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

[Zdigital2015]

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.

In order to make a consumer CPU with more PCIe lanes, I believe Intel has to increase the number of pins for the socket, so I except them to continue to be stingy. Again, I am curious as to which Intel PCH Apple used and if the T2 hooks into the CPU via the other x8 lanes left over from the TB3 controllers.

I keep saying it’s like having a Swiss Army Knife, but after that it just kind of gets ugly.

Beware that any reasoning or logic around this subject will be met with a big helping of derision and ridicule.

 

[Tech198]

I don't reckon a new design is needed..

In order to make a consumer CPU with more PCIe lanes, I believe Intel has to increase the number of pins for the socket, so I except them to continue to be stingy. Again, I am curious as to which Intel PCH Apple used and if the T2 hooks into the CPU via the other x8 lanes left over from the TB3 controllers.

I keep saying it’s like having a Swiss Army Knife, but after that it just kind of gets ugly.

Beware that any reasoning or logic around this subject will be met with a big helping of derision and ridicule.

If/and when Apple goes to ARM, Apple can do what it wants...

Report said "Mac's" no one said specially if it was just laptops, so

 

[DevNull0]

No more so than the mental gymnastics involved to assume you know every use-case for a computer.

Right, because a computer with no possibility of a GPU covers more use-cases than a computer with a slot for optional GPU daughter boards. Like I said, mind-blowing logic there.

 

[JRobinsonJr]

And it's a market I don't think Apple should be going after. In business school parlance they called it "racing to the bottom." A company can choose to differentiate in different ways. One way is by price, and trying to underprice their competitors. One is by quality of product... offering something their competitors cannot offer. There are plenty of computer makers making rock-bottom price computers. But guess what, they’re making next to nothing in profit. I would personally much rather see them go after market share that’s more profitable, and allow them to do well so I can be confident that they’ll still exist five years from now, 10 years from now, 20 years from now. As a long-term ecosystem, I wanted to know they will still be there.

You make a good point in the general market, but I see a slightly different perspective. For those users who really do just need an entry-level computing device, there is still an upside. If they're even considering a Mac they almost certainly have an iPhone. The seamless integration of these technologies - photos, iMessages, iCloud Drive, etc. - MAY be sufficiently beneficial to keep those users buying Apple. Once you've got all your computing devices working together, I believe it becomes far more difficult to switch to Android. The functionality becomes another lock-in with Apple.

I'm happy to be wrong and this is just hypothesizing anyway.
[doublepost=1541561039][/doublepost]

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.

One item I haven't seen mentioned here is the higher-tier starting point.

With the $799 base, you need to add $200 to get the 256GB SSD. Total price $999
With the $1099 base, you get a 6 core CPU rather than 4 cores... PLUS it starts at 256GB.

IMO that's a better deal.

 

[Zdigital2015]

If that were at all relevant, the mini would have had a socketed GPU daughterboard of some sort. An external GPU box on a desktop is unforgivable.

Apple leaving out a GPU does not make a better computer than including a GPU. The mental gymnastics involved to always make Apple's actions seem good and generous are mind-blowing.

A socketed GPU daughterboard? In a Mac mini? Something that was done with the iMac using MXM modules and never spawned any upgrade path whatsoever for those owners. That is an absolutely terrible idea.

Why is an external GPU unforgivable? If I purchase a Mac mini, I can add an eGPU if and when I find that I actually need one. I then have the choice of what I want and how much I want to spend. The most likely candidate for a dGPU in the mini would have an x8 connection to the CPU and the likelihood of getting anything better than a Radeon Pro 560X is slim to none. A GPU that has been lambasted by many on this forum as being “weak sauce”.

Apple is not being generous, but they are being practical. You are not...

 

[saulinpa]

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?

Design, engineering and innovation are different things. Doing the same old thing faster and adding features that have been requested years ago is great but not innovative. That doesn't take anything away from the new mini being good.

 

[falainber]

Intel is cutting edge? Really? Seriously? Carrying around the cruft of x86 compatibility like an albatross around their necks. Their greatest asset is also their greatest burden. It is also the stick that they beat Microsoft to death with in order to keep Windows from moving to something that would strangle Intel's profit to death. How I wish Microsoft had some courage right about now.

As for real cutting edge, Apple is shipping a 7nm SoC today, not promising 10nm for holiday 2019, maybe. AMD just announced their 7nm node today, along with Zen 2, EPYC Rome w/PCIe 4.0 and 7nm Vega Instinct GPUs while Intel continues to struggle over 10nm two years after it was promised, with all indications that it may actually never see the light of day, the Core i3-8121U not withstanding.

The same Intel that panicked after the debut and success of AMD's Ryzen and was forced to move up their timetable for adding cores to their consumer CPUs because the performance gains from new microarchitectures are now practically non-existent.

The same Intel that had to be brow beaten by Steve Jobs to really start considering performance per watt which lead to a mini-Renaissance for Intel and benefitted all personal computer users.

The same Intel that made its own GPU engineers lobby for space on the die in order to give us the Iris Pro Graphics 5200, an integrated GPU that could hold its own against the GeForce GT650M, a discrete GPU - https://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested - and then squandered that talent while it chases NVIDIA trying to keep them away from its juicy Enterprise customers.

The same Intel who with a seemingly endless portfolio of Xeon CPUs seems to be losing mindshare to AMD's EPYC.

The same Intel that is too stubborn to integrate an LPDDR4/x memory controller on its 14nm CPUs (at least mobile) leaving PC OEMs to use DDR4 and Apple twisting in the wind so much so that they had to relent and allow DDR4 on the 15" MacBook Pro motherboard to try and appease customers while Intel blew through their 10nm promises.

None of that sounds cutting edge to me, but I digress.

As for GPUs, you can have your NVIDIA GPUs...I dislike NVIDIA as a company and although I empathize with others who must use them day to day because of CUDA, that is as far as it goes for me. The 20x0-Series offers a modest increase (~20%) in performance over the 10x0-Series GPUs and that is great, but until developers embrace ray-tracing technology, it is all still a work in progress and leadership is subject to change hands on any given day.

Dude, you have unhealthy hate for Intel. You can cry all you want but this won't change the fact that Intel has the best CPUs for laptops and desktops right now (and for a long time). Also, 7nm, 10nm etc. are just process names. They have very little to do with process merits. Intel had issues with their process indeed but their "10nm" process has higher density than TSMCs "7nm" process and this explains to some extent the difficulties that they are having.

 

[Stephen.R]

that hex-core i5/i7 jobbie is going to be perfect for some things, like music and development (shame about the price of the 32GB RAM upgrade...) - as long as that iGPU has enough legs to run the Mojave UI smoothly.

I think this is exactly it. While you can add an eGPU (or multiple, I guess?) and start comparing it to the other desktop Macs, there's a lot of uses where this will give you better bang-for-buck than say, a MBP, iMac or iMac Pro because you aren't paying for something you're not using.

To me, the launch showing things like the Mac Mini's colo'd, etc should have made it clear they're targeting a different market, certainly compared to the immediate previous generation, and arguably most previous generations.

Sure, the memory upgrades aren't fantastically cheap, but they're not that much more than the kits from say OWC, and honestly thats pretty much irrelevant to me. If it's considered non-user-upgradable I may as well just get it from the start.

I use my computers to make money, and I won't replace it for a while (last laptop lasted 7 years).
[doublepost=1541567409][/doublepost]

Right, because a computer with no possibility of a GPU covers more use-cases than a computer with a slot for optional GPU daughter boards. Like I said, mind-blowing logic there.

If you want to consider things that would have never happened, I want to ask why it doesn't include a frothy milk attachment for cappuccino.

 

[neomorpheus]

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.

All that is true, but you missed the part of this thing costing 300 bucks more just because.

Those 300 more wouldn’t hurt as much if a more powerful GPU was also included.

 

[Stephen.R]

you missed the part of this thing costing 300 bucks more just because

You missed the part where “this thing” is aimed a different segment of the market than you think it is.

Also, adding a discrete gpu would add more cost, so it’d be $500 or $600 more, but those of us who’ve been begging for a pro-ish machine without a crazy gpu would be stuck buying stuff we don’t need, again.

There are plenty of macs with discrete/dedicated GPUs, if that’s what you want.

 

[yoak]

For those 300 at least you get a really fast SSD instead of an old spinning one

 

[legacyb4]

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.

Factor in time to order, time for installation, time for possible return/re-installation; on a work computer, frankly it's not worth my time to deal with that...

 

[Detnator]

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.

What's wrong with the eGPU choice??

Why shouldn't they maximize CPU performance internally (something you can't add externally) and let us choose whatever GPU we want externally? That seems like a much more sensible decision than crippling both to fit them internally.

Sure, make a bigger Mac that can hold both? Imagine what that would be like? I'm guessing it'll be a lot like the upcoming Mac Pro. Or you even have the choice of one with a grea GPU and the best display on the market built in -- that's called iMac or iMac Pro (depending on what other choices you might like to make). But if a display is external why shouldn't the GPU be external with it?

But some people just like to whine no matter what.
[doublepost=1541575021][/doublepost]

Totally overpriced for something that will thermal throttle and only has an intergrated GPU. I got an i9 9900k, 64gb RAM 2 SSDs, a 1080ti in a custom rig all for £1800

2.5 - 3 GB/s NVMe SSDs? If not, then shut up and come back when you're willing to do a fair comparison.

 

[Stephen.R]

But if a display is external why shouldn't the GPU be external with it?

This is actually a good reminder, there was some talk a while back about the possibility that Apple's new monitor may include its own GPU and just connect via TB3 as a PCIe device.

 

[Detnator]

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.

Fair response.

When I usually react here on MR it's not for people having their own opinions. My beef is with people extrapolating their narrow opinions out to everyone else: Claims like "nobody..." and "everyone..." and "people do..." and "people don't...", and then using those claims to suggest Apple has lost its way etc, when nearly every one of those claims express the desires and opinions of nerds and MR readers, but not Apple's target market at all.

Apple doesn't make products for us. Apple makes products for the millions of people who are very happy with their Apple products, and have actual lives to live and real work to do, that these products help serve - people who appreciate the experience, and don't give a rats ass about the specs, upgradeability, and all the other stuff this small group of people here complain about. And that's why they're a trillion $ company. We are not Apple's target market, and rightly so.

If you came across a fool, or whatever, it was because you were making claims like that. Your reply now is a lot more open minded and understanding, so respect to you for that.
[doublepost=1541577729][/doublepost]

Apple has become tone deaf to the Mac community. We wanted a BUDGET computer, not including graphics card is fine IF the price was not 80% of the way towards a VR gaming rig. Because right now it is a crippled desktop machine with no dedicated graphics card costing $300 USD more than last ye....sorry, 2014 model. Which wasn't faster on some tests than the 2012 model.

We are getting less relative bang for buck than we were 4-6 years ago. These deltas get worse every release (I use 'release' as 'year' isn't really applicable to the Apple line up any more)

Wrong.

ALL the people on this Forum and others INCESSANTLY whined about for the past few YEARS is "Apple has ABANDONED the PRO USERS.

Not a DAMNED word about "We want a BUDGET computer!" Not ONE.

Give it a rest, willya?!?

Exactly. Everyone's been complaining for years that Apple refused to make a decent "headless iMac" (even under Steve) and that the Mac Mini didn't qualify because it was so under powered. Now they've delivered almost exactly that and OMG now it's not budget enough.

For the love of...
[doublepost=1541578186][/doublepost]Everyone complaining about this not being $499 any more... and same with the MBA not being $999 any more... Two points:

1. Ever heard of inflation? $499 X years ago is a lot more money than $499 now. In 1991, the entry level mac then was the Mac Classic. It was something around the $1000 mark. This machine is peanuts compared to that. Sure, the last Mac Mini was $499 but its specs were significantly less than this thing. Compare this new Mac Mini to other products, with all similar specs, and it's priced very reasonably. (Same thing everyone said about the iMac Pro... omg it's $5K. But do a real comparison and omg it's actually cheaper than the competition).

2. NVMe drives alone are up to 7x the speed of SATA SSDs and around 30x the speed of old HDDs. This isn't just incremental performance improvements. This is huge. And justifiably, the prices are significant to go with it.

Maybe you could argue that Apple should offer a SATA HDD option for less, but then look at how many people are complaining that the iMac still coming with a SATA HDD in the base model is ridiculous in 2018.

For f's sake... Some people are never happy. You just want everything for nothing. Grow up and come into the real world.

 

[gpat]

2. NVMe drives alone are up to 7x the speed of SATA SSDs and around 30x the speed of old HDDs. This isn't just incremental performance improvements. This is huge. And justifiably, the prices are significant to go with it.

Maybe you could argue that Apple should offer a SATA HDD option for less, but then look at how many people are complaining that the iMac still coming with a SATA HDD in the base model is ridiculous in 2018.
.

Come on. NVMe drives are much cheaper than Apple prices and ubiquitous nowadays. It's not some kind of alien technology only used by Apple.
A Samsung 970 Pro 1TB is top of the line and $393 on NewEgg. Apple pricing? $800, plus the 128GB default drive is removed, plus if it fails outside warranty you throw away your whole computer or are forced to boot off an external drive for eternity, plus if some other component of your computer fails, you can't take out your drive for data retrieving. SAD.

It honestly baffles me how much mirror-climbing fanboys are willing to do, only to justify their purchase, when you can just open any e-commerce and do the math for the exact same components.

 

[Detnator]

Come on. NVMe drives are much cheaper than Apple prices and ubiquitous nowadays. It's not some kind of alien technology only used by Apple.
A Samsung 970 Pro 1TB is top of the line and $393 on NewEgg. Apple pricing? $800, plus the 128GB default drive is removed, plus if it fails outside warranty you throw away your whole computer or are forced to boot off an external drive for eternity, plus if some other component of your computer fails, you can't take out your drive for data retrieving. SAD.

It honestly baffles me how much mirror-climbing fanboys are willing to do, only to justify their purchase, when you can just open any e-commerce and do the math for the exact same components.

Sigh...

Well, firstly I was pointing out how ridiculous are the people saying “I can buy another 1TB for $150” and trying to make that sound like a fair comparison. It’s not. But that said...

Actually, It’s not the same component. It’s proprietary. And that’s because it’s more than just the same NVMe chips that Samsung has.

Buy a car’s worth of car parts... do you have a car?

I’m not a fanboy. Apple screw a lot of stuff up and I hate some of the decisions they make. A lot of Apple stuff sucks. But I stick with them, and to some degree defend them, because 1. their position on privacy and security is unique in this industry, and 2. their stuff generally sucks a whole lot less than the alternatives. Everyone complaining about Apple’s prices just don’t get it.

Apple doesn’t just sell a bunch of components screwed together. Apple sells a package and an experience. That experience is a large part of why we’re all sitting here arguing about Apple’s stuff in the first place instead of just going and buying PCs with Windows. Otherwise why do you care?

macOS isn’t just better than Windows because it’s better software. It’s also better because of how much more (comparitively) smoothly and better it runs on Mac hardware. And that’s because Mac hardware isn’t just a bunch of parts thrown together. It’s a whole pile of incredible engineering and R&D.

When you pay $800 for that $400 drive you’re paying for more than just the part. You’re paying for it to integrate correctly with everything else in there (eg. the T2 that helps contribute to that security and privacy I mentioned) - and the software. Something that happens a whole lot less well on PCs than it does on Macs.

If you don’t understand or appreciate that then why are you here arguing about Apple’s products in the first place? Go buy a PC for half the price and enjoy that experience and leave us Apple “fanboys” on our Apple related site in peace. Otherwise please acknowlege the difference between a bunch of parts and a carefully engineered package and experience. And the costs involved in making that work a whole lot less sucky than the alternatives.

 

[gpat]

Sigh...

Well, firstly I was pointing out how ridiculous are the people saying “I can buy another 1TB for $150” and trying to make that sound like a fair comparison. It’s not. But that said...

Actually, It’s not the same component. It’s proprietary. And that’s because it’s more than just the same NVMe chips that Samsung has.

Buy a car’s worth of car parts... do you have a car?

I’m not a fanboy. Apple screw a lot of stuff up and I hate some of the decisions they make. A lot of Apple stuff sucks. But I stick with them, and to some degree defend them, because 1. their position on privacy and security is unique in this industry, and 2. their stuff generally sucks a whole lot less than the alternatives. Everyone complaining about Apple’s prices just don’t get it.

Apple doesn’t just sell a bunch of components screwed together. Apple sells a package and an experience. That experience is a large part of why we’re all sitting here arguing about Apple’s stuff in the first place instead of just going and buying PCs with Windows. Otherwise why do you care?

macOS isn’t just better than Windows because it’s better software. It’s also better because of how much more (comparitively) smoothly and better it runs on Mac hardware. And that’s because Mac hardware isn’t just a bunch of parts thrown together. It’s a whole pile of incredible engineering and R&D.

When you pay $800 for that $400 drive you’re paying for more than just the part. You’re paying for it to integrate correctly with everything else in there (eg. the T2 that helps contribute to that security and privacy I mentioned) - and the software. Something that happens a whole lot less well on PCs than it does on Macs.

If you don’t understand or appreciate that then why are you here arguing about Apple’s products in the first place? Go buy a PC for half the price and enjoy that experience and leave us Apple “fanboys” on our Apple related site in peace. Otherwise please acknowlege the difference between a bunch of parts and a carefully engineered package and experience. And the costs involved in making that work a whole lot less sucky than the alternatives.

First of all, I'm positive that a car’s worth of car parts would cost me much more than the car itself fresh from the dealer.
Second, this has been a problem since 2006 at least, when Apple was going with crappy 2GB worth of RAM and 5400rpm hard drives on basic plastic Macbooks and low-end Pros when you could get 8GB for $50 (2011 price when I bought my Sandy Bridge MBP). But you could just get a discounted base model and max out everything in 30 minutes ASAP or whenever you felt the need to.
Third, I'm aware that there is some kind of upside to this, mainly the privacy efforts with the T2 chip, non even miniaturization since a) this is a desktop computer and b) NVMe drives are the same size anyway, same interface but soldered.
But it's all done with flat-out malice in order to gouge more for the product ASAP.

There is a 128GB non-upgradeable model out there. In 2019 (almost). Who does it serve? You know as well as I do that everybody spending $799 for that is going to rely on a much slower external drive at some point. That's going to become technological trash in much less time than the possible time for the rest of the hardware.
Also if you need 512+GB you're forced to buy from Apple as a BTO option. This is a huge deal for a lot of people since it cuts out off 3rd party discounts from a significant audience.
That, my friend, is called greed.

 

[Stephen.R]

You know as well as I do that everybody spending $799 for that is going to rely on a much slower external drive at some point

It's entirely possible it's suited to build servers, render farms, etc. where you don't need much local storage, and/or use things like a SAN or DAS array with RAID protection.

Even for basic users (who I don't think the Mini is really targeted at anyway) - having your OS and Apps on a stinking fast SSD but your photos or itunes or whatever on a slower external drive will still give you a fast computer.

 

[gpat]

It's entirely possible it's suited to build servers, render farms, etc. where you don't need much local storage, and/or use things like a SAN or DAS array with RAID protection.

Even for basic users (who I don't think the Mini is really targeted at anyway) - having your OS and Apps on a stinking fast SSD but your photos or itunes or whatever on a slower external drive will still give you a fast computer.

I wasn't aware that render farms managers used to walk in Apple stores with the truck parked outside to load hundreds of 128GB base model Mac Minis.
If there is such a niche for that, it shouldn't even be on the consumer price list. Kinda like old XServe units with no GPU (not even integrated. They existed), or old eMacs without any kind of optical drive that used to be sold to schools only.
That's the base model of their consumer product. A lot of misguided people are going to buy that and regret it. Same as old 8GB and 16GB iPhone 5c/6s/whatever units.

 

[Stephen.R]

If there is such a niche for that, it shouldn't even be on the consumer price list.

Why put 10GbE on the consumer price list then? Why have the iMac Pro on the consumer price list?

Screw it. All Pro products are now a secret. You have to know about them already to be able to order them, like those over hyped American burger joints with 'secret menus'.

Kinda like old XServe units with no GPU (not even integrated. They existed),

You mean the G4 cluster node, or every single G5 Xserve? Yeah, they existed. Doesn't mean they're a 'secret' product.

That's the base model of their consumer product.

I'm still not sure why you believe the Mac Mini is at all targeted at "consumers" now.

A lot of misguided people are going to buy that and regret it. Same as old 8GB and 16GB iPhone 5c/6s/whatever units.

And still more misguided people will think they know what's best for other people.

If 128GB isn't enough for you, don't buy it with that. It's that simple. It's not enough for me either, so I'm not buying that spec either. That doesn't preclude me from accepting that people have different requirements.


No matter what product is released, it's "wrong" somehow for a part of this 'community'.

 

[Glockworkorange]

You make a good point in the general market, but I see a slightly different perspective. For those users who really do just need an entry-level computing device, there is still an upside. If they're even considering a Mac they almost certainly have an iPhone. The seamless integration of these technologies - photos, iMessages, iCloud Drive, etc. - MAY be sufficiently beneficial to keep those users buying Apple. Once you've got all your computing devices working together, I believe it becomes far more difficult to switch to Android. The functionality becomes another lock-in with Apple.

I'm happy to be wrong and this is just hypothesizing anyway.
[doublepost=1541561039][/doublepost]

One item I haven't seen mentioned here is the higher-tier starting point.

With the $799 base, you need to add $200 to get the 256GB SSD. Total price $999
With the $1099 base, you get a 6 core CPU rather than 4 cores... PLUS it starts at 256GB.

IMO that's a better deal.

I didn’t think of that, but you’re correct.

 

[TomOSeven]

I was considering this, but I'm hesitant.

If I JUST upgrade the SSD, I'm paying a thousand bucks.

Compare that to a base, 256 GB SSD 5k iMac from 20017.

The RAM is more accessible, point iMac. The CPU should be about the same, it's a wash. The SSD is the same size, another wash. Now, the iMac comes with a dedicated GPU. RX570 isn't great, but it's good enough that I wouldn't need an eGPU. I wouldn't need to buy external speakers. I would get a 5k screen that probably looks a fair bit better than my 27" 1440p screen. And selling the peripherals, the price difference between iMac and Mac Mini is 'only' 800 bucks.

 

[StellarVixen]

Compare that to a base, 256 GB SSD 5k iMac from 20017.

iMac from 20017 will probably have petabytes upon petabytes of RAM, let alone SSD.

 

[tubular]

I'm not bothered by the lack of an option for an internal discrete GPU, partly because it means I can spread out the cost *and* the decision-making time. So it may be that I spring for an eGPU at some point; on the other hand, I may decide to move certain graphics-intensive development tasks to my gaming tower, into which I've stuck an SSD for an Ubuntu environment. The thing is, I don't need to decide this right now. I can wait and see what the eGPU market looks like six months from now or whatever. I can use my other box -- the one with the graphics card -- in the interim for that stuff.

I like the idea that in an eGPU the big heat generator, the graphics card, is not heating up the rest of my box and putting that much more load on the cooling of everything that *isn't* the graphics card. And as an external gizmo, there's an upgrade path (albeit apparently without NVidia).

So I'll max the CPU and min the memory. The only decision I have left to make on the new Mac mini is the SSD. A lot of the discussion here is a bit -- oh what's that cliche about comparing disparate kinds of fruit. There are three styles of SSD in play here:

• internal NVMe SSD, the fastest but also the most expensive
• external but NVMe-based SSD, which is still sorta in the build-your-own phase from what I can tell, and I'd like to know more about
  
• external SATA-based SSD, the cheapest but slowest of the three because there's no parallelism

This one I do need to figure out up front. Because I'm not doing video, 256GB interal up front is probably sufficient for the OS and my applications, with some room left for the most important data. The rest of the data can then go on slower external storage. But I don't know enough about the speed drops of the slower alternatives yet. It may be that I kick up the SSD a notch to 512GB out of future-proof-ational precaution, which would bring my build to US$1499 and postpone any need for decision on external SSD for maybe even a long time.