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

[Zdigital2015]

Thanks - from what I found (see the merged reply immediately before yours) Dell say multiple 4Ks via MST @ 60Hz is just not supported/possible. It isn't the end of the world - the TB3 adapter will work fine for me. It was more just about "hey this tech is cool I wonder if it works as well as its advertised".

The end result is still a single TB3 port used, so I'm fine with this solution.

Hmm...the attached screenshot tells me that somebody at Dell is not talking to someone else at Dell or worse does not know what their product can and cannot do, which would nor surprise me in the least.

 

[Mol1n]

So there is no actual throttling going on, the processor just does not boost as much as it could. That was what I didnˋt get in your argumentation! So the i3 will be working better for you because there is no Turbo Boost to begin with - which means it will stay at its advertised 3.6 GHz on four cores.

Most of the internet reviews and threads in the Mac mini forum were talking about whether the i5/i7 could sustain their boost clocks. It was in that context that I used the term throttle.

I just confirmed with Cinebench that the i5 is also incapable of sustaining its 3.9ghz boost clock.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mac-mini-i5-tests.2153750/

 

[Sabelonada]

2018 MBP15.


What model? Maybe they support a newer version of DP?
[doublepost=1541872772][/doublepost]Ah. It's the display. From https://www.dell.com/support/articl...ell-p2715q-p2415q-flat-panel-monitors?lang=en

I know I have to enable it on my monitors and I have. I also found that it works only if I use the mini-DP port as the input when daisy chaining. I don't recall the instructions ever mentioning this particular bit of information.

 

[unplugme71]

That’s really the dealbreaker for me, along with the ridiculous cost of the SSD upgrades. So we’re supposed to use all those ports to connect external SSDs from Amazon for half the price and whatever overpriced eGPU is compatible? Then have a desk strewn with cables, dongles, peripherals, etc? That seems completely counterintuitive to Apple’s sleek design principle.

Or I could just keep my current PC that houses all this stuff discreetly in one box that fits nicely under my desk. For half the price.

Or just buy an iMac pro.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

While I can appreciate the ask for less complaints, the Mac Mini has always been Apple’s low/lower end device. I think the minimal configuration certainly qualifies as a “budget” computer.

I do, too.

And considering pretty much ALL of the reviews have been made using the base configuration, and been pleasantly surprised with the performance of same, I think even that "budget" configuration will suit a LOT of applications.
[doublepost=1542211267][/doublepost]

I don’t think it’s as close as you propose. The iMac Pro has a 500W cooling system. The mini will be 65W at best. The iMac Pro uses workstation-class hardware in Xeon CPUs and ECC RAM. And while the mini thankfully has RAM slots again, it’s sounds like it’s a full tear-down to get to the slots.

While I don’t argue that what you propose is possible with the new mini, it is certainly not the normal market condition for this product. No, Apple still needs to provide a proper Mac Pro and not let its users take an elegant device and peripheral the heck out of it.

The Mac mini's Power Supply is 150 W; but I am not sure how much of that is supposed to be for truly external (port-powered) devices, and how much is budgeted for the internal circuitry. Yes, I know the CPU is rated at 65W TDP; but that is not the whole story...

However, the CPU-only benchmarks of the Mac mini show that it is within a professional-spitter's spitting-distance of the iMac Pro (which surprised the Hell outta me!); so for some applications (LPX?), it might just get closer than one might think...

And the phrase "a full teardown" is disingenuous at best; when the entire assembly/disassembly consists of 6 screws (not counting the RAM cage), and a well-placed thumb. I asked on the ifixit site if the fan REALLY had to come out, and not just "tipped-up" to reveal the 2 logic board-screws; but I was assured that "out" was indeed required. But still, it isn't like the ordeal to change the keyboard in a MacBook Pro. Now THERE's a "full teardown"!!!!!!!

But yes, I, like many others, are waiting for the other shoe to drop concerning the Mac Pro. Hopefully, it will be as Insanely Great as I KNOW Apple is capable of producing... ;-)

But until then, and even with that in mind, I think the new mini will fill many a void!
[doublepost=1542211704][/doublepost]

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.

That is NOT a "huge markup". It is even less than the standard 50% retail markup.

And I dug up an article about the OEM-only Toshiba SSDs that Apple is most likely using; and it said, at "OEM quantities", those SSDs were about $0.49/GB. So Apple really isn't gouging for that, either.
[doublepost=1542212987][/doublepost]

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.

Mac minis of "old" had discrete graphics BECAUSE THAT'S ALL THERE WAS BACK THEN!!!

And the "VR gaming machine" you speak of (likely an Intel Hades Canyon NUC, with its purile "Grateful Dead" logo on the top!) is exactly that. A one-trick-pony, nicely equipped for a SINGLE APPLICATION; but CERTAINLY NOT a "General Purpose" computer! Oh, and even though Intel only has to pay COST for the CPU/GPU, it is STILL about $1300!!! Yeah, real good value there, bub!

Why get a Mac mini instead of an iMac? Not everyone needs a computer with a display (in fact, there are people on this forum that argued VEHEMENTLY against an iMac Pro because of this!), and because, at this point in time, the CPUs in the Mac mini are a generation-newer than those in the iMacs. Next question?

Oh, and unless you are talking about the iMac PRO (which STARTS at more than than $1k MORE than a FULL-BLOWN Mac mini!), the Mac mini HAS MORE I/O than the current iMacs, by a factor of over 40 Gb/s I/O bandwidth! Plus, unless I am remembering incorrectly, the Mac mini ALSO has an HDMI port, and the iMacs do NOT.

Don't get me wrong: For many home and office applications, the iMac represents a wonderful form factor and value; but the new Mac mini is designed as a no-nonsense workhorse; and I for one believe they have very nicely met their design goals in that regard!

 

[Detnator]

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.

The problems with everything you said here are You just swept aside my most important points (eg. T2 is just greed), and the rest is just incredibly narrow minded.

As others have pointed out, there are rack
server options and other very sensible uses for a 128GB (and non discrete GPU) Mac mini. Not everyone uses these machines for storing terabytes of selfies on them.

But it seems pretty clear you’re not interested in anyone’s perspective or use case other than your own...
[doublepost=1542213828][/doublepost]

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.

LOL!! Well said.

 

[Sabelonada]

I do, too.

And considering pretty much ALL of the reviews have been made using the base configuration, and been pleasantly surprised with the performance of same, I think even that "budget" configuration will suit a LOT of applications.
[doublepost=1542211267][/doublepost]
The Mac mini's Power Supply is 150 W; but I am not sure how much of that is supposed to be for truly external (port-powered) devices, and how much is budgeted for the internal circuitry. Yes, I know the CPU is rated at 65W TDP; but that is not the whole story...

However, the CPU-only benchmarks of the Mac mini show that it is within a professional-spitter's spitting-distance of the iMac Pro (which surprised the Hell outta me!); so for some applications (LPX?), it might just get closer than one might think...

And the phrase "a full teardown" is disingenuous at best; when the entire assembly/disassembly consists of 6 screws (not counting the RAM cage), and a well-placed thumb. I asked on the ifixit site if the fan REALLY had to come out, and not just "tipped-up" to reveal the 2 logic board-screws; but I was assured that "out" was indeed required. But still, it isn't like the ordeal to change the keyboard in a MacBook Pro. Now THERE's a "full teardown"!!!!!!!

But yes, I, like many others, are waiting for the other shoe to drop concerning the Mac Pro. Hopefully, it will be as Insanely Great as I KNOW Apple is capable of producing... ;-)

But until then, and even with that in mind, I think the new mini will fill many a void!
[doublepost=1542211704][/doublepost]
That is NOT a "huge markup". It is even less than the standard 50% retail markup.

And I dug up an article about the OEM-only Toshiba SSDs that Apple is most likely using; and it said, at "OEM quantities", those SSDs were about $0.49/GB. So Apple really isn't gouging for that, either.
[doublepost=1542212987][/doublepost]
Mac minis of "old" had discrete graphics BECAUSE THAT'S ALL THERE WAS BACK THEN!!!

And the "VR gaming machine" you speak of (likely an Intel Hades Canyon NUC, with its purile "Grateful Dead" logo on the top!) is exactly that. A one-trick-pony, nicely equipped for a SINGLE APPLICATION; but CERTAINLY NOT a "General Purpose" computer! Oh, and even though Intel only has to pay COST for the CPU/GPU, it is STILL about $1300!!! Yeah, real good value there, bub!

Why get a Mac mini instead of an iMac? Not everyone needs a computer with a display (in fact, there are people on this forum that argued VEHEMENTLY against an iMac Pro because of this!), and because, at this point in time, the CPUs in the Mac mini are a generation-newer than those in the iMacs. Next question?

Oh, and unless you are talking about the iMac PRO (which STARTS at more than than $1k MORE than a FULL-BLOWN Mac mini!), the Mac mini HAS MORE I/O than the current iMacs, by a factor of over 40 Gb/s I/O bandwidth! Plus, unless I am remembering incorrectly, the Mac mini ALSO has an HDMI port, and the iMacs do NOT.

Don't get me wrong: For many home and office applications, the iMac represents a wonderful form factor and value; but the new Mac mini is designed as a no-nonsense workhorse; and I for one believe they have very nicely met their design goals in that regard!

The Intel NUC is as much a "General Purpose" computer as the Mac mini. It is decidedly better at gaming and marketed to that market. Especially with the "Punisher" skull on top. Puerile and Grateful Dead haven't really belonged in the same sentence for decades.

I was wondering about the SSD. Curious about that article. I checked teardowns on iFixit and noticed that there has generally been a shift to Toshiba SSD parts. I would attribute it to streamlining the supply chain for both iDevices and Macs.

 

[Detnator]

...

There are three styles of SSD in play here:

• ...
• 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
  
• ...

I’ve done a lot of research into this recently. Found two good solutions:


https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/express-4m2

The specs say 2800MB/s but I haven’t been able to get more than about 2000 out of it connected to my iMac Pro - even with Samsung 970 Pros in it. But that’s still pretty awesome.

TB3 uses 4 lanes. This device gives each drive one lane. So with only one drive in it you’ll only get about 600 - 700 MB/s out of it. Therefore you have to stripe four drives to get the full speed but... the drives can be the cheapest even x2 NVMe drives around and it still works well. I’ve put four of these in it:

https://www.microcenter.com/product...pcie-nvme-gen-3-x2-internal-solid-state-drive

And I have 4TB of 2GB/s storage for only a little over $1K.

Note that these drives are only $10 more apiece than the same size (1TB) SATA SSD from Samsung.

So that’s one solution. If all that’s too hard then other options include the Samsung X5 and another similar but better in my opinion thing I found to be pretty awesome:

https://www.wavlink.com/en_us/product/UTE01.html

I get similar speeds out of that as I do out of my internal iMac Pro drive. 2700+MB/s.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

Puerile and Grateful Dead haven't really belonged in the same sentence for decades.

Maybe not; but "puerile" and "punisher skull" CERTAINLY do!
[doublepost=1542219784][/doublepost]

The Intel NUC is as much a "General Purpose" computer as the Mac mini.

Technically, yes. But you KNOW what I meant.
[doublepost=1542220037][/doublepost]

I was wondering about the SSD. Curious about that article. I checked teardowns on iFixit and noticed that there has generally been a shift to Toshiba SSD parts. I would attribute it to streamlining the supply chain for both iDevices and Macs.

I would suggest that that is certainly part of it, as is negotiating a better overall pricing structure for those components. But, according to the article I found, which was mostly a benchmark, those SSDs do a great job overall, especially in the "write" speed department; and in a "real-world" test, they fare as good, or better than, the Samsung EVO 970(?), which is evidently quite the speed-demon.

 

[ChrisMoBro]

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.

Oh what have I found: EVIDENCE of the new

Prove it will throttle. Point me to a review that shows it throttling.

Here you go it throttles within 3 seconds of CineBench. As I said, due to the lack of decent cooling, it is inevitable that they will thermal throttle. God, it feels so ******* good being right all the time.

 

[Stephen.R]

Hmm...the attached screenshot tells me that somebody at Dell is not talking to someone else at Dell or worse does not know what their product can and cannot do, which would nor surprise me in the least.

Sorry I thought I'd replied to this before. So, what that image shows is technically correct, I suspect (don't have a second unit to daisy chain with yet). But notice the text in the image just says '4k'. It doesn't mention refresh rate. It appears very much that to do 2x4K over a single DP port using MST, the Dell at least, will limit the displays to 30hz.

it throttles within 3 seconds of CineBench. As I said, due to the lack of decent cooling, it is inevitable that they will thermal throttle.

I'm sure this will just add fuel to the fire, but if you say 'this 3.2GHz i7 suffers from thermal throttling' I'm expecting the sort of throttling seen on the i9 2018 MBP's - dropping below base frequency, not just "it doesn't boost to the maximum possible frequency under optimal conditions".

 

[ChrisMoBro]

I'm sure this will just add fuel to the fire, but if you say 'this 3.2GHz i7 suffers from thermal throttling' I'm expecting the sort of throttling seen on the i9 2018 MBP's - dropping below base frequency, not just "it doesn't boost to the maximum possible frequency under optimal conditions".

Huh? Under load it hangs at the base frequency because it’s too hot to raise the frequency - that’s the very definition of thermal throttling. Because Apple refuses to take cooling seriously, when the CPU is under full load it can’t go higher than the base frequency, which really hampers performance.

 

[Stephen.R]

that’s the very definition of thermal throttling.

Ok lets define some words. We all agree that 'throttling' means to slow it down, right?

Now let's also define 'turbo boost', which is Intel's technology for increasing the processor frequency when requested by the OS.

So, these CPUs have a base frequency of 3.2GHz, and can turbo boost up to 4.6GHz.

In the video you posted (and in other reviews I looked for afterwards) it seems a common pattern is that the machine will increase frequency dramatically, and then drop it back quite dramatically as well, mostly settling around 3.4 - 3.5 GHz.


Yes, the CPU has restricted how fast it will go due to thermal limitations. Given that it's maintaining higher-than base frequency, by your definition any computer that doesn't run at 100% of it's theoretical turbo-boost frequency all the time "is throttling".

when the CPU is under full load it can’t go higher than the base frequency, which really hampers performance

The video you posted shows that it literally does go higher than base frequency.

Yes, slower cpu = lower performance. If you're buying a computer expecting to get 100% of the Turbo Boost speed at all times, a computer that fits on a desk and doesn't sound like a 747 or look like your local water works is clearly not for you.

 

[ChrisMoBro]

Ok lets define some words. We all agree that 'throttling' means to slow it down, right?

Now let's also define 'turbo boost', which is Intel's technology for increasing the processor frequency when requested by the OS.

So, these CPUs have a base frequency of 3.2GHz, and can turbo boost up to 4.6GHz.

In the video you posted (and in other reviews I looked for afterwards) it seems a common pattern is that the machine will increase frequency dramatically, and then drop it back quite dramatically as well, mostly settling around 3.4 - 3.5 GHz.


Yes, the CPU has restricted how fast it will go due to thermal limitations. Given that it's maintaining higher-than base frequency, by your definition any computer that doesn't run at 100% of it's theoretical turbo-boost frequency all the time "is throttling".


The video you posted shows that it literally does go higher than base frequency.

Yes, slower cpu = lower performance. If you're buying a computer expecting to get 100% of the Turbo Boost speed at all times, a computer that fits on a desk and doesn't sound like a 747 or look like your local water works is clearly not for you.

Obviously a CPU doesn’t work at turbo speed 100% of the time but the fact the temps reach 100 degrees in 3 seconds and then the speed drops to the base frequency shows how poorly their cooled. If you had proper cooling, yes it wouldn’t be at 100% speed but it would reach that speed, drop down once that frame had rendered, and then increase again. If these are aimed at pro markets, professionals don’t want to buy machines that can’t handle such workloads.

 

[Stephen.R]

professionals don’t want to buy machines that can’t handle such workloads.

Professional what? I consider myself a professional, but I couldn't give two rats nipples about whether they boost above the base frequency. I'm more interested in parallel processing using more cores/HT, and not re-living the 747-on-takeoff noises produced by G5 towers back in the day.

 

[ChrisMoBro]

Professional what? I consider myself a professional, but I couldn't give two rats nipples about whether they boost above the base frequency. I'm more interested in parallel processing using more cores/HT, and not re-living the 747-on-takeoff noises produced by G5 towers back in the day.

But do you use the Mac Mini for work? Maybe the thermal throttling isn't an issue for you but for a huge demographic ie videographers, editors, motion designer etc it is. And when I first posted on here, people disputed that it would thermal throttle or that the temps would ever get close to 100 degrees and they have been proven wrong. Apple don't need to add a load of noisy fans, they could add AIO coolers to their bigger products to maximise performance.

 

[Stephen.R]

do you use the Mac Mini for work?

I will, once it arrives. Until a ~month ago, I used a 2.4GHz Quad i7 in a 2011 MBP17. Currently I'm using a 2.2GHz Hex i7 in a 2018 MBP15.

Doing stuff like building Vagrant base boxes isn't actually that CPU intensive, it's more I/O limited (download packages, install packages, cleanup, configure things, etc) but when you want to build 2x arch, for 3x distro release, for 3x hypervisors, and let it run in the background while you carry on with other work, you start to appreciate the ability to run the builds in parallel without your CPU going bananas switching back and forth between half a dozen VMs and an IDE or whatever else you're using.

for a huge demographic ie videographers, editors, motion designer etc it is.

I have no clue what resources those need, but maybe the Mac Mini isn't suited to those tasks. It's not like the iMac Pro and Mac Pro are figments of my imagination.

people disputed that it would thermal throttle or that the temps would ever get close to 100 degrees

I still dispute your use of the term 'thermal throttle'. The reason MBP throttling even made news was because it throttled below base frequency. Not because the CPU adjusted its max boost frequency. Thats what they do in all computers.

OK, it gets close to 100ºC. Great, can we use it to boil water for a nice cup of whats your point?

Apple don't need to add a load of noisy fans, they could add AIO coolers to their bigger products to maximise performance

Ah, the "water treatment works in a computer" approach. Apple tried those, over a decade ago. Go ask someone who had one leak how they like it.

But regardless of that, since when is the Mac mini a "bigger product"? In case anyone had forgotten, this is a computer "the size of a ham sandwich".

 

[ChrisMoBro]

I still dispute your use of the term 'thermal throttle'. The reason MBP throttling even made news was because it throttled below base frequency. Not because the CPU adjusted its max boost frequency. Thats what they do in all computers.

OK, it gets close to 100ºC. Great, can we use it to boil water for a nice cup of whats your point?

This is like having an argument with a flat-earther - because the temps go up to 100ºC, the CPU is restricted and won't reach the turbo boost. If it was cooled properly, yes it would fluxuate, but it would be able to reach the turbo speed. In the example I shared, it sits just above the base frequency because it's performance is being throttled to reduce the temps.

I recorded this example of how proper cooling allows you to reach turbo speeds when using Cinebench

Yes, it doesn't stay at 4.7 Mhz the whole time, but it sticks close to the turbo boost frequency. This improves the performance massively. If Apple had proper cooling (doesn't have to be AIO, some fans are almost as good) then users would get better performance over a sustained period of time. But they can't because it gets throttled. I agree, the MBP was an extreme case, but all Macs suffer from poor cooling and this Mac Mini is no different.

 

[Stephen.R]

This is like having an argument with a flat-earther

If you want to start getting into political points of view with that avatar, let's have at it.

Literally the only thing I disagree with is that you keep using the term 'throttled' in a way that I believe is misleading, or at the very least different to the way a lot of other people would define the term.

Sure, cooler is better. But it's not the only priority. Physical size, reliability, noise, are all factors. Have you ever heard a G5 PowerMac when it gets hot? It's a little known fact that a very early prototype of what would become the G5 PM was used in a scene in the 1996 disaster movie Daylight.

 

[ChrisMoBro]

If you want to start getting into political points of view with that avatar, let's have at it.

Literally the only thing I disagree with is that you keep using the term 'throttled' in a way that I believe is misleading, or at the very least different to the way a lot of other people would define the term.

Sure, cooler is better. But it's not the only priority. Physical size, reliability, noise, are all factors. Have you ever heard a G5 PowerMac when it gets hot? It's a little known fact that a very early prototype of what would become the G5 PM was used in a scene in the 1996 disaster movie Daylight.

I agree, it's not the only priority but you mentioned reliability - sensitive electronics like CPUs have a finite lifespan and running them at higher temperatures shortens it. So unless you want to have an excuse to upgrade your system often, higher temperatures are counter-productive.

For the high prices Apple charge, the least they could is prioritise cooling more than they currently do to not only help users get more bang for their buck but also to increase the lifespan of their products.
[doublepost=1542282083][/doublepost]

If you want to start getting into political points of view with that avatar, let's have at it.

Do you think a MAGA fan would ever use this avatar?

 

[Stephen.R]

sensitive electronics like CPUs have a finite lifespan and running them at higher temperatures shortens it.

Liquid leakage shortens it pretty quick.

Moving parts shorten the overall lifetime. I've replaced 3 fans in 1 laptop in the last 12 months. I've had zero computers cook themselves to death over 10+ year usage. My parents mini did (it was 9 years old this year), suspected due to dust buildup.

I agree that cooler is better, but I guarantee you a lot more people would be complaining if it was noisier. It's not like it's throttling down to half the base frequency or something. If you want to sacrifice quietness, sandwich-size, and reliability, go get a liquid cooled G5 and pretend you're the pilot every time it 'takes off'. Almost over-engineered in the cooling department.

 

[ChrisMoBro]

Thats why all the best AIO suppliers offer a 5 year guarantee because it almost never happens. I wouldn't ever go near a custom loop though.

I agree, most people would complain about the noise more so than cooling. Apple can't win but they could definitely do better. Even under full load, my CPU doesn't go over 60 degrees and I can barely hear it. It's certainly much quieter than my Wacom Cintiq Pro, which is so loud I need to play music loudly to drown it out - now that's poor engineering!

 

[Miat]

Sheesh, just no pleasing some people.

Apple offer up a new Mini, the top spec version of which more than doubles the power of any previous Mini. It clocks just behind the best single core, and comfortably holds 6th for multicore, of any computer they have ever made (according to GeekBench scores). Even the least powerful new Mini still scores significantly better than the previous best one.

It has current generation desktop class CPUs, with an iGPU that is good enough for basic stuff, including a 5K screen; the RAM is upgradeable, and to 64GB (be honest – who saw that coming?); and on board storage is as fast as you can currently get, albeit only one drive, soldered in, and expensive – but with viable external boot options, because...

It has a solid I/O port array that offers good options for serious extra number crunching and graphics, and very fast external storage/boot and local networking.

Plus upgraded power supply.

All done without increasing the Mini's dimensions or volume.

This Mini is their new base model desktop computer, whose top spec version compares directly to the current (admittedly very outdated) Pro. If this is the new Mini, imagine what the new Pro is going to be like.

Is the new Mini perfect? Not even close. My pacemaker kicks in hard every time I consider those storage prices.

But then nothing else on offer is perfect either. Especially if you can't or don't want to move away from MacOS, don't want to go Hacking, don't need serious graphics grunt up front, and do want a desktop but don't like AIOs.

People kinda like me.

If only they can get that storage pricing down.

 

[Detnator]

ChrisMoBro and Stephen.R you're both kinda arguing round in circles, but both with valid points.

Stephen.R, arguing about use of the word "throttling" is a bit semantical and while I personally think it's maybe a valid point it kinda takes away from the more important point I think you're trying to make which is a preference towards cooling that doesn't sound like a 747. (Ever tried running an Xserve in Target disk mode?).

ChrisMoBro, your point is that no matter which way we bend or argue this, the CPU is not performing to its full potential because the heat stops it from doing so.

Both are valid points - in general - but in this particular machine, not so much. The thing here is, this is the Mac Mini.

They settled on the size and shape some years ago and don't want to change that anytime soon. One really good reason for that (which they highlighted in the keynote) is that now a lot of companies out there (mac mini colo, macstadium, etc) have racks and racks of these things. Apple could have changed the form factor and called it the new Mini but it would have really hurt all those businesses, if nothing else.

So I think it's reasonable that they squeezed the very best stuff they could into the same form factor for the sake of those companies, as well as everyone else who just loved the form factor any way. Does that form factor limit the potential? Depends on definition of "potential". Maybe they could have engineered some way to cool THAT form factor with THAT much performance in it, better, but none of us here are the kind of engineers that can really know the answer to that, but I think it's the wrong question anyway. I don't think the issue is the engineering, I think the issue is the size and shape of the thing. What any version of this machine (size and shape) can do, will always be limited by its size and shape, no matter what you put into it. We can argue about better cooling till the end of time, but the absence of better cooling is primarily about the size and shape.

The point is: this machine is defined by its size and shape. Apple squeezed what they could into it, and arguably/presumably they've built something that gets the best performance possible into that size and shape. Can't really ask for more than that (in that size and shape), can we?

If this was Apple's only desktop offering and they were pitching this as the pro machine, but its relative performance sucked because of the form factor then maybe there's an argument for some idiotic decisions there, but it's not. It's the entry level machine, and given what it can do at its price point (and its form factor), I think it's pretty amazing really. Don't you?

Apple definitely needs to make a much better cooled - and much more powerful all round - headless desktop machine. ...Which it obviously could do with a larger enclosure. Guess what? They've very publicly announced that they're making just that (and they admit they kinda screwed that up last time), and it's called the Mac Pro. Now, if that thing has cooling issues then let's kick up a fuss. But either way, whether or not this Mac Mini throttles (by any definition), is a pointless argument, because whatever it can and can't do is limited by its size and shape. And that's ok.

[Incidentally, before the iMac Pro people were complaining about how thin the iMac is and how that meant the cooling system in there never had a chance, and "Why does Johnny have this obsession with thin?". But then they made the iMac Pro in the same enclosure. And the cooling - and the performance - in that thing is pretty incredible. So "thin" really wasn't the issue in that instance. I have one, it's never skipped a beat. Just sayin'. ]

 

[Stephen.R]

arguing about use of the word "throttling" is a bit semantical

Agreed, it is. But words do have meaning. We can discuss the reality of how heat affects Macs without distorting the definition of words just so that someone can say

God, it feels so ******* good being right all the time.

Ever tried running an Xserve in Target disk mode?

I can kind of imagine. When the A/C fails in your office's server room it starts to sound like Captain Pike (this guy) is trying to get out of the way of the 747. (Much beeping and much roar of fans).