this is (because of low resolution) no longer "Pro" appropriate.

As soon as Apple offers a good monitor (24 inch retina option would be OK for me), I buy the new MacMini as well.

 

[dogslobber]

I am learning nothing from these reviews. Both Mac Mini and iPad. The Apple keynote and the spec sheet are enough. I already know how fast Intel chips are, so the benchmarks are pointless. I know how fast NVME SSDs are. I already know what the T2 does. Etc etc. People's opinions on price, how "pro" they think things are or how pretty they find them seems like superfluous fluff. Not sure what my point is here. I just feel like I usually learn something new when I read reviews.

They're not really reviews but paid for infomercials you see on HSN or QVC. Even Amazon Verified Reviews are more technical than some of these words written. None of them are too overly critical of the Apple mothership for fear that they won't get a 'next' review model. You can see this as they all publish today at 7am when they're given the OK from Apple Marketing. It does make me wonder if Apple PR vets the reviews.

I'm more interested in seeing what anandtech says than these PR pieces. Like you say, you learn nothing new and I'm floored none of them connected a power meter to the plug and gave us the numbers for idle and loaded power draw. Referring to a 150W PSU is the most technical insight we get and even I got that from reading the specs on Apple.com.

 

[pat500000]

Tim doesn’t care what you guys think about 128gb drive. He knows you guys will buy higher spec.

 

[theluggage]

Was it so difficult to include a dedicated graphics card inside this?

Well, the case should have plenty of space considering it was originally designed to hold a spinning-rust HD and an optical drive. However, it looks like they've decided to use this space for enough cooling to support a desktop-class CPU rather than the mobile ones used in previous Minis. Basically, they've decided to go for CPU over GPU - these new Minis seem to be pitched at development, music and server-ish applications and probably will be better at those than a mobile CPU.

At the moment, that does leave you stuck if you want something better than integrated but smaller & cheaper than the honking great desktop-class external GPUs currently on offer. Maybe someone will do a half-decent mobile-class eGPU in a stackable Mini-style box?

Bear in mind that the beloved 2012 Minis that these are really replacing didn't have discrete GPUs (or Iris Pro iGPUs) either.

 

[citysnaps]

And you actually believe this little box and its crippled CPU can support those bandwidths on the ports?

You can believe that if you want. I certainly made no such claim.
[doublepost=1541523903][/doublepost]

How many watts did the system draw under idle conditions and how many under load? Maybe I missed the slide.

Seriously, you really need to watch the video.

 

[Sabelonada]

Price it against a similar-spec'ed "small-form-factor" desktop, like an Intel NUC.

Oh wait. There aren't any!

Their "Enthusiast" model NUC has a 7th Gen i7 (quad core, not hex), ONE TB3 port, and is fugly as the day is long. Oh, and it STARTS at $883. Granted, it has 16 GB of RAM rather than 8 GB; but the rest of the machine is REALLY lame compared with the 2018 mini.

The Hades Canyon has 2 TB3 ports, two mini-DP ports, 2 1GB Ethernet ports, 2 HDMI ports, 6 USB-A ports (one designed for higher amp charging), 1 USB-C port, and an SD card slot. It also has 2 SO-DIMM slots, which support slower memory (DDR4 2400), and two M2 slots. It doesn't support 64GB of ram.

Ugly is a subjective term so I can't quantitatively answer that.

It has less CPU than the Mac mini, and it's also about a year older so that's not surprising. It's a powerful device in it's own right and Intel has the price for the higher end model at $799. If someone wants a small, powerful Windows/Linux option it's available. I have one I may have to decide what to do with when/if I buy a Mac mini.

 

[Ethosik]

Exactly. So for all the cheerleaders of TB3, I ask you, is there anything at all that you use it with that even comes close to leverwging its speed? Probably not

eGPUs and Samsung X5 external TB3 SSD

 

[chinito77]

Can we stop with the "Why buy a Mini" arguments!? You guys are wasting space for those of us that want to know more about the limitations and options regarding upgradability. I DON'T CARE if you think I'm over spending! I'll pay up the nose on a crippled mac than a Windows box so find yourself another place to rant your hate. Sheesh!

 

[jasnw]

So: 230 posts (and counting) in this Mini Reviews thread in under six hours, 71 posts in the Macbook Air Reviews thread in the same time, and 115 posts in the iPad Pro Reviews thread in about 18 hours. That tell you something about what Apple users are wanting? The headless desktop system is NOT dead.

 

[Zdigital2015]

I am curious about the total TB 3 bandwidth. Will all of it be available or not? I think this is something we can't answer until someone verifies.

I assume that Apple is using either the Intel JHL7440 or the JHL7450 Thunderbolt 3 controller (Titan Ridge) as they recently put this newer TB3 controller in the 2018 MacBook Pros. Each controller supports up to two Thunderbolt 3 ports. Making a layman's guess (and not having time to locate, read and digest the developer's manual), is that the controller uses a internal switching mechanism to keep both ports fed with data if the user has devices on each port. No port or PCIe slot is 100% efficient, so the 160Gbps aggregate is probably a bad idea. Also, the max bandwidth each controller has is x4 PCIe 3.0 lanes. There are days I wish I was an electrical engineer, so that the esoteric bits made more sense to me.

Instead, I should probably say 80Gbps to be more transparent and less MarCom BS slanted. I apologize.

However, we do know that Apple is most likely linking them directly to the CPU, since it has no discrete GPU and therefore does not need to allocate any PCIe lanes (x8) to a dGPU as Apple does with the 15" MacBook Pro. Furthermore, the CPU can break down how lanes are allocated - 1x16, 2x8, 1x8+2x4 - I am honestly wondering if the T2 chip connects directly to the CPU using the free x8 PCIe lanes, as the two Thunderbolt 3 ports use x4 PCIe lanes each, while the Intel 300-Series PCH connects directly to the CPU using DMI 3.0 for the few functions that are not handled by the T2, which would be Ethernet, Wireless AC, Bluetooth 5.0 and the two USB 3.0 ports. The last remaining bit is the LSPCon for the HDMI port and it connects directly to the DisplayPort out from the CPU.

I am looking forward to seeing an iFixit teardown soon. I am also looking forward to seeing more information on just how much performance can be wrung from this tiny beast.

 

[theluggage]

Oh, after a painful disassembly, I'm sure that PCI-e card can be changed,

As I understand it, the T2 chip on the mainboard acts as the SSD controller, and also handles "hardware" encryption (c.f. 'industry standard' M.2 sticks that incorporate either a NVMe or SATA controller). Whether or not the SSD "card" is soldered in, or whether its technically connected via PCIe or not, its totally proprietary.

 

[Stephen.R]

And you actually believe this little box and its crippled CPU can support those bandwidths on the ports?

Highest single-core Geekbench score of any mac ever, and only beaten by the iMac Pro and 12-core 2013 Mac Pro on Multi-core. But sure, it's 'crippled'.

 

[redheeler]

In the lifetime the processor will be useful, the GPU will have been surpassed at least 3 times even if it was a top of the line RTX. The system with the minimal GPU needed to get it up with the fastest CPU they can shove in the space is the best use of the space. This way you can get a 580 and I can get a Vega 56 for instance. No compromises.

By $300 increase he was referring to the base model ($799). How is a Core i3-8100 the fastest CPU they can shove in that space?

 

[harriska2]

Just curious, what headaches? I'm still using a 9yr old HP with 1tb of storage and win10 flawlessly. I never understood when people said windows gives them headaches and doesn't work.

I use Office 2010 and it is horrible. Firefox and Chrome use up my 16gb memory like nobody’s business. I’m on Win 7 because I don’t want forced upgrades of Win 10. Looking at switching to mac mini with 4k monitor and some sort of external case for all of my hard drives that I’m currently using syncback pro on windows for backup rather than raid.

 

[Mojo1]

To be frank, I'm not happy with 85°C. In summer the roomtemp may rise to 28°C (83°F) or so. IMHO any equipped should be able to run thermally stable at full load even at 30°C (85°F). I own a 2011 Server Mini -and the heatsink & cooling there is definitely insufficient. It's not just the cooler that needs to have enough surface, but in my opinion on a desktop there should be a decent copperblock on top of the CPU acting as thermal capacitor which absorbs any spikes, keeping the CPU at a more constant temperature.

Actually, it shouldn't be a big deal. A 35W CPU (?) should be quite easy to cool, especially if the 2 2,5" drives are no more (=enough space). Also, Apple could get creative, like Microsoft did on the surface Pro 4 with the cooling pad as part of the heatpipe cooling system. Unfortunately, proper thermal engineering doesn't seem to be one of Apples skills.

Two Words: AIR CONDITIONING.

 

[BigBoy2018]

eGPUs and Samsung X5 external TB3 SSD

Hadnt heard about the x5. Good find.

 

[rumz]

Good info!

I suspect, however, that the underlying issue is that this machine will be used for a wide variety of purposes. Some people actually WANT the mach-6-with-your-hair-on-fire performance. Many (mini?) people just want a solid office machine that runs MS Office and other apps really well. Is the ePCI storage that Apple is selling really top-of-the-line? I have no doubt. Would I be equally happy with middle-of-the-road? You bet!

I can see that-- but I don't know if these people needing office machines need 1tb either. Ultimately there's just a lament that there's no longer a $499 model, and that's fair.

It used to be that the Mini was just too underpowered to be a serious workstation-- it was an entry level computer. Also, I can't remember when the last time was that Apple sold a Mac without a screen built into it that could serve the mid-range power user that didn't need (and maybe couldn't afford or justify) a Mac Pro but found the Mini to not be "enough" either.

Seems like they've flipped this into less of the entry level machine to something more midrange to serve admittedly a wider range of needs / wants. And I guess I'm in the camp that is the most excited I've been about a Mac in a decade. It feels like a solid compromise between what I would love to have and what fits Apple's philosophy (I'd love a bigger box that can fit a discrete GPU... but not a Mac Pro).

So I think they've lose some people at the low end. But it's possible they've gained more in the mid-range and that it's potentially more profitable.

 

[Stephen.R]

Just curious, what headaches? I'm still using a 9yr old HP with 1tb of storage and win10 flawlessly. I never understood when people said windows gives them headaches and doesn't work.

I think it depends entirely on what you use it for.

 

[Mojo1]

I use Office 2010 and it is horrible. Firefox and Chrome use up my 16gb memory like nobody’s business. I’m on Win 7 because I don’t want forced upgrades of Win 10. Looking at switching to mac mini with 4k monitor and some sort of external case for all of my hard drives that I’m currently using syncback pro on windows for backup rather than raid.

Just a heads-up that Safari and Firefox likewise gobble up RAM on my 2012 i7 Mac Mini 16GB RAM running Sierra. . . I've seen both top 10GB. Safari seems to be more consistent about being a RAM hog.

 

[ColdShadow]

the aggressive pricing of Mac Mini will sadly kill it.
Mac mini was always an affordable Mac option for those who didn't want to / couldn't afford to pay for full package Macs like iMacs or MacBooks.
I can't see the target market and appeal for it anymore.

 

[Winni]

Highest single-core Geekbench score of any mac ever, and only beaten by the iMac Pro and 12-core 2013 Mac Pro on Multi-core. But sure, it's 'crippled'.

Nah. The other machines are just hopelessly outdated.

 

[polbit]

Well, heat, plain and simple. I am much happier that I have a 65w Desktop CPU in this mini than a 28w w/Iris Plus or even a 45w w/Iris Plus laptop CPU which would have driven the price up another $100-$150.

Also, why would I want to be stuck with a Radeon Pro 555X in this chassis, anyways? Not when I can buy an prefab eGPU or roll my own when I actually want or need one. I do not need a dGPU and there are many others that will get great use out of this and never need one. However, I now have the option of adding 1, 2, 3 or even 4 if I wanted. I am not saying 4 would be performant, but I can do it.

No, this mini is just fine the way it is.

I think it's called choices - and we don't have one. We get all the CPU, and none of the GPU. I would go for Iris Plus in a heartbeat (eGPU is definitely not viable, I get that), offer it as an upgrade option. Just because YOU are happy doesn't mean that everyone is.

 

[ChrisMoBro]

Yup. Do you?

Your turn. Please share your data.

Wait, what? Data? What "data" have you shared? It's common knowledge that Jobs opted for quieter fans over cooling performance. The old Mac Mini used to get up to 95°C! The iMac Pro reaches similar temps under full load.

This video highlights just how poorly Apple computers are built to tackle cooling. Just look at that terrible application of thermal paste and that cooler.

 

[Stephen.R]

Safari seems to be more consistent about being a RAM hog.

That.. doesn't sound right. Do you have any plugins like Flash or similar installed? Or, an ungodly number of tabs open?

 

[Zdigital2015]

If all you want is 1tb of storage and don’t care about speed / performance, run an external ssd. (I know. I’d rather have that be internal too and not hanging off the back of my machine). I would bet money, however, that your $150 won’t buy anywhere near the same level of performance as what Apple is using. Is Apple charging a premium? You bet— they're Still going to hit their margins. But the gap is not nearly as big as you might imagine once you look for comparable parts (Ie not just storage amount but also speed, etc).

Take the RAM for example. $1400 to upgrade to 64gb is crazy, right? Well, if you buy a kit aftermarket it’s still $1100 — and $300 might be nothing to sneeze at, but it’s evidence that, for what you’re getting, the price is not outrageous.

If a user wants a comparable external SSD that is going to run at or near the levels of the 256GB to 2TB internal SSDs, then the Samsung X5 TB3 drive should be their first purchase and it will cost them $399 for 500GB, $699 for 1TB or $1,399 on a 2TB model for that privilege. Hmm...$1,399 for a 2TB Samsung SSD sounds familiar to me. I wonder where I have seen that before?

As for DRAM, you are spot on, as a 64GB kit at OWC (macsales.com) runs $1079.99, which is really the only one I have been able to find so far. I am sure that prices will come down and settle in the $700-$900 range in the next 6-9 months.

Buying it all at once is quite expensive, but most people here are well served by either the i5/8GB/512GB SSD/1GbE BTO for $1299 or the same configuration with 16GB of Apple DRAM for $1499.

Anyone seriously considering buying the maxed out 64GB/2TB SSD/10GbE should be looking at an iMac Pro unless they have an incredibly special use case that demands a separate display and/or such a small computer. The rest are just trying to find something to complain about as they do whenever Apple releases new hardware.

 

[Stephen.R]

I think it's called choices - and we don't have one. We get all the CPU, and none of the GPU. I would go for Iris Plus in a heartbeat (eGPU is definitely not viable, I get that), offer it as an upgrade option. Just because YOU are happy doesn't mean that everyone is.

Choices are great, definitely.

The thing is - for those that do want more graphics processing in a mac, there is already choice. What there isn't, is a mac with high end processor options, without the associated 'high end' graphics option.