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.
New 2014 Mac Mini Has Soldered RAM, Not User Replaceable
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What's all the fuss about? How do you seem to know that a quad-core from 2 years ago is better than a dual-core today? Perhaps 4 sounds better than 2? The current Intel chip is not the same generation as the one from 2012. You're comparing Ivy Bridge to Haswell. You guys may be right, but lets wait for some benchmark on the CPU when they are in people's hands.
The RAM is upgradeable on the new mac mini.
http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/macbook-air?product=MD712LL/B&step=config
This is the MBA, the ram is soldered and is not upgradeable (click the Learn More link for the details):
"Every MacBook Air comes with 4GB of memory built into the system. If you feel you may need 8GB in the future, it is important to upgrade at the time of purchase, as RAM is not upgradeable in this model."
http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/macbook-pro?product=MGX92LL/A&step=config
This is the MBPr, and the ram is soldered and not upgradeable:
"Note that MacBook Pro with Retina display comes with 8GB of memory built into the computer. If you think you may need more memory in the future, it is important to upgrade at the time of purchase, because memory cannot be upgraded later in this model."
For the Mac mini, it doesn't say anything about ram NOT being upgradeable. Here's the link to the new Mac mini.
http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/mac-mini?product=MGEN2LL/A&step=config
For comparison, the iMac (non-5k) 21-inch says RAM cannot be upgraded, while the 27-inch does not say that.
Link here so you can compare it yourself: http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/imac
And yes, the new iMac 5K's RAM is upgradeable.
The RAM is upgradeable on the new mac mini.
http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/macbook-air?product=MD712LL/B&step=config
This is the MBA, the ram is soldered and is not upgradeable (click the Learn More link for the details):
"Every MacBook Air comes with 4GB of memory built into the system. If you feel you may need 8GB in the future, it is important to upgrade at the time of purchase, as RAM is not upgradeable in this model."
http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/macbook-pro?product=MGX92LL/A&step=config
This is the MBPr, and the ram is soldered and not upgradeable:
"Note that MacBook Pro with Retina display comes with 8GB of memory built into the computer. If you think you may need more memory in the future, it is important to upgrade at the time of purchase, because memory cannot be upgraded later in this model."
For the Mac mini, it doesn't say anything about ram NOT being upgradeable. Here's the link to the new Mac mini.
http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/mac-mini?product=MGEN2LL/A&step=config
For comparison, the iMac (non-5k) 21-inch says RAM cannot be upgraded, while the 27-inch does not say that.
Link here so you can compare it yourself: http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/imac
And yes, the new iMac 5K's RAM is upgradeable.
Last edited:
Let's be honest here the Mini was never suitable for the heavy usage you are implying. It has always had a mobile chip set and was the lowest performance Mini to be had.
Apples RAM pricing isn't ideal but isn't that much worst than buying RAM from a mainline PC supplier.
As far as soldered in RAM goes, people need to get use to it. RAM is of course closely coupled to the main processor SoC, to continue to get the required speed increases RAM will have to be soldered in. One day the RAM will be integrated right into the SoC package. The clock rates have become so high that state signals only travel inches.
It is all about the light foot. In a vacuum light only travels about 29 centimeters in a nanosecond and an electron in copper is slower. Eventually your RAM ends up too far away from the processor to get a real speed up, you literally have to wait for the data to travel down the wire. This combined with the electrical or signal integrity issues indicates that RAM in sockets, at least the traditional sockets, is not long for this world.
exactly .. for a pc 16GB is too much (at the moment), that was my whole point...
The problem is that people like to use the mini as a server, and this new update makes the mini less suitable for that. The lack of a quad core option is also bad.
Just read the store-page. "configurable only in the apple online store" applies to all models.
Yeah... sorry to burst your bubble:
Top one is the 2.6 GHz Quad i7 that you could get on the 2012 Mini / Mini server. Bottom one is the top tier 2014 Mini Dual-core i7.
As you can see, quite a stretch in performance. I'll be holding on to my quad 2012 Mini for a looooong time! I cannot even consider downgrading to a dual core EVER, specially for music production.
And the whole RAM issue, well...
That basically means just that, configurable only in the Apple online store, not the retail store, or best buy, or anywhere else. All the brick-and-mortar stores, including Apple, only has stock units. It doesn't say that particular product is technically configurable or not. In other words, it does not say whether CPU, RAM, or drives cannot be upgraded or not.
It's important to understand the difference.
So let's see, the Mac Mini should have soldered RAM because it is what is needed for a faster system? Explain why the Mac Pro and the new Imac 5k doesn't have soldered in RAM. Those systems by your logic should be first in line for being soldered in as they have the processing power to take advantage of proximity. Your argument s flawed.
There are certainly demonstrated cases where older chips perform better than some newer chips. In this case, it has more to do with available threads as a primary example. Perhaps you like to run a virtual machine, nice to allocated 1-2 cores and not feel too much of a hit, with a dual core you will feel the hit.
The previous quad core 2.6 will out perform the newer dual core 2.6 with various applications that take advantage of multi-core processing. The reality is that the Mac Mini took a step backwards on the high end offering where CPU is concerned. The new Mini perk is in graphics and TB2 ports and that is all. There certainly was no need for a trade off so to speak other than Apple doing its usual tell us what we want and force fit it into their marketing model. Apple is not about optimal systems but about marketing, high profit margins and duping the public into accepting form over function.
There is nothing moral or immoral here if the report is true. Apple might have had other reasons to go soldered (if they actually did) but long term they have no option. RAM need to move closer to the processor electrically to continue to get real speed ups. Intel is even looking into building in Memory Cub modules right in the Xeon Phi's package. It is the only way long term to continue to drive system performance.
Today's RAM is sort of like the old magnetic hard drives in that it takes forever to get data from the storage device. SSD's have improved that a lot in current hardware. Now we need to see similar speed ups in RAM subsystems to continue to drive system performance. Even today Intel is putting a RAM chip into Iris Plus processors to eliminate RAM bottle necks seen in all APU style processors. The trend is clear here going faster requires being close to the processor.
As for today's Mini I suspect Apples real concern isn't pleasing a few upgrades but rather increasing reliability. RAM sockets are notorious for reliability problems. Of course this implies that the thread here interprets the comments about user accessible RAM correctly. RAM could still be in a socket yet requiring one to disassemble the machine. The report wasn't about RAM being soldered in but rather it being accessible.
Nope. Let's try another piece of more evidence ..
From the Mac Mini (Late 2012) Important Product Information Guide is the following quote under 'Do Not Make Repairs Yourself'.
Your Mac mini doesnt have any user-serviceable parts,
except for memory. Do not attempt to replace or repair any
other components inside your Mac mini.
WARNING: Making adjustments or performing
procedures other than replacing memory may result in
hazardous radiation exposure
From the Mac Mini (Late 2014) Important Product Information Guide that section has changed and now reads ..
Your Mac mini doesnt have any user-serviceable parts.
Do not attempt to replace or repair any components inside
your Mac mini. If your Mac mini needs service, consult an
Apple Authorized Service Provider or Apple.
WARNING: Making adjustments or performing
procedures may result in hazardous radiation exposure.
Don't think that section fell out by accident.
What pisses me off is that Apple thinks that "This is many people's first Mac". No, it's not. It's my third. And with the Core i7, it is not an entry level Mac, but a workstation that I use for video editing. Apple doesn't seem to understand that. They think a real Mac user should buy a Macbook Pro or iMac, but I really don't want to buy a new display whenever I buy a new Mac, and I don't need a Macbook, because I have my iPad for mobile applications. And the price jump to the next level displayless Mac, the Mac Pro, is just a bit too far.
So I would really prefer for Apple not to turn the Mac Mini into an entry level piece of crap. I don't expect a fully user-upgradeable Mac, but at least some options should be available.
So I would really prefer for Apple not to turn the Mac Mini into an entry level piece of crap. I don't expect a fully user-upgradeable Mac, but at least some options should be available.
Fine. Lets try actual evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nkbekb8yKhc
RAM and hard drive is upgradeable, at least this is actual proof the mac mini 2012 can be upgraded. This videos shows he's upgrading the base model of the mac mini 2012.
"Your Mac mini doesn’t have any user-serviceable parts." basically means you're going to void your warranty, but it's still upgradeable. The catch is you're going to need some specialized screwdrivers.
More details here: https://www.ifixit.com/Device/Mac_Mini_Late_2012
Either way, I've already ordered one (the mid spec one, $699, it is being shipped from China. I'll know for sure very soon, it's scheduled to be delivered to me on Monday.
Last edited:
I'd like to hear more about this but speaking as someone who makes things on a regular basis, there's no substitute for economies of scale. If apple could cut the unit cost of the 1.4 chip in half, lets say, by buying 10M instead of 1M, are you suggesting they would pay more for the smaller quantities more often, so they can save later on the inventory costs as they install them?
Sounds likely to me. One of apples favorite things is going deep into a new technology and then pushing the boundaries of what was considered possible, to create some amazing new reality they can present on stage. Redefining what the mini is would certainly bend a few rules the current chips can't manage.
Totally agree. Made from scratch, it would actually cost more to make all three models so different from each other. And on an economy model? This is where I got the idea of the parts recycling. Now the increased cost of the model variations (which are not even harmonious) get covered by the increased savings from using parts that are already paid for and depreciating fast.
In the long run yes! It isn't likely in this specific case if the assumption of soldered in RAM is even true. But the long term reality is that RAM is really slow these days and vendors need to find ways to speed things up. That is why I said people need to get used to it. My argument isn't flawed it just flew over your head.
Well the lack of quad core does suck but on the other hand you are getting much better GPUs. This pulls us off track just a bit but you do realize that the modern APU's as AMD likes to call them are all suffering from the limitations imposed by the sped of the RAM interfaces. There are plenty of blogs on the web that detail how speeding up RAM is very Important for these devices, especially the GPU section to fully realize their potential. In the same regard Intel beefs up one Iris equipped processor with a high speed RAM module IN THE PROCESSOR PACKAGE!
Yeah but what does that have to do with This thread?
Actually I wanted much better GPU performance and In this sense the Mini delivers. Yes I would have preferred quad cores also. The reality is this is engineering, until we know the specifics of the chips chosen we don't really know if Apple has reduced the wattage of those chips. I kinda doubt it really. The wattage allowed is just being allocated to better GPU performance.
High profit margins can be an issue. As for an optimal system this reassess of Minis actually gives us a better balance of capabilities than in the past. Yes the loss of quad cores sucks for those that need quad cores. On the other hand now we have a platform with a much better GPU even if it should have arrived a year ago.
In any event if you don't want to believe me out right research a bit the new memory technologies, especially high end tech that will eventually filter down to the desktop.
The other thing that is really weird here is that people have no problem at all buying a GPU card with soldered in RAM. The story is the same here sockets are evil when it comes to high speed systems.
1) if you have software that cannot take advantage of the GPU, which would you rather use, new dual core 2.6 or older quad core 2.6 if the app can take advantage of multi-core?
2) do you really believe that Apple put in soldered RAM for proximity to increase speed? (Or was it a calculated move for other reasons?)
3) Are Mini users more likely to spend money on TB2 devices or TB1 given that TB1 enclosures have dropped quite a bit in price? Be honest.
The reality is that Apple isn't out to make a fast Mini that will compete (in their minds) with their mid to high end iMacs. If proximity was a real consideration for speed for hardware, there would be no SSD type of drives having to use the bus but direct linkage and or, RAM drives with battery back up (which is also old technology).
All said and done, Apple has a market model and insists on telling us what we want. As someone who goes back to the days where a co-processor was an addition, having programmed SCSI command sets, and a bit more ... I doubt what you have said has gone over my head. There is no innovation at Apple just new ways to do form over function and ding people along the way with the infamous Mac Tax if someone wants a machine for a specific task that requires the BTO.
The real question here is: Will it blend?
Answer = always! But the Real question is why do you care if it would anyway?
The Mac Mini does NOT play into Apples vision of the future.
Apples wet dream is 5 skinny anorexic tools.
Iphone
Ipad super-anorexic Air
Imac (which gets slimmer year after year)
Macbook Air (NEXT MODEL ALREADY CONFIRMED EVEN THINNER)
Apple watch which will get thinner and thinner
Mac Mini is the ugly redheaded stepchild that doesnt play into Apples DREAM OF ITS FUTURE
Deny it all you want, but thats the FACT
Apples wet dream is 5 skinny anorexic tools.
Iphone
Ipad super-anorexic Air
Imac (which gets slimmer year after year)
Macbook Air (NEXT MODEL ALREADY CONFIRMED EVEN THINNER)
Apple watch which will get thinner and thinner
Mac Mini is the ugly redheaded stepchild that doesnt play into Apples DREAM OF ITS FUTURE
Deny it all you want, but thats the FACT
as a 2012 fully spec'd mac mini owner, i was a little dissapointed that i was going to have the generation before the current gen mac mini. but now i'm pretty stoked that i got it when i did since apple killed the quad core mini. my quad core sometimes system overloads when i'm running a whole bunch of tracks with effects in Logic Pro X, but it very rarely happens. so it doesn't look too good for the music producers and especially video editors who get this new mac mini. i'd rather have my 2.6GHz quad core with thunderbolt 1 than a 3.0GHz dual core with thunderbolt 2. rip mac mini.
I agree with you that Apple has to keep it non-competitive against their other products. If I were to compare the Mac Pro to the Mac mini, the main difference is the dedicated graphics card, extra USB/TB ports, and the CPU. Everyone is different, but when it comes to a full desktop computer, the mac mini makes the most sense, with the exception that if you need some hardcore computing, either graphics for gaming or visual rendering, or require computation power, most users will find the mac mini is more than sufficient. I don't think the mac mini, including this update, is still meant for video editing or intense gaming. Even if benchmark reports in the coming week shows that there is an improvement with these new CPU, I think it will be marginal, since Haswell is only roughly 8% faster than Ivy Bridge, given the same specs, which is what the mac mini 2012 has.
I still use my custom built PC that I put together back in November 2011, basically Intel 2600K, 16GB RAM, 580 GTX, and a 128GB SSD. I still use this machine for my gaming, mainly battlefield 4 with ultra settings. I see no bottleneck, because in my years of owning computers, it's always the hard drive that is the bottleneck.
I'm not comparing this to a gaming machine, but the idea is that I can use this as a media PC for browsing or watching movies, or music, not exactly intensive stuff, but it'll still be snappy. I ordered the $699 mac mini, knowing I will be upgrading it to an SSD soon. the form is still the same, so that means I'll be able to put in a new SSD, hopefully a 512GB or 1TB SSD when prices are more reasonable later on, and move the 1TB drive that came with it as a secondary storage.
Last edited: