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

[Zdigital2015]

Obviously nothing less than a RTX 2080.

Obviously...although, we must concede that an eGFX 650 and a Vega 64 is going to run about $900 out the door and with a decent active Thunderbolt 3 cable in order to make sure you have some length to work with on a desktop and still get that full 40Gbps bandwidth.

I am curious to see if the RX590 ever materializes or the Vega nano. I can build a Radeon RX580 (Sapphire Pulse) with an eGFX 350 for around $450 separately or $429 bundled together by Sonnet Technology.
[doublepost=1541545805][/doublepost]

My response was in regards to thermal constraints ruling out dedicated GPU in the Mac Mini. It was not a price comparison. I simply showed what I put together in a similar sized box without thermal constraints, which happened to only cost $550. I put that little box together myself with a dedicated GPU and don't have thermal issues. So if Apple wanted to they can easily put a dedicated GPU in there.

A 128GB NVMe SSD is $29. I paid $20 for the 2.5". Samsung 970EVO is $90. Who needs Thunderbolt if there was a GPU in there? And yes I have experimented with eGPU on an Intel NUC7, which to my surprise worked with hackintosh.

And what you listed above is not a Mac Mini replacement as it's a good sized tower. I can build a box in my sleep, been doing it for years I just sold an mITX build in a 9" wide x 7" tall x 11" deep case with a full sized GTX1070 and i7-7700K in it. No thermal issue there either.

I never criticized Apple's pricing on the new Mini. It is not completely out of this world for not having to putz around with hackintoshing. My only criticism is the inability to add a 2.5" drive. Having dual physical drives in any desktop regardless of size is a must for me. I've also built even smaller PCs based on mini-STX sized motherboards, still with dual 2.5" drive bays.

Thunderbolt 3 serves many other purposes than for the eGPU. I have a SanDisk Extreme Portable SSD (USB-C Gen 2) with my 2016 MacBook Pro, which while not fast enough to test the boundaries of Gen 2's 10Gbps, I can always purchase a Samsung X5 Thunderbolt 3 SSD should I need that kind of speed for editing 4K video. I can add an eGPU, or more for rendering out video. I could purchase a PCIe expansion chassis and put a Universal Audio UAD-2 PCIe card, I can add one easily (I use an Apollo Twin Mark II right now). I can add 10Gbps Ethernet via a number of different adapters if I ever need that particular connection method. I can add a Dock for more USB 3.0 ports, an SD Card reader, eSATA, HDMI and/or DisplayPort. If I ever move to a Mirrorless camera that uses CFast or XQD cards I can add a reader for that and get the best performance there is for transfer/ingest. I can attach to a QNAP NAS and work in a group on 4K video or by myself. I can hook up a Thunderbolt 3 RAID for the same thing. I can literally scale up or down as necessary.

Again, Thunderbolt 3 makes the Mac mini and the MacBook Pros into Swiss Army Knives, but I get to choose the model knife I want and then change to a different model whenever I need to add different tools.

If those things are nothing you need then the Mac mini might not be for you, which is okay too.

 

[harriska2]

I guess I really should compare them by making it equal in that the Core i7/32GB DRAM/1TB SSD/10GbE would be the closer analog to the base iMac Pro and that BTO config would be $2,499.00, which is as you say, half the price of the base iMac Pro. You can get high quality third party DRAM and cut the cost down to $2149.00.

Outfitting the iMac Pro to match more closely (8-Core/64GB/2TB SSD/Vega 56 BTO), the iMac Pro would be $6,599.00, with the maxed out mini costing $4,199.00 which means the iMac Pro is 57% more expensive in the same relative configuration.

Well, I stand chastised thusly!!!
[doublepost=1541537365][/doublepost]

I am pretty sure that was the most ineloquent and ignorant thing I have seen posted here in quite a while, and I have seen some doozies.

Doesn’t the imac pro come with a $1400 monitor?

 

[Azeroth1]

Yeah... no... actually a lot of people really don’t like to tinker, and those people are Apple’s target market.

This debate has been going on for 30+ years. Nerds complained in the 80’s and 90’s and they wouldn’t buy Macs because they couldn’t be messed with as much as PCs, and then even more so after SJ came back and introduced the original iMac. Steve always dreamed of entirely closed systems that can’t be messed with. He fulfilled that with the iPad but still always wanted it for the Mac as well.

Apple’s interest in people who like to tinker is, and almost always has been, entirely zero. And with the possible exception of the cheese grater, the fact that past machines have allowed tinkering was a bonus side effect not a feature.

Far too many MR readers do not understand this one simple fact: yes, some people like to tinker but Apple’s target market are not among them.

Not sure but somehow I seem to have really irritated a few folks with my comments or come across as a fool. Sorry about that. I guess I never viewed it as such a black or white thing - all open or all closed. I do agree with your thoughts on Steve’s view - he did want all closed so no argument there.

I guess I just enjoy the option of being able to swap in a new drive or extra RAM down the road if I want to. Or the folks in the Pro Market with Cheesegrater MAC Pros as you mentioned who like being able to have new internal GPU options. In fact, isn’t a new modular Mac Pro in the works?

But yes, it’s not their target market. That being said, it wasn’t that long ago that they did allow some minor “tinkering” and yes, that was also during Steve’s reign. Its nice to be able to easily upgrade my 2012 Mac Mini, I think that’s a nice feature. Target market or not.

Also, I do own an iMac Pro and MacBook Pros. I never viewed it as so black and white across every product they now offer. But, just one opinion and not one in charge of a trillion dollar company, so there you go.

 

[Zdigital2015]

Doesn’t the imac pro come with a $1400 monitor?

True, and a Vega 56 GPU, but not everyone needs those to do what they need to do...I use a BenQ SW271 4K display that cost me nowhere near that much. A Dell P2715Q can be bought for $399.00.

For someone who does audio they might want a 21:9 monitor instead or even a 4:3 display depending on whether its stacking tracks or scrubbing tracks. The iMac Pro's display is great, but maybe not always the best solution for everyone.

 

[Sabelonada]

Also, I do own an iMac Pro and MacBook Pros. I never viewed it as so black and white across every product they now offer. But, just one opinion and not one in charge of a trillion dollar company, so there you go.

Well, for the past few days, Apple hasn't been a trillion dollar company. Damn it Tim!

 

[citysnaps]

I'm showing you EVIDENCE! Multiple examples of thermal throttling in iMacs, iMac Pros, Mac Minis and MacBooks and yet you're just hot air.

Nope. Still obfuscating. Look at the video I posted where the 2015 5K iMac was extensively tested under heavy load. And data presented in several tables. Which backs up my claim, and proves your claim that ALL Macs throttle, false.

I suspect you’re not an engineer and not familiar with rigorous test procedures and collecting numerical data. You are good at making stuff up, though.

 

[FelixDerKater]

Unboxing a Mac Pro 2018... When?

 

[theluggage]

I'd remind people, though, that $499 4-6 years ago is not the same purchasing power today.

You're not wrong in that $499 buys you less food and accommodation now than 6 years ago, but from 1980 to about 2015, the regular inflation that affects rent and loaves hasn't applied to computers and consumer electronics.

Put simply, In 1980 a Sinclair ZX80 in 1980 cost about £100. In 2018, a Raspberry Pi starter kit (with case, PSU etc) will also cost about £100. Relative to the tech standards of the times, those systems represent about the same point in the pecking-order (rock bottom, in this case). In absolute terms, of course, the Pi is a couple of orders of magnitude more powerful than the ZX80 and if you apply inflation its a quarter of the price... The original Apple Mac cost about $2500 in 1984 money and was pretty powerful at the time - $2500 will get you a very decent iMac setup today. The price of a half-decent (not necessarily Apple) computer system, with keyboard and display, has hovered around about £1000-£1500 (or £300-£500 for something a bit basic) for the last 4 decades. Thats kinda Captain Obvious - its also pretty awesome.

Its not just 80s nostalgia: the base Mac Mini stayed at $500 from 2005 to 2014 while the spec significantly improved. In terms of the computer market, the idea that a $500 Mac Mini today would offer a significant improvement over something that cost $500 4 years ago is perfectly consistent with the last 40 years of history. OK, the new Mini starts at 4 cores instead of 2 but, newsflash, thats because Intel don't bother with 2 core *desktop* "Core i" processors any more. Moreover its only an i3 because the i5 desktops start at 6-core. (If you find a 2-core i3 or a 4-core i5 its a mobile processor, which you'd normally expect to deliver less bangs-per-buck).

What's happening - and not just with Apple - is that development is slowing down, the market is saturated, sales are flat, or shrinking and PC makers are trying to keep their revenue growth up by raising prices and introducing planned obsolescence (e.g. non-upgradeable components). In the past, they haven't had to plan obsolescence because the power of hardware was doubling every 18 months and personal computers were becoming more and more popular.

Can you imagine how much business Apple have lost because probably the biggest step forward in personal computing power in the last decade - affordable SSDs - could be retro-fitted to 2010-era Macs in 10 minutes with a couple of screwdrivers?

P.S. Still rocking your 2011 MacBook Pro? Its now as old as the Apple II was when the first Mac came out... Wooo....

P.P.S. $499 may buy you less bread and rent than it did 6 years ago but that doesn't automatically mean that a $499 computer is now easier to afford: unless you're really, really lucky and your income has been keeping up with inflation, it means quite the opposite...

 

[mabok]

Here you go for those curious about the ram upgrade...

Tldr;
Yes, can upgrade your ram.
But, they built a cage/wall of the ram. So only apple service can install for you.

Thanks Apple.
Ram-gate. Pro-gate.

Not sure how’s Apple terms when using 3rd party ram to swap/upgrade if we were to bring to Apple service for installation. Anyone knows?

 

[theluggage]

I would buy third party DRAM and save the $300 bucks off the price there.

Waiting for the inevitable iFixit teardown to see how easy that really is - the photos on the Apple website showing the RAM slots conveniently omit the heatsink/fan assembly... hate to have to remove that on a brand spanking new machine.

 

[petsounds]

Here you go for those curious about the ram upgrade...

Tldr;
Yes, can upgrade your ram.
But, they built a cage/wall of the ram. So only apple service can install for you.

Thanks Apple.
Ram-gate. Pro-gate.

Not sure how’s Apple terms when using 3rd party ram to swap/upgrade if we were to bring to Apple service for installation. Anyone knows?

Yeah, this looks like a real pain. Seems to me that Apple is throwing 3rd party Mac repairers a bone here by making RAM intentionally difficult to access; I noticed recently on Apple's site when looking for a Genius appointment that they now include 3rd party repairers in search results. Of course they'd prefer you buy Apple RAM and install it at an Apple Store, but they probably also know that most people buying a Mini are smart enough not to do that.

 

[GoodWheaties]

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.

The CPU in these new Mac Mini’s are 65W not 35W. Also Apple has always prioritized staying quiet over staying cool. I would suggest a program like Temperature Gauge Pro and setting up boundaries to keep it under say 75-80C. I don’t even notice the sound until the fan speed gets to about 80% on my iMac.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Here you go for those curious about the ram upgrade...

Tldr;
Yes, can upgrade your ram.
But, they built a cage/wall of the ram. So only apple service can install for you.

Thanks Apple.
Ram-gate. Pro-gate.

Not sure how’s Apple terms when using 3rd party ram to swap/upgrade if we were to bring to Apple service for installation. Anyone knows?

I wouldn’t rely on YouTubers for my information. The RAM upgrade is “fairly simple” and “relatively easy” according to AppleInsider. Thanks Apple!

Apple may require you to swap the original RAM back before service, since it might be your RAM causing the problem, and they don’t want to be responsible for keeping track of your parts.

 

[citysnaps]

That's not innovation, that is expected evolution of a four year old product incorporating updates from other recent Macs. Only thing not a direct upgrade is that it uses a desktop class processor.

Well, then...maybe you can put on your thinking cap and express what you believe true innovation in a compact desktop computer might be. Go for it, be brave!

Are there *any* compact high performance headless/desktop computers out there, NUCs, etc that showcase true innovation, meeting your criteria? How about just matching the Mini's flexible and high-performance I/O, cpu benchmarks, etc in a compact form factor?

 

[Asarien]

Where is a $499/$599 configuration for the casual users and Windows switchers??

Agreed. That was the whole marketing angle when Mac minis originally debuted.

 

[gavroche]

You're not wrong in that $499 buys you less food and accommodation now than 6 years ago, but from 1980 to about 2015, the regular inflation that affects rent and loaves hasn't applied to computers and consumer electronics.

Put simply, In 1980 a Sinclair ZX80 in 1980 cost about £100. In 2018, a Raspberry Pi starter kit (with case, PSU etc) will also cost about £100. Relative to the tech standards of the times, those systems represent about the same point in the pecking-order (rock bottom, in this case). In absolute terms, of course, the Pi is a couple of orders of magnitude more powerful than the ZX80 and if you apply inflation its a quarter of the price... The original Apple Mac cost about $2500 in 1984 money and was pretty powerful at the time - $2500 will get you a very decent iMac setup today. The price of a half-decent (not necessarily Apple) computer system, with keyboard and display, has hovered around about £1000-£1500 (or £300-£500 for something a bit basic) for the last 4 decades. Thats kinda Captain Obvious - its also pretty awesome.

Its not just 80s nostalgia: the base Mac Mini stayed at $500 from 2005 to 2014 while the spec significantly improved. In terms of the computer market, the idea that a $500 Mac Mini today would offer a significant improvement over something that cost $500 4 years ago is perfectly consistent with the last 40 years of history. OK, the new Mini starts at 4 cores instead of 2 but, newsflash, thats because Intel don't bother with 2 core *desktop* "Core i" processors any more. Moreover its only an i3 because the i5 desktops start at 6-core. (If you find a 2-core i3 or a 4-core i5 its a mobile processor, which you'd normally expect to deliver less bangs-per-buck).

What's happening - and not just with Apple - is that development is slowing down, the market is saturated, sales are flat, or shrinking and PC makers are trying to keep their revenue growth up by raising prices and introducing planned obsolescence (e.g. non-upgradeable components). In the past, they haven't had to plan obsolescence because the power of hardware was doubling every 18 months and personal computers were becoming more and more popular.

Can you imagine how much business Apple have lost because probably the biggest step forward in personal computing power in the last decade - affordable SSDs - could be retro-fitted to 2010-era Macs in 10 minutes with a couple of screwdrivers?

P.S. Still rocking your 2011 MacBook Pro? Its now as old as the Apple II was when the first Mac came out... Wooo....

P.P.S. $499 may buy you less bread and rent than it did 6 years ago but that doesn't automatically mean that a $499 computer is now easier to afford: unless you're really, really lucky and your income has been keeping up with inflation, it means quite the opposite...

Well.... you have a point for the most part. Computers, and technology, doesn’t follow normal inflation patterns. This is because technology gets cheaper as it gets older. But please remember, Apple is not your typical computer company. What you said was more true of a company like Dell, which is just selling a commodity. Apple is different, because they are also maintaining in developing the operating system. What is your primary cost factor for developing operating system? It’s labor. It’s paying the software guys to write code. That cost is represented in salary. And I just remember seeing an article talking about how many employees Apple has. All their salaries are going up every year. It’s getting more costly for them every year. As opposed to a company like Dell that has a sales force and administration. Those salaries are a lot less than the code writers. So I would stand behind my point that for a company like Apple, if the cost of the machines stays the same year over year, their profit margin does indeed go down.

 

[BaracksPhallusPalace]

128GB SSD in 2018 is ***** pathetic. Richest company in the world can't work in a 256GB SSD into the entry level machine... They intentionally push this fool's gold rubbish to get people to pay more for the exorbitant upgrade prices. It's really disingenuous and why I'm not buying the i3 machine when I otherwise would have if it had an acceptable amount of storage.

 

[iosuser]

Obviously...although, we must concede that an eGFX 650 and a Vega 64 is going to run about $900 out the door and with a decent active Thunderbolt 3 cable in order to make sure you have some length to work with on a desktop and still get that full 40Gbps bandwidth.

I am curious to see if the RX590 ever materializes or the Vega nano. I can build a Radeon RX580 (Sapphire Pulse) with an eGFX 350 for around $450 separately or $429 bundled together by Sonnet Technology.
[doublepost=1541545805][/doublepost]

Thunderbolt 3 serves many other purposes than for the eGPU. I have a SanDisk Extreme Portable SSD (USB-C Gen 2) with my 2016 MacBook Pro, which while not fast enough to test the boundaries of Gen 2's 10Gbps, I can always purchase a Samsung X5 Thunderbolt 3 SSD should I need that kind of speed for editing 4K video. I can add an eGPU, or more for rendering out video. I could purchase a PCIe expansion chassis and put a Universal Audio UAD-2 PCIe card, I can add one easily (I use an Apollo Twin Mark II right now). I can add 10Gbps Ethernet via a number of different adapters if I ever need that particular connection method. I can add a Dock for more USB 3.0 ports, an SD Card reader, eSATA, HDMI and/or DisplayPort. If I ever move to a Mirrorless camera that uses CFast or XQD cards I can add a reader for that and get the best performance there is for transfer/ingest. I can attach to a QNAP NAS and work in a group on 4K video or by myself. I can hook up a Thunderbolt 3 RAID for the same thing. I can literally scale up or down as necessary.

Again, Thunderbolt 3 makes the Mac mini and the MacBook Pros into Swiss Army Knives, but I get to choose the model knife I want and then change to a different model whenever I need to add different tools.

If those things are nothing you need then the Mac mini might not be for you, which is okay too.

My need from a Mac is very simple - a more current processor than Haswell, dual physical drives internally, 8GB even if it was soldered. Done. But it seems that’s too much to ask.
[doublepost=1541552052][/doublepost]

128GB SSD in 2018 is ***** pathetic. Richest company in the world can't work in a 256GB SSD into the entry level machine... They intentionally push this fool's gold rubbish to get people to pay more for the exorbitant upgrade prices. It's really disingenuous and why I'm not buying the i3 machine when I otherwise would have if it had an acceptable amount of storage.

I’m with you there. Had it included 256GB as base I’d buy one.

 

[PickUrPoison]

128GB SSD in 2018 is ***** pathetic. Richest company in the world can't work in a 256GB SSD into the entry level machine... They intentionally push this fool's gold rubbish to get people to pay more for the exorbitant upgrade prices. It's really disingenuous and why I'm not buying the i3 machine when I otherwise would have if it had an acceptable amount of storage.

Wrong. Apple will sell plenty of the 128GB SSD entry level model. Why force everyone to buy a $999 256GB SKU if they don’t need all of that internal storage?

The SSD and RAM upgrades are the same prices as the MacBook Pro, iMac, Mac Pro, etc. Did you expect something different, and if so, why?

Feel free to buy whatever best fits your requirements, but for many, 128GB is plenty.

 

[Banglazed]

Apple Press is in

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/11/macbook-air-and-mac-mini-the-reviews-are-in/

 

[theluggage]

Well, then...maybe you can put on your thinking cap and express what you believe true innovation in a compact desktop computer might be. Go for it, be brave!

ARM/A12 - seriously cool and totally wasted in iPhones and iPads for turning people into animated poo emojis. Time to put an ARM in a proper computer (again - ARM started on the desktop, time to come back).

Its pretty clear that the the iPad and iPhone have been getting the love recently with ridiculous amounts of processing power being squeezed into tiny passively-cooled devices. What could that tech do in a Mini-sized box with a decent heat-sink? The sooner Apple release an ARM-based Mac, the sooner the software people need will be re-compiled for ARM. Quite a few problems with Apple's current Mac range are connected with the arcana of Intel's processor range and release cycle.

C'mon - 16 core ARM Mac Mini the size of an Apple TV...
[doublepost=1541553956][/doublepost]

What is your primary cost factor for developing operating system? It’s labor. It’s paying the software guys to write code.

...but that doesn't explain why its only in the last few years that Apple prices have started to rise so steeply. Apple stuff has always been expensive, but its been the 2016 MacBook Pro and 2017 iPhone 8/X releases where we've seen a sudden jump and the shelving of cheaper options. Apple have been maintaining their own software platform since forever - and both MacOS and iOS are fairly stable now, c.f. 2000-2010 when they were being developed intensively.

Apple's results in the last two quarters have shown substantial revenue increases on the basis of fairly stagnant sales.

Meanwhile, Dell, HP et. al. have also been putting up prices too, and introducing "premium" ranges at Apple-like prices, while Microsoft's Surface range makes Apple look affordable (and don't tell me that they're subsidising Windows development from Surface sales when they get a slice of every Windows PC sold anywhere). Samsung et. al. have been pushing up the price of their phones too - their flagship models are firmly in iPhone territory now.

 

[Miat]

I was in the same boat. I didn't realize how much value there was in not having to worry about an officially supported OS/computer. I didn't mind a decade ago, but I don't have time to mess around with (fun) things like that. Any time missed with family/hobbies on a supporting a computer is just not worth it to me anymore.

If I was 30 years younger I would be happily Hacking away. But too old, time is too precious, etc.

You’re speaking blasphemy to even think the cult of Ive would allow an extra 5-10mm to allow room for a dGPU!!!

Then it would not fit in existing racks in server farms that are specifically set up to use Minis. Modifying those racks for hundreds or thousands of Minis is unlikely to be cheap.

 

[Glockworkorange]

the 128G starting storage is not forgivable.

I was toying with picking up the low end model as an office computer to hook up 2 4K displays. I'd need at least 256 and I'm willing to pay $799 for that.

I should have known they'd start the f-cker off at 128 GB.

 

[craig1410]

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.

Agree with your comments, but also it’s down to PCI-e lanes where Apple has chosen to allocate them to expansion via TB3 rather than tie them down to an internal dGPU.

Early reports suggest that the Mac mini has two independent 40Gbps TB3 channels, presumably shared between the 4 physical connectors. PCI-e lanes are somewhat restricted in domestic Intel CPUs so you can’t have your proverbial cake and eat it. As an eGPU users myself (on a 2016 MBP) I would say keeping expansion options open is the better long term play.

 

[doctor-don]

I don't know about the SSD pricing, since I don't know all the specs (which matter a LOT!); but when it comes to the RAM, Apple is really NOT gouging.

16GB of SODIMM 2666 DDR4 RAM from Crucial is $142. Apple charges $200. Yes, there's a markup; but it's not a huge one.
[doublepost=1541515450][/doublepost]
If the attacker has physical access, and you are working on state secrets, you might have something to worry about.

Apple is charging 40% more for that RAM, so that is a huge markup - maybe not like auto repair shops that double (100% markup) the price of a part bought at an auto parts store.