The 2012 mini loses ~20% in GPU performance but gains 2x cores and faster RAM. Seriously, how myopic can some of you be?
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 mac mini another disappointment
- Thread starter Hessel
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have an Intel 3000 in my 17 inch Macbook Pro from 2010 and I can tell you it's slow as ****. the Discrete 330M is a bit faster but still not fast enough for the things I want to use it for. (auto cad)
The Intel 4000 being only 1,6 times faster then the 3000 would actually mean a DOWNGRADE from my 2010 macbook pro GPU wise!!!!!
I repeat: 2010 !!!!!!!!!!!
----------
btw I'm not a gamer
In all fairness, someone who is buying a computer to run Auto CAD on, should probably not go for a computer that is designed as an entry level consumer computer.
NVIDIA designs their high end professional workstation Quadro cards just for that purpose, and if you were expecting to get this performance out of an entry level computer, thats an unrealistic expectation. Good Quadro cards start around $300-400 dollars, which is more than half the cost of the entire Mini.
An iMac would be a much better low end starting point than a mac mini, you might want to set your sights there.
NO. they are NOT better. the GPU is slower then the 330M in my Macbook Pro from 2010. 2010 for ****s sake!
also, I'm not a gamer
Since we're assuming here, on a product that was just released and no one has benchmarked yet, lets try and see if we can find relevant benchmarks that support your claim.
From my quick researching on the internet, it turns out actually that's probably not the case. From what I can find, they are likely equal in comparison of one another, or the HD4000 might even be faster.
Lets take a look:
It was somewhat difficult to find a benchmark directly comparing the 330M to the HD4000, so I tried to compare it to another graphics card with similar performance, the NVIDIA 610M.
In this benchmark of the HD4000, it performs a bit better than the NVIDIA 610M. This is also confirmed in this benchmark as well.
Now to arrive at the conclusion that these two are similar in score, did a search for the 330M on FutureMark's website (search for 330M on the page). Three slots below it on the page is the 610M, which scores a 630 in FutureMark, while the 330M scores a 650, a difference of about 3%.
Depending on the circumstance, each card will have its strengths and its weaknesses. To call one superior over the other without having actually used both is a bit crazy. The best test will be when the new Mini ships, and people can actually compare the product between other versions via benchmarking software, instead of saying that it's going to suck based on your personal biases.
Lets see.... talking sheer horsepower and ignoring the graphics card
Top of the line Retina 15.....
2.6GHz, 16G 1600MHz ram, 768G ssd..... $3500
Mid Tier Mini 2012 with 3rd party upgrades....
2.6GHz, 16G 1600MHz ram (32G likely in future), 512G Crucial M4 + Samsung 830 256G for boot and programs... $1600...
WOW... for those of us into sheer number crunching grunt what a deal!!!! Geekbench probably ~10,700... 85% as powerful as a mid 2010 MacPro 8 core... As much CPU and ram as top of the line MBP!
Complain away...
Top of the line Retina 15.....
2.6GHz, 16G 1600MHz ram, 768G ssd..... $3500
Mid Tier Mini 2012 with 3rd party upgrades....
2.6GHz, 16G 1600MHz ram (32G likely in future), 512G Crucial M4 + Samsung 830 256G for boot and programs... $1600...
WOW... for those of us into sheer number crunching grunt what a deal!!!! Geekbench probably ~10,700... 85% as powerful as a mid 2010 MacPro 8 core... As much CPU and ram as top of the line MBP!
Complain away
...
Last edited:
the mac mini this year not having a discrete gpu, or 4gig of standard RAM, or 5400rpm standard hdd's in their computers are explained by my "apple sauce" theory i posted on here:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1473666/
maybe, this is already standard know-how, but just thought of it.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1473666/
maybe, this is already standard know-how, but just thought of it.
Lets see.... (ignoring the graphics card)
Top of the line Retina 15.....
2.6GHz, 16G 1600MHz ram, 768G ssd..... $3500
Mid Tier Mini 2012 with 3rd party upgrades....
2.6GHz, 16G 1600MHz ram (32G likely in future), 512G Crucial M4 + Samsung 830 256G for boot and programs... $1600...
WOW... for those of us into sheer number crunching grunt what a deal!!!! Geekbench probably ~10,700... 85% as powerful as a mid 2010 MacPro 8 core... As much CPU and ram as top of the line MBP!
Complain away
Where's the monitor, keyboard, mouse, and ability to use it on an airplane?
Monitor keyboard mouse easy to do --- $200 to $1000+ (yep retina is much prettier
...Airplane.... ready to use right away... as a drink holder or footrest ! LOL...
Who wants to be on an airplane? Just put a seringe with narcosis liquid in your armpit and let the flight attendents carry you out of the plane with love when you landed. BA Baracus of the A-team had a clear future vision of sky travel long time ago.
Lets see.... talking sheer horsepower and ignoring the graphics card
Top of the line Retina 15.....
2.6GHz, 16G 1600MHz ram, 768G ssd..... $3500
Mid Tier Mini 2012 with 3rd party upgrades....
2.6GHz, 16G 1600MHz ram (32G likely in future), 512G Crucial M4 + Samsung 830 256G for boot and programs... $1600...
WOW... for those of us into sheer number crunching grunt what a deal!!!! Geekbench probably ~10,700... 85% as powerful as a mid 2010 MacPro 8 core... As much CPU and ram as top of the line MBP!
Complain away
The Mini is the best deal on a Mac going. Looking at the just announced imac lineup, the Mini is probably faster. That is unthinkable just a few years ago.
I agree totally, how can people complain? Really. Not only that the upgrades via Apple are cheaper. For example the SSD option is $300, just about the same price as a third party drive. With the processor upgrade just $100. For $1200 you have a machine much faster than a 27 imac with i5, and as fast as a high spec Retina Macbook Pro.
Quit complaining. You all should be happy. This upgrade is better than expected.
If it is the same processor as the Retina, and I think it is. The geekbench scores are over 12000!
http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks
I agree. I ordered a 2.6 Ghz version with the 1TB Fusion Drive. I'll see in a week or so what the Geekbench scores are. It's the same CPU as the 15" Retina and I would expect the 2.6 mini to be in the 12,000-13,000 range on Geekbench.
I'll also point out that the mid-range mini and the server mini now both use the same CPU, 2.3Ghz quad-core as the standard option and the 2.6Ghz quad-core upgrade for only $100. That means that if you wanted the top of the line version you can buy the mid-range mini, save $200 instead of buying the server, still get the same CPU as the top of the line mini, and even upgrade it for $100 if you want. I chose the 2.6 and upgraded to the 1TB Fusion drive. I also ordered 16GB of Corsair memory from Amazon for $89.99 shipped rather than pay Apple $300 to max out the RAM.
My 2011 mini server with a 128 GB SSD hits about 8800 something on Geekbench (32 bit, I've never bought the 64 bit version). The 2012 should be quite an improvement. Having USB 3.0, Ivy Bridge, faster ram, HD 4000 graphics, and the Fusion Drive were all reasons I decided to upgrade, and after I sell off the 2011 mini I probably will only be paying $300-400 dollars for a significant upgrade.
Yes, the BTO option is really amazing. Even more amazing: it sells now, while the iMac store is shut down until december! NO IMACS ARE SOLD AT APPLE FOR 2 MONTHS!
The MacMini is going to tackle the MacPro, the iMac and the MBPr in one go!
I don't know where you live, but at my place I get a SSD for half the price Apple is charging...
You almost got me there. The only thing it can't do is gaming. Just have to look - if it can play Starcraft 2 on lowest settings (but full 1440p resolution) I'll probably gonna buy it.
Problem is, my budget is only 1800 (including TBD), but I want a SSD ...
Problem is, my budget is only 1800 (including TBD), but I want a SSD ...
Some things about this calculation:
First, I'm a student, so I get it a little bit cheaper.
Second, if I'd install a SSD myself, I'd choose a 128 GB one - I don't need more. However, I'm afraid I break the thing - and I'd loose the warranty, too.
And third, I won't buy the U2711. I know it's a great display, but the design of the TBD is simply too good.
Hard decisions ...
im looking at doing the same thing, so with the student discount you save 30$ on the mac with the processor bump, and you get 50$ off the display. i think you can find a good 256GB for around 200 and 16GB of ram for 80 and you can get the second drive addon form OWC for ~50 shipped.
how much faster would it be to have the HDD be internal vs an external? i want to put in a ssd but unsure if i want the trouble of getting the mounting kit and putting the HDD back in as a second or just using my USB 3.0 external i already have for media
What is so good about Apple's Thunderbolt display?
I know what is bad about it:
1. No ergonomic adjustments except for a bit of "tilt."
2. "Glassy" display vs. a matte anti-glare. (Of course, that little bit of tilt may come in handy when dealing with overhead lights...)
I'll be sticking with NEC. Better value and performance along with a four-year warranty vs. Apple's one-year warranty.
But that TB display sure is purty!
1. It has the right height for me
2. I used a 24" cinema display for two years and learned to ignore the slight reflections, and then it's worth it imo.
- Well, if you look at your image, you don't see the design
- I prefer no-nonsense looks with decent quality over useless design with issues
- If you want true great looks, skip Apple and find an IBM T221 on Ebay. It is from 2003, but it is the Retina the TB still isn't. 3840x2400 is some serious amount of pixels, and it does not come any sexier encased. It fits a Star Trek set perfectly.
As long as your eyes are even or slightly above the top of the display No Problemo. I am 5'10" and I need to be able to lower my display... I almost sent back my 24" iMac because I got severe neck pain from having to look up at the display. I was able to make it work (barely...) with some absurd mods to my desk/chair/input devices.
The reflections are one thing but the over-saturated display is the deal-killer for me. I much prefer image editing on a matte display.
I just ordered the $799 Mini and 16GB RAM from Crucial; both should arrive Friday. I'll be pairing the Mini with an NEC2490WUXi2 that I snagged last December for $550 vs. the $899 MSRP. I've been using it with a 13" MBP.
The display at the iMac is higher than the one in the TBD.
I don't think the newer displays are actually over saturated. They look quite saturated due to the glass, but they're actually well calibrated.
I was watching the 'iPad mini' special stream mainly to see what the new Mini looked like, since I was waiting to order one.
After seeing no discrete video version (I use it booted into Windows for gaming on the big TV often), I ordered one of the old versions instead from the refurb page. $549 with real video is better than $599 with onboard for me.
After seeing no discrete video version (I use it booted into Windows for gaming on the big TV often), I ordered one of the old versions instead from the refurb page. $549 with real video is better than $599 with onboard for me.
There are many things that speak against an iMac:
- All-In-One design
- not available until december
- more expensive if you've already got your accessories