Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

My review of the 2014 Mac Mini MGEM2LL/A

vbctv

vbctv

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Sep 25, 2013
897
701
Cleveland, OH
So today I decided to replace my 2010 Mac Mini with the new 2014 Mac Mini base model. Now before everyone starts the boos and that is the worse model ever reviews, I want to go ahead and explain why this decision was made and why the 2014 Mac Mini is alot better than what people are thinking.

My 2010 Mac Mini was upgraded to 8GB Ram. Today I got the chance to play with the 2014 MM all day.

Now before I get to far, let me explain a little about what I do. I run an online TV Network called Sparkk TV, so I do photoshop and need video editing for commercials, promos, spots, etc...

Now I had the chance today to get either the 2012 base model or 2014 base model at Best Buy. The 2012 is on clearence for $444 while they will match the 2014 one for $449 which is what BHphotovideo has it for.

Now while at Best Buy today before I made my decision, they had demos models of the new 2014 Mac Mini, the new cheap iMac, Macbook Air (All of these have the same 1.4 GHZ processor and 4gb ram except the iMac whihc has 8GB ram) and the 2012 Macbook Pro whihc has the same specs as 2012 Mac Mini.

Now I had some good video files in my iphone which I transferred into each of these 4 computers and decided to try and render the highest end video using both iMovie and FCPX which were installed on these demos.

The results really shocked me and some of the employees. We were able to render a 10GB .mov file in the highest settings on both programs. Now on my 2010 Mac Mini it took me about 90 minutes to render the same file.
One the 2014 Mac Mini and MBA it took just under 8 minutes on iMovie and just under 10 minutes in FCPX.
The 2014 iMac with 8GB Ram took about a minute longer on each.
The 2012 Macbook Pro took over 20 minutes on iMovie and FCPX I gave up on because it took over 2 minutes to even open the program while all 3 other computers were able to open FCPX in about 30 seconds from splash to full use.
This of course did not surprise a few of the employees because they and myself included have heard and read things online about some MBA being able to outperform MBPr the same way.

So this made my decision very easy and I want to say one thing about the new Mac Mini. Before we start the bad reviews, I want everyone to go play with the new base model at either Best Buy or Apple and try it out, really try things on it, I think the results will surprise you.

My verdit about the new 2014 Mac Mini is that the machien is alot better than expected and there are not many reviews about use on the base model, this model it getting a bad review because of it's specs, however the machine is alot more powerful than expected.
 
Very Interesting!

vbctv said:
"they had demos models of the new 2014 Mac Mini, the new cheap iMac, Macbook Air (All of these have the same 1.4 GHZ processor and 4gb ram except the iMac whihc has 8GB ram) and the 2012 Macbook Pro whihc has the same specs as 2012 Mac Mini.
...
Now on my 2010 Mac Mini it took me about 90 minutes to render the same file.
One the 2014 Mac Mini and MBA it took just under 8 minutes on iMovie and just under 10 minutes in FCPX.
The 2014 iMac with 8GB Ram took about a minute longer on each.
The 2012 Macbook Pro took over 20 minutes on iMovie and FCPX I gave up on because it took over 2 minutes to even open the program while all 3 other computers were able to open FCPX in about 30 seconds from splash to full use.
...
My verdit about the new 2014 Mac Mini is that the machien is alot better than expected and there are not many reviews about use on the base model, this model it getting a bad review because of it's specs, however the machine is alot more powerful than expected."
Click to expand...

Thanks for the very interesting practical usage comparison report. From your information I gleaned several significant points.
1. The base 2014 Mac Mini is much faster than your 2010 8 Gb machine at the measured tasks.
2. The base 2014 Mac Mini and 2014 MBA were not hindered by their 4 Gb RAM and bested the base 2014 iMac with 8Gb of memory.
3. Your comparison demonstrated that the tested 2012 MBP was much slower than all of the other machines.

Should we now conclude that the base 2012 Mac mini would perform similarly with iMovie, FCPX, and your files?
 
vbctv said:
So today I decided to replace my 2010 Mac Mini with the new 2014 Mac Mini base model. Now before everyone starts the boos and that is the worse model ever reviews, I want to go ahead and explain why this decision was made and why the 2014 Mac Mini is alot better than what people are thinking.

My 2010 Mac Mini was upgraded to 8GB Ram. Today I got the chance to play with the 2014 MM all day.

My verdit about the new 2014 Mac Mini is that the machien is alot better than expected and there are not many reviews about use on the base model, this model it getting a bad review because of it's specs, however the machine is alot more powerful than expected.
Click to expand...

It's great to get new technology. I had a late 2009 C2D 2.66 with 8GB RAM and a decent hard drive. When I got my 2012 2.3 last January I was amazed at how stupidly slow my old mini was editing EyeTV recordings. Like I said, new tech is great. Enjoy your new mini.
 
Intel makes improvements to Quick Sync (as well as IPC) with each new micro-architecture they release, which is what you're seeing, and the truth is you can get a better Haswell processor for less money elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
corvus32 said:
Intel makes improvements to Quick Sync (as well as IPC) with each new micro-architecture they release, which is what you're seeing, and the truth is you can get a better Haswell processor for less money elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I thought quick sync was disabled on OS X?
 
Nice review and impressions OP. It's got me thinking about a base model again. Will wait for sales though.
 
Crosscreek said:
4GB of RAM just seems wrong for Yosemite. If you do any VMs your screwed.
Click to expand...

Nope, I don't do VM's. My base 2012 MM w/4GB of Ram is running Yosemite and I find the boot times and performance a little faster than ML or Mavericks.
 
Rodster said:
Nope, I don't do VM's. My base 2012 MM w/4GB of Ram is running Yosemite and I find the boot times and performance a little faster than ML or Mavericks.
Click to expand...

You will probably be OK then but if you ever consider running a VM in the future 8GB would be the Minimum because the VM will need 4GB assigned to it to run smoothly.

Good Luck:)
 
That weak CPU, 500GB spinner, and 4GB of non-upgradeable RAM isn't a pleasant thought if your considering one of these for video editing.

It can do it, but that's just being desperate for OS X.
 
corvus32 said:
That weak CPU, 500GB spinner, and 4GB of non-upgradeable RAM isn't a pleasant thought if your considering one of these for video editing.

It can do it, but that's just being desperate for OS X.
Click to expand...

It works very well actually because I do video editing & photoshop. Remember the Macbook Air's have the same specs except it has an SSD. And I've looked at the new Broadwell chips that are rumored for the new Macbook Air's and they are only between 800mhz & 1.1 GHZ.

The thing people are forgetting is that technology is going to less specs with the same power but uses less power. So electric bills go down and so forth. Look at all the new $199 Windows PC's coming out for Christmas, they all have 2GB Ram and 32GB SSD with Celeron Processors.
So you can sort of see the way that technology is going, it's not backwards but somewhat of a standstill.
A 1.4 GHZ Haswell can do the same as last years 2.4 GHZ Ivy Bridge. So to base it only on numbers is very unfair, you need to play with the machine and really see what it is capable of doing. And keep in mind Apple says right on their website 90% better graphics performance than the 2012 Mac Mini. This upgrade to them was about graphics, the processors are even though even in benchmarks, give or take on either.

As I said, if anyone has the time, go to a Best Buy or Apple store and just play with the new one and see how powerful it really is. My opinion is unless you are a studio professional, these base models are perfect and run 250% better than a Windows base model. As I originally said, I actually played with all of the Macs before making my choice.
 
vbctv said:
It works very well actually because I do video editing & photoshop. Remember the Macbook Air's have the same specs except it has an SSD. And I've looked at the new Broadwell chips that are rumored for the new Macbook Air's and they are only between 800mhz & 1.1 GHZ.

The thing people are forgetting is that technology is going to less specs with the same power but uses less power. So electric bills go down and so forth. Look at all the new $199 Windows PC's coming out for Christmas, they all have 2GB Ram and 32GB SSD with Celeron Processors.
So you can sort of see the way that technology is going, it's not backwards but somewhat of a standstill.
A 1.4 GHZ Haswell can do the same as last years 2.4 GHZ Ivy Bridge. So to base it only on numbers is very unfair, you need to play with the machine and really see what it is capable of doing. And keep in mind Apple says right on their website 90% better graphics performance than the 2012 Mac Mini. This upgrade to them was about graphics, the processors are even though even in benchmarks, give or take on either.

As I said, if anyone has the time, go to a Best Buy or Apple store and just play with the new one and see how powerful it really is. My opinion is unless you are a studio professional, these base models are perfect and run 250% better than a Windows base model. As I originally said, I actually played with all of the Macs before making my choice.
Click to expand...

There is no need to justify your purchase. If it works for you just enjoy it.
 
scottsjack said:
There is no need to justify your purchase. If it works for you just enjoy it.
Click to expand...

I don't see how he/she is justifying the purchase, so please explain. :confused:

IMO the OP is explaining, not justifying his/her view that he/she can perform duties on the base 2014 MM that has been vilified. I appreciate the OP's impressions. I own a base 2012 MM and it's got me thinking about the base 2014 MM.
 
I was pleasently surprised with my mm. I'm in the process of moving from my late 11 mbp upgraded with ssd and 16gb ram. I got the base 2014 mm as it was all i could afford but it runs everything i need, yes others MAY run faster but in retrospect it would be a bit of overkill.
 
I am very satisfied with my new mac mini too. Everything is much better. Recommended i7,16gb,256ssd
 
vbctv said:
The 2012 Macbook Pro took over 20 minutes on iMovie and FCPX I gave up on because it took over 2 minutes to even open the program while all 3 other computers were able to open FCPX in about 30 seconds from splash to full use.
Click to expand...

Late reply on this, but this is definitely not normal performance for a 2012 Macbook Pro. All of them are faster than a 2010 Mac Mini by a significant margin. I'd suspect disk or memory issues with that computer.
 
Do you think it can run League of Legends properly on lowest settings? My 2010 MBA struggles and crashes sometimes...
 
Despite my initial disappointment with the new Mac Mini I am considering one as my next purchase. I want to get into (maybe) coding and (definitely) some 3D CAD/rendering (entry-level stuff).

I plan to get 8GB RAM and a Fusion drive so if anyone with similar specced machines can give thoughts I'd be grateful. Should I spec up the entry-level machine and save the £80ish pounds? Or is the better i5 on the mid-level model (and the Iris Pro) worth the bump?

Many thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back