I personally doubt computers will default to like 12 cores in ten years. Nor will they be 5 GHz. And we won't be using 8K. Evolution has slowed and matured considerably. Maybe if there is a paradigm shift.
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.
MM2018 longevity for light user with small budget
- Thread starter strawbale
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I personally doubt computers will default to like 12 cores in ten years. Nor will they be 5 GHz. And we won't be using 8K. Evolution has slowed and matured considerably. Maybe if there is a paradigm shift.
Unfortunately, my MMs and MBP can't take more than 2 resp 4GB RAM => looking forward to my MM 2018 !
Received my new MM2018 yesterday, downloaded 10.14.1 today (3.6GB in 4hrs, with 2Mb/s connection).
Going to take my time to selectively migrate stuff over, to keep it lean. Mine's dead silent
(needs a bit of getting used to...)
Waiting for my 24" QHD screen now (BenQ BL2420PT), which should be fine for browsing. One day I'll get a bigger 4k one for photos.
Going to take my time to selectively migrate stuff over, to keep it lean. Mine's dead silent
(needs a bit of getting used to...)Waiting for my 24" QHD screen now (BenQ BL2420PT), which should be fine for browsing. One day I'll get a bigger 4k one for photos.
Last edited:
Rumors out of Taiwan that Comet Lake is moving to 10-core at 14nm.
https://wccftech-com.cdn.ampproject...om/intel-comet-lake-10-core-processors-rumor/
Seems like they are just trying to find a reason to sell another chip without offering a compelling upgrade. 10 cores for consumer grade chips is completely unnecessary. Even 6 or 8 is probably overkill for most people. Intel can't get smaller than 14nm. It seems like they really have hit a wall this time and I am not sure they will find a way around. I wonder if this is the opening for ARM chips.
Back on topic. OP, I think you got the sweet spot in the lineup (the second tier always seems to be with Apple). The i3 in the base model is a good chip, and the 8GB of RAM is ok, especially since it is accessible, but no matter what many others say, 128GB of storage is a joke, and a lot of people will find that to be the first thing that makes their machine feel unsuitable and in need of upgrade. If Apple had put a 256GB SSD in the base model, it would have been much more compelling, but then they would have a hard time selling the $1099 (U.S.) model. I also think you will appreciate going with a QHD monitor over a UHD. It should be easier on that iGPU while still having good resolution and very usable sizing of text, etc.
.... and nobody will need ever more than 640k RAM... (just kidding, things are changing all the time...)
LOL! I know it sounds like I am making one of those statements, but it really feels like computers as we know them for home use are reaching a point where there may not be much more to gain. At least until we go Minority Report or something.
I do have to wonder though, have we hit the wall? Clock speed stopped increasing years ago and so we went to lower clock speeds but multicore. Then the process shrink, but now that seems stalled out, at least for Intel, and their response is more cores. But more cores don't help most users. Most use cases will never need more than a core or two. Obviously there are specialties that will take advantage of more cores, but those generally don't, and likely never will apply to consumers. It really feels like we hitting the limit for x86 processors and for the next jump will need something completely new. Perhaps ARM has an opening with its ability to have tons of cores that are dedicated to specific tasks.
Back on topic, I hope font (rendering) on my new 24" 2560x1440 monitor will be better than on my temporary 27" 1920x1080, which is awful
PS: hope not to be 'forced' to get a 24" 4k instead
PS: hope not to be 'forced' to get a 24" 4k instead
Back on topic, I hope font (rendering) on my new 24" 2560x1440 monitor will be better than on my temporary 27" 1920x1080, which is awful
PS: hope not to be 'forced' to get a 24" 4k instead
Update: font on same 27"" 1920x1080 is actually equally bad on another MM running Snow Leopard (#225)
strawbale wrote:
"Back on topic, I hope font (rendering) on my new 24" 2560x1440 monitor will be better than on my temporary 27" 1920x1080, which is awful"
1440p on a 24" display?
I'm wondering if you're going to like that.
I would think "native 1440p" would look better (to someone with young eyes or excellent vision) on 27", but... nothing smaller.
"Back on topic, I hope font (rendering) on my new 24" 2560x1440 monitor will be better than on my temporary 27" 1920x1080, which is awful"
1440p on a 24" display?
I'm wondering if you're going to like that.
I would think "native 1440p" would look better (to someone with young eyes or excellent vision) on 27", but... nothing smaller.
24" 2560x1440 is 'only' 123ppi - coming from a fantastic MBP 17" 1920x1200 (133ppi) matte screen, so my 58-yr old eyes should be OK
PS: sitting at 2ft from screen
Did a Handbrake comparison between my new MM2018 i5/8/256 and my previous main computer, a 2007 MBP 17" (C2D 2.4GHz 4GB RAM, 160GB HDD, 10.11.6), just for fun
source: 4 min 45 sec 1080p25 (563MB) video file (from my Nikon P7800 compact)
converted to: VeryFast 1030p30 (169MB)
MBP (2007): 21 min 17 sec (160-185% CPU, audible fan, but not too loud)
MMi5 (2018): 2 min 48 sec (580-597% CPU, audible fan but not loud)
source: 4 min 45 sec 1080p25 (563MB) video file (from my Nikon P7800 compact)
converted to: VeryFast 1030p30 (169MB)
MBP (2007): 21 min 17 sec (160-185% CPU, audible fan, but not too loud)
MMi5 (2018): 2 min 48 sec (580-597% CPU, audible fan but not loud)
You can in fact get a Mac mini 2018 with a bigger processor and still the basic 128GB, by upgrading a basic i3 to the i7. The price is the same as an i5 with 256GB.
That is my plan.
I am presently running a MacBook Pro 2017 from a 500 GB Samsung X5, which are now not so expensive (circa €235) and blindingly fast - Faster than the already fast internal SSD in the MacBook Pro, though possibly slightly slower than the SSD of the newer MacMini, but I doubt that noticeable. External Thunderbolt 3 SSD's is only going to get cheaper and faster
That is my plan.
I am presently running a MacBook Pro 2017 from a 500 GB Samsung X5, which are now not so expensive (circa €235) and blindingly fast - Faster than the already fast internal SSD in the MacBook Pro, though possibly slightly slower than the SSD of the newer MacMini, but I doubt that noticeable. External Thunderbolt 3 SSD's is only going to get cheaper and faster