Mac mini versus Mac Pro: Surprising figures

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by opinio, Oct 18, 2013.

  1. opinio, Oct 18, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2013

    opinio macrumors 65816

    Mar 23, 2013
    The following is just some info I felt like calculating for fun.

    A few have suggested the mini will go (sayonara) because it is similar to the new 2013 'mini' Mac Pro in size. I.e. why would Apple produce to small Macs. Some have also said Apple will produce a super budget version of the Pro to replace the mini. I disagree with these arguments but I though... hmmm will the size really be similar?

    Mac Pro 2013: 6.6" D (3.3R) by 9.9" H = 339 cubic inches
    Mac mini 2012: 7.7" by 7.7" by 1.4" = 83 cubic inches

    So the Mac Pro is not as 'mini-like' as one might expect.

    Clearly the Mac Pro 2013 is far smaller than the old 2010 'tower', but it is also a lot bigger than the mini. We are yet to see the Mac Pro in the flesh but it is actually more than 4 times the size of a Mac mini. Stack 4 minis on top of each other and that is roughly the size of the new Mac Pro.

    Interestingly, the 2013 AirPort Extreme is also even bigger in volume than the mini at 98 cubic inches.

    Surprising figures. The Pro is not as close as some have suggested.
  2. Gav2k macrumors G3


    Jul 24, 2009
    What were you expecting? You can't cram that tech into a mini without some huge trade offs
  3. maflynn Moderator


    Staff Member

    May 3, 2009
    Not really, the new Mac Pro clearly is larger then the mini. I don't see how a "pro" machine like the Mac Pro which will be Apple's most expensive model in its line up, replace its smallest and most inexpensive model.

    Each model is target at a completely different demographic.
  4. opinio thread starter macrumors 65816

    Mar 23, 2013
    I agree.

    Tech and cost wise of course there is no comparison.

    I just thought the Pro look a touch smaller (than I calculated) in the graphics pix available.
  5. Count Blah macrumors 68040

    Count Blah

    Jan 6, 2004
    US of A
    How much of the Mac Pro is "dead space" due to the cylindrical form factor, and presumed chimney cooling process?
  6. CausticPuppy macrumors 65816

    May 1, 2012
    The Mac Pro is basically identical in size to a 1-gallon paint bucket, but a couple inches taller.
  7. iSee macrumors 68040


    Oct 25, 2004
    I don't know, but you could buy one and use a fluid displacement method to measure it. And I have an idea on what fluid you could use! ;)

    And, hey! It's not dead space if it's an integral part of the cooling system! :D

    (sorry for the silly post... am a little disappointed with this thread. It was not surprising and I was expecting something more interesting than volume calculcations anyway)
  8. Toltepeceno Suspended


    Jul 17, 2012
    SMT, Edo MX, MX
    Me too. Replacing the lowest priced option with the highest priced option would make no sense whatsoever. They appeal to totally different categories.
  9. ElectronGuru macrumors 65816

    Sep 5, 2013
    Oregon, USA
    Yeah, I've not seen any such argument, but it sounds like another putdown of the new pro design. I think both products will continue. If anything, there will be more calls for something in between - a low end pro, high end mini or headless iMac.
  10. Moonjumper macrumors 68000


    Jun 20, 2009
    Lincoln, UK
    I have been thinking in terms of it being a little taller than an iPad, and a bit narrower. So spin an iPad around an axis through the Lightning port and you are not far off the the volume of a Mac Pro.
  11. ActionableMango macrumors G3


    Sep 21, 2010
    Who are all these people that thought it was Mac Mini size? From the moment it was introduced we could see its size in photographs.
  12. fa8362 macrumors 65816

    Jul 7, 2008
    People have been saying that for many years and have ALWAYS been wrong.
  13. corvus32 macrumors 6502a

    Sep 4, 2009
    Mac sales weren't declining then, but they are now.

    iPads (which are truly all-in-one) are taking the place of iMacs, and the Mac Mini (with its low-end, non-upgradable graphics) doesn't attract very many buyers outside the HTPC/SOHO crowd. It's time for Apple to make some changes.

    IMO, they should drop the iMac and design a lower cost Mini to make room for Mac Pro Lite(s).
  14. John Kotches macrumors 6502

    Jan 19, 2010
    Troy, IL (STL Area)
    Since the new Mac Pro is a single socket architecture wouldn't a low end Mac Pro come equipped with a quad or hex core CPU?

    I have not priced the quad or hex core Xeon processors, but there's no way they could put any of that family plus the other technology in and come close to a Mac Mini price.

    Personally I don't travel that much, so portability isn't an issue. That's why my mac mini works well for me.
  15. philipma1957 macrumors 603


    Apr 13, 2010
    Howell, New Jersey
    As much as I love the mac mini. As many as I have taken apart repaired modified upgraded etc. It was always just a bit short.. And the mac pro was more then I need. plus the imac has the wrong screen size. Still I own 3 models of mac minis and 2 pcs. I could make do with 2 mac minis and 2 pcs. But It would be nice that they made a proper machine.

    They never have made what I want:

    A mac mini with a good gpu.

    They never will. So now that a mac pro is small enough in size I will hope that the base mac pro as a refurb will be low enough in price. Then get one around Jan 2014.
  16. Jambalaya macrumors 6502a

    Jun 21, 2013
    I love the mini for it's size and price, it sits hidden under the TV which is the primary screen. It's also small enough to be easily transported in my carry on luggage when I travel between homes from time to time. I'm thinking of upgrading it (2009 model) sometime in 2014 but to be honest with recent MacRumours assisted increase in memory (2->8) and HDD (160->750) the machine is running really nicely. The new machine would probably be an addition not a replacement.

    There is no way I'd pay a lot more for a Pro "equivalent" for a machine which just does general internet, multi-media, work/word processing duties.
  17. corvus32, Oct 20, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2013

    corvus32 macrumors 6502a

    Sep 4, 2009
    They don't need to. Almost no one that walks into an Apple Store needs Xeon processors, ECC memory, and workstation class GPUs.

    And you shouldn't have to either. Apple's desktop line should look like this: lower cost Mini's for HTPC/SOHO, Mac Pro Lite's (e.g., an i7-4770 and GTX 760) for gamers/prosumers, and the Mac Pro for workstation applications.
  18. jiker macrumors member

    Apr 12, 2002
    I would be all over this if they came in around $1200, give or take. Here's hoping..
  19. corvus32 macrumors 6502a

    Sep 4, 2009
    They could. I put together a parts list for a high end mini PC with those same specs at for less than $1500, so I know its possible. Instead, they would rather make a headless computer out of expensive workstation components with fancy chamfered edges and charge three grand for it because it's more magical that way.

    95% of the people that walk into an Apple Store have no idea what an AMD FirePro GPU is or even need one. Same goes for ECC memory and Xeon processors. Meanwhile, Mac sales continue to decline. It's mind blowing.

Share This Page