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 2018 Reviews Roundup: Long-Awaited Update Should Impress Fans and Pro Users, But Upgrade Options Can Get Pricey
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So pretend the 128GB option doesn't exist. It'll be the same as if it didn't. Not so difficult, eh?
Many may opt for a 128GB model and supplement it with more sanely-priced external SSD storage.
Perhaps a smaller set of options will make you happier and reduce your distress. But is it really "unforgivable" to provide options, whether needed or not?
I’ve just started shooting and editing video in fcpx. Currently using a 2015 15” i7qc mbp with 16gb ram/ssd HD. First project, dove in head first with 4K...seat of my pants. My mbp struggled but I got it done.
I will be purchasing a new 6 core mini and will upgrade ram 3rd party to 32gb. My question is to all the video people here: With all this talk of eGPU’s;using fcpx,will the new mini’s gpu be sufficient to do a simple 5 to 6 min 4K video? A few dissolves/fades and beginning and ending titles and imbedded music: maybe one or two video fx, but nothing crazy.
Thanks in advance.
I will be purchasing a new 6 core mini and will upgrade ram 3rd party to 32gb. My question is to all the video people here: With all this talk of eGPU’s;using fcpx,will the new mini’s gpu be sufficient to do a simple 5 to 6 min 4K video? A few dissolves/fades and beginning and ending titles and imbedded music: maybe one or two video fx, but nothing crazy.
Thanks in advance.
Yes, it can...you can search YouTube for videos of people editing 4K on a 12" MacBook. You may want to research editing via proxy media - https://9to5mac.com/2016/07/08/how-to-edit-4k-video-final-cut-pro-12-inch-macbook-proxy-media/
You can check out more about QuickSync rendering built-in the the UHD 630 here - https://www.idownloadblog.com/2016/01/09/how-to-achieve-faster-video-exports-in-final-cut-pro-x/
You may want to invest in an external SSD as well - https://theunlockr.com/2017/10/04/best-external-ssds-4k-video-editing/
Speeding up Final Cut Pro X -
Hope this helps.
Last edited:
It's amazing how some will sneer things like "Priced for maximum profit" as if profit is the vilest, dirtiest thing, something to be loathed—and as if all other tech companies, including the ones they adore aren't trying to maximize profit.
By thinking small and negative, naysayers miss the value and opportunities offered by regarding their computing products primarily as tools for getting things done, tools that present the shortest path to success. Instead, they fumble and futz interminably, numb to TCO, and obsess over price differences in the hundreds when their machines could be earning them many orders of magnitude above their price.
Ok the guy lied. Even the i5 consumes much more power.
The i5 uses 65 watts and stays just under 100C under load.
Thanks. I knew there was one model recently that lost bootcamp support, turns out it's the 2012 iMac with a 3TB drive that won't support bootcamp with Mojave.
Ok so why couldn't they put an extra m.2 slot for NVMe SSDs together with the soldered one? Plenty of ultrabook vendors do that with much more space constraint. So you don't have to rely on external storage when you realize you're screwed with 128GB in 2019 and can still load applications on something that can't be plugged off generating system errors.
Waiting for the apologetic answers
Waiting for the apologetic answers
There could be any number of reasons connected with the minutia of manufacture, supply chain and servicing that meant soldering-in RAM saved $5 in 2014 but sockets saved $5 in 2018.
For example, imagine the 2014 Mini could use the same RAM chips as the best-selling MacBook of the day (which needed to have soldered RAM for space reasons). Apple would be buying those chips, loose, in huge quantities, so it could make economic sense to use the same chips in theMini, rather than buy a relatively small number of ready-made SODIMMs. Then in 2018, the new Mini needs different RAM chips to everything else, so its more economical to buy SODIMMS.
Or, example 2, the 2018 Mini offers 4 RAM options, including an eye-wateringly expensive 64GB RAM option... Now permute that with all of the CPU, SSD and Ethernet options... Somewhere, based on some complex equation of the number, price and popularity of options there's going to be an tipping point between the economics of soldered-in (so you have to stock many different pre-soldered mainboards and predict how many of each you need) and the logistics of being able to assemble the more obscure configurations 'just in time' from standard parts.
Or, example 3, allowing Apple service people to replace faulty RAM reduces the number of mainboards sent to landfill by 3.71% which is just enough to squeak in for a 2018 Golden Figleaf Greenwashing award.
NB: I'm not saying that any of those speculations are literally correct so don't bother fact-checking them - its just the sort of thing that might influence such decisions when you're making huge numbers of machines and shipping them around the world.
I think the concern is that 128GB sounds a bit tight even if you're planning to just use it for system/apps/temporary files and hook up an external drive for everything else. (E.g. a full Logic Pro install is ~60GB on its own, lots of other creative apps will work best if their temporary/working files directory is on the fastest drive and for good performance you don't ever want your system drive to get even close to full).
Likewise, the 8GB RAM on the i5 hex core model is a bit tight for the sort of applications that would justify choosing it over the quad core. The price difference between 8GB and 16GB in SODIMM form is about $70 consumer retail so don't pretend that charging $200 for the upgrade is anything but "money for nothing" for Apple.
So, for many customers, the realistic entry prices for both models with adequate SSD and RAM respectively are more like $1000 for quad core and $1300 for hex core unless you're really, really sure that the base specs meet your needs and you don't need any "headroom". Nobody is telling you what you can or can't buy or pay - but calling Apple's upgrades expensive and their base configurations mean is fair comment.
Its one thing to ask a premium for your products because of their perceived quality and superiority - but when your headline sticker prices turn out to be for configurations that are barely adequate without substantial upgrades, expect to be criticised for it. Also, it could backfire long term if people buy the base configuration and then find it inadequate.
After seeing the teardown video - 1) There is no room, and, 2) an extra NVMe drive in there would most likely generate too much additional heat.
Mmmm, interesting. I can't recall but did the other guy have an i3 model with only 4 cores? Can't recall.
Totally agree, which is why soldering an SSD never made sense. If you just take the 128GB storage option, you'd need 24 different logic boards for the 4 RAM, 3 CPU and 2 ethernet options. Then multiply that by 5 to cover off all the storage options. If my maths is correct, that would work out at 120 different logic board combinations. Socketing the RAM takes this down to 30 (I think).
Had they just gone with socketed RAM and SSD, it would have been 6.
That's why you should have an external SSD - save those photos on your own device, but not on the internal storage of the Mini.
Well, you'd have to check how many PCIe lanes you had free - there's a limited number and Apple have used up quite a lot by including 2 Thunderbolt controllers (for 4 TB ports). I'm not sure that's the reason on the Mini (which doesn't spend 16 PCIe lanes on a dGPU) - but you'd need to ask someone who actually understands motherboard design and the technical details of the Intel chipsets in question.
However, although the Mac Mini case was originally built to hold various permutations of spinning rust, SATA SSDs and optical drives, past Minis have used mobile CPUs - I think this time round Apple have filled the available space with cooling gubbins so that they can use desktop-class CPUs. Finding space for M.2. might be tight - making it user accessible even harder.
Of course, nobody held a gun to Apple's head and forced them to build the new Mini into the old box designed for the optical disc and mobile CPU era - they could have thought different and designed the whole thing around user-accessible RAM and SSD - but tooling up for those solid aluminium cases costs money.
...which brings up the final reason: a user-accessible M.2. slot would mean that Apple couldn't charge 3x the going rate for SSD upgrades - and since they charge a similar mark-up on bog standard RAM SODIMMs there's no reason that a non-user-accessible M.2. would lead to cheaper upgrades.
I think the point of the Mini is that, if you need substantial storage, you'll keep the super-fast internal SSD for system/apps/temp and get one of those nice matching 3rd party external drives designed to stack with a Mac Mini that were readily available until... er... oh, wait, until Apple released the underpowered 2014 Mini and then let it wither for 4 years and killed the demand. Still, they'll hopefully come back (in Space Grey and loaded with TB3/USB 3.1g2 goodness) now.
The 256GB SSD is probably the "sweet spot" - my main beef is that the 128GB on the entry level quad core is a bit small even for system/app/temp if you're talking about "pro" apps (if you're going to justify the $300 jump over the previous Mini by it now being "pro").
Your entire argument is projection. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have seen many people sick and tired of Apples Price Hike. Whereas I have hardly seen anybody ask for a pro-mini, so there!
I would not regard this mini as a pro anyway. It has no discrete graphics card where mac minis of old did. These are overpriced providing LESS VALUE for what they were 6 years ago. They are ~80% the cost of a VR gaming machine. Thats ridiculous! So no I won't give it a rest.
Why get a mac mini when for a couple of hundred more you can get an iMac, which is the price you NEED to spend anyway on a third party screen and peripherals?
You can't get into the Mac ecosystem now for under $1000 AUD. Even when taking into consideration inflation, that's a joke.
People have been complaining about Apple prices since before there were web forums to complain on.
Most previous mini's didn't offer discrete graphics, and even when they did it was nothing anyone complaining about "performance" would be happy with. At most it might have let them support 2x5K, at the cost of increased heat.
Six years ago you couldn't spec a Mac Mini with CPU, Memory, and I/O comparable to Apple's full-sized pro desktops.
One more time I'm going to say this. If you think "pros" aren't interested in the new Mac mini, you're deluding yourself. Just because it doesn't cater to what you were hoping for/expecting, doesn't mean it doesn't cater to an entire segment of "pro" users amazingly well.
[doublepost=1541688346][/doublepost]
Some of us would have probably bought iMacs (i'm pretty sure there's a thread here dedicated to this very topic of iMac vs Mini) if they had been updated and not the mini.
But if both the mini and iMac had been updated (let's be generous and say, same relative specs - Desktop Gen8 i7s, 64GB RAM max, 4x TB3, 10GbE, and whatever discrete card is the up to date equivalent of the 2017 iMac (even though that cuts a lot into iMac Pro territory, lets just pretend it might have happened), the iMac makes less sense for a lot of the same people the mini makes perfect sense for.
If you don't need mid or high end graphics, if you want a screen setup other than 5K@27", if your priorities are on things beside the screen (and thus you can spend more relatively on other aspects), etc.
Well, you can. There are second-hand macs all over the place, and they generally work well for years. I've just replaced a 2011 17" MBP, that I used basically constantly (as in, it was never put aside as a 'spare' machine) since the date of purchase. I wouldn't necessarily suggest a machine that old now, but there's plenty of 2-3 year old Macs that would be fine for someone on a budget.
Last edited:
I don't doubt that people will hack a way around it. In the USA, such a hack could run afoul of the DMCA. That bludgeon of a law which trips up a great deal of free use and innovation.
[doublepost=1541689265][/doublepost]
Asking because I truly don't know, before the Mac mini, how much did it cost to get a Mac?
I am thinking that Apple is transitioning the Mac mini away from the gateway device and into a flexible, powerful, and not inexpensive computing appliance. The iPhone is the entry port to the world of Apple now, not the Mac mini.
It seems all consumer computing purchases have slowed in the past few years. The markets are saturated with functional devices which suit the needs of their owners quite well. Given that demand is declining, Apple has to adjust and increase price to keep revenue up.
It's unpleasant and up to each individual consumer to decide if the new, higher price to admission is worth it.
[doublepost=1541691286][/doublepost]
I have no doubt a supply chain guru named Tim Cook took that into account.
There aren't 24 options. There are
i3: 128GB, 256GB, 512GB, 1TB 2TB - 5 * 2 for Ethernet = 10
i5: 256GB, 512GB, 1TB 2TB - 4 * 2 for Ethernet = 8
i7: 128GB, 256GB, 512GB, 1TB 2TB - 5 * 2 for Ethernet = 10
28 options, 14 if the Ethernet is a daughter board.
Socketed CPU/SSD/RAM = *gasp* 2 logic board configurations
One reasonable post at last. Thank you for existing
I have an external SSD drive where I store my work (graphic stuff), iTunes library and Photos library. The internal drive isn't big enough. It stores apps, mails, and iCloud synced Documents.
iTunes and Photos are synced with iCloud as well. The external drive has of course a backup: this means that you need at least two drives.
Unfortuantely, you are incorrect. The only Intel-based Mac mini that had a discrete GPU was the mid-2011 BTO option using the AMD Radeon 6630M. The NVIDIA GT9400 and 320M were iGPU solutions similar to the current UHD 630.
There are plenty of tasks, consumer, prosumer and Pro that this Mac mini can handle without a discrete GPU.
I already did a price analysis of the mid-2012 spec’d out to match the 2018 and the price is within + or - $100 of a similarly configured 2012. Except the 2018 now has a much larger DRAM ceiling, NVMe storage that is at least 6x-8x faster than the 2.5” SSD you could get in the 2012, a faster, higher clock speed, higher core count, higher TDP CPU than the 2012 and 4 Thunderbolt 3 ports for eGPUs, faster storage, docks or 10GbE if they do not to get it now. The average consumer does not pay for something they do not need, a Prosumer can add to when they want and a Pro can scale up to meet their needs as they gro until they need to move to something like an iMac Pro.
There are plenty of eGPU options out there, so what am I missing by not having a dGPU built-in, other than something that is already out of date when it goes on sale to the public?
Plenty of people may already have a screen, a keyboard or a mouse from a previous computer and be perfectly happy with them. I have a BenQ SW271, 10-bit, 100% sRGB, 99% Adobe RGB, 93% P3 and HDR 27-inch 4K display, so why would I want an iMac 4K or 5K?
Also, plenty of people do not like All-In-Ones, so there is that as well.
MacOS itself makes considerable use of the GPU so its pretty essential that the iGPU can cope with rendering the GUI across a couple of 4k displays. Still waiting for confirmation that the Intel iGPU can handle a pair of 4k@60Hz displays in scaled "looks like 2560x1440" mode (i.e. 5k downsampled by the GPU to 4k and roughly the "sweet spot" for a 27" display - same system text/icon size you'd get on an iMac - but potentially more demanding than 5k alone) well enough to give a smooth experience in regular apps. Needing a $700 eGPU fot serious 3D work is one thing, needing it to run a pair of 4k displays at the most popular scales would be disappointing.
Hopefully, Apple have thought about that and its OK - but this iGPU really is designed as entry level for Windows where 5k displays are rare and "scaled mode" isn't a thing (Windows can actually adjust the scaling system used by the system and applications to make text and icons bigger on a higher-PPI display... and if you're lucky all of your applications understand that - the Mac system is debatably better but does hit the GPU harder).
We'll see.