Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
lol, I live in Belgium and they definitely don't know what their talking about :)

Wow! What a profoundly useless comment! I have no socks on and you definitely don't know how to convey relevant information :)

Seriously though, if your knowledge of Belgium gives you knowledge that the rest of us don't have on this topic, please share it. Otherwise...
 
Totally agree. For what 99% of the people buying Mac minis are doing, dedicated graphics isn't at all necessary.
And Apple is the master of optimizing for things other than just speed. As there are battery life, heat, weight, number of parts, number of suppliers. The best GPU isn't necessary the fastest GPU.

And even if they do, GPUs aren't going anywhere elsewhere. It's not like Apple has ever had a history of using strong, top of the line GPUs anyway. Yet despite that, we haven't seen the rest of the industry top out at mid-line mobile graphics cards.
The rest of the industry has changed as well. AMD buying ATI, turning a former independent GPU company into a mere devision of a CPU maker. Intel developing their own graphics, demoting the GPU to just another chip in the chipset surrounding their CPUs. Laptops outselling desktops, users can't swap and chose their GPU anyway.

The graphics card is on its way following the sound card. Professional musicians might still have a dedicated sound card, for everyone else its just some chip on the mainboard they (need to) know nothing about.
 
Last edited:
I really like the Mac Mini form factor, but price wise it just doesn't make sense. If they stuck a fusion drive starting in the base model then it starts to be competitive with the iMac.

Also it would be nice if they kept the discrete graphics in the high end model. Or maybe they will at least give these Iris Pro...

How so? The Mini is cheaper. You can upgrade the monitor separately from the machine and vice versa. The mini is basically a Macbook Pro without the screen. Same CPU's as Macbook Pro. The Mini is performance wise competitive with the imac at a much lower price. You can buy a loaded Mac Mini with SSD, 2.6 i7, add your own 16GB of ram and it will have more horse power than all the imac's save for the i7 imac. For around 1000. To get similar performance you would have to spend $2000 to get a mac book pro or i7 27 imac.

The only thing missing is the monitor and a good IPS display can be had for well under $1000. The only thing missing is the proper GPU. Now with Iris Pro, that will be partly taken care of.

To each their own, but the Mini is the biggest bang for your buck Apple currently offers, even without the Haswell update.
 
Could be true... In The Netherlands there are 2 giant retailers selling them with pretty discounts!

Normally a standard Mini would be 655 euros, 2 days ago they we're selling for 549 euros. I see the price is up again.. Strange stuff.
 
And Apple is the master of optimizing for things other than just speed. As there are battery life, heat, weight, number of parts, number of suppliers. The best GPU isn't necessary the fastest GPU.

Good point. We've seen it for years. Processors that by the number on the box isn't faster but it performs faster in testing because Apple has the ability to optimize the hardware with the OS. Windows doesn't have that luxury as they need to make it work with all combinations of hardware from all kinds of manufacturers. Instead people get too caught up with the sales sheet specs.
 
great going to buy one!

I LOVE the mini's! I'm using one as a media server/hub. It doesn't consume much power and I'm running a plex server on it. When I'm in my living room I can pick out a movie on my iPad air and using airplay directing it towards my television where my Apple TV is connected to.

Works as a charm, but this new mini has the latest WiFi which will result even in faster broadcasting streams. Great!
 
Yes I do need it, I don't need all the power it's got, but it's the Mac I need because there isn't currently another model that does meet my requirements.

Unfortunately when the only choices are "not good enough" or "too good", there's only really one option isn't there? I'm not sure why so many people seem to have an issue with new Mac Pro buyers who aren't going to be maxing out every core all day long or don't run video editing businesses. Why the elitism? - I want a high spec Mac that's going to last me a good 5 or 6 years and the new Mac Pro seems to be my best option at the moment, albeit overspecced for my current needs, unless a new high-spec Mini is on the horizon.

Some people choose to spend their money on cars that can go 200mph when they'll never drive them more than 80mph. Most people don't seem to have an issue with that.

Well the car example isn't really a good one. Essentially all cars can go faster than the speed limit. With computers, this is not the case.

However, I do understand your situation. Apple really doesn't cater toward all markets. And I'm assuming you need some good graphics hardware or else the Mac Mini would probably suffice.
 
please no laptop parts (processor, harddisk, graphics etc) and i'll be the first in line.

All the recent Mac Minis have had mobile parts, doubt Apple will change course.

Will they go for lower voltage CPUs, from 47W to 28W? That would allow for an even smaller case.
 
Years ago people bought lots of computers.

Maybe you should listen to apple's upcoming conference call. People still buy millions of macs.


The Mini has always been better in potential than in what Apple has delivered in it, both in horsepower/functions and price. It's almost like they've been releasing them begrudgingly. They can be great when they're a good fit, but Apple's unwillingness to make them more attractive since their introduction makes their priority of not cannibalizing their other hardware undeniable.

Totally agree. The mini was also $499 for a while, considering what the base model has it seems like they could get it back to that base price if they wanted to.


Why are you arguing with ME

Because it's a discussion board, and because you're arguing Apple's side.


I agree with all of it except for the PCIe-SSD. Just because that means that it would have an option much faster than any of the iMacs, and they don't even offer that for them.

The iMacs got it months ago. It's only a matter of time before every mac has a PCIe SSD option.
 
There were lots of Mini's on the Apple UK refurbished store earlier today in various configurations, when there haven't been any for weeks. They must have sold quick as there's only 2 different lower configurations now.
 
Good point. We've seen it for years. Processors that by the number on the box isn't faster but it performs faster in testing because Apple has the ability to optimize the hardware with the OS. Windows doesn't have that luxury as they need to make it work with all combinations of hardware from all kinds of manufacturers.
Another example are video game consoles. They also don't need to keep compatibility with traditional computer architecture. Instead of separate system and graphics memory, the new PS4 has only one kind of very fast unified memory shared between CPU and GPU. And that in a computer optimized for nothing but gaming performance.
 
And Apple is the master of optimizing for things other than just speed. As there are battery life, heat, weight, number of parts, number of suppliers. The best GPU isn't necessary the fastest GPU.

It depends on what you want and what you need. A good deal of people don't need the absolute fastest, most cutting edge GPUs, this is true. And some people do want thinner computers vs. faster one. But where you're making a mistake by assuming that a handful of computers can cover everyone, and the lowest common denominator is all that matters in the industry. As long as there is demand for discrete GPUs, someone will be producing them. And at the moment, there is still plenty of demand.

The rest of the industry has changed as well. AMD buying ATI, turning a former independent GPU company into a mere devision of a CPU maker. Intel developing their own graphics, demoting the GPU to just another chip in the chipset surrounding their CPUs. Laptops outselling desktops, users can't swap and chose their GPU anyway.

I guess you can make anything sound unimportant by adding "mere" in front of it. iOS is but a mere division of Apple as a whole. Same for OSX and Macs, which are but a "mere" division as well.

Nvidia makes GPUs and ARM chipsets. Are their CPUs a "mere" division, too?

And yes, laptops are outselling desktops, but there are plenty of options out there that provide for discrete GPUs. The fact you can't replace them is a distraction to the argument at hand, which is the necessity and viability of discrete GPUs.

The graphics card is on its way following the sound card. Professional musicians might still have a dedicated sound card, for everyone else its just some chip on the mainboard they (need to) know nothing about.

The industry tends to mothball bits and pieces when they're no longer needed, or are replace by something better. Standalone soundcards don't offer much more than integrated chips. The same could be said of floppy disks. By the time Apple removed them, they were already on their way towards being replaced by something better.

GPUs? Integrated chips do have their place, but they're not nearly ready to replace discrete GPUs across the board just yet. They're getting better, no doubt about it, and your theory they're on their way out might possibly be true in another 3-5 years. But now? No. It's just wishful thinking on your part.
 
Will they refresh Macbook Pro as well?

I'm still waiting for 13" with quad-core, 16GB and Nvidia.

This is Macbook PRO! not just a Macbook like it used to be.
apparently, Apple forgot it.
 
Another example are video game consoles. They also don't need to keep compatibility with traditional computer architecture. Instead of separate system and graphics memory, the new PS4 has only one kind of very fast unified memory shared between CPU and GPU. And that in a computer optimized for nothing but gaming performance.

Consoles have been using unified memory between the GPU and CPU since the days of the PS1, and have always had a presence in consoles. What the PS4 and Xbox One are doing is nothing new.

Ultimately, it's a cost cutting feature.
 
How so? The Mini is cheaper. You can upgrade the monitor separately from the machine and vice versa. The mini is basically a Macbook Pro without the screen. Same CPU's as Macbook Pro. The Mini is performance wise competitive with the imac at a much lower price. You can buy a loaded Mac Mini with SSD, 2.6 i7, add your own 16GB of ram and it will have more horse power than all the imac's save for the i7 imac. For around 1000. To get similar performance you would have to spend $2000 to get a mac book pro or i7 27 imac.

The only thing missing is the monitor and a good IPS display can be had for well under $1000. The only thing missing is the proper GPU. Now with Iris Pro, that will be partly taken care of.

To each their own, but the Mini is the biggest bang for your buck Apple currently offers, even without the Haswell update.

Pretty much because of the GPU performance plus display. If Apple does stick iris pro in the mini it will be a much better value. My 24" Dell IPS display cost around $300 (not their highest end ultrasharp) so considering that the base cost of the iMac is $1k. The Mini needs to be at least the first upgrade to get a quad core CPU so it is at $800, and the upgraded CPU (2.6) cost $899. The base iMac already comes equipped with the mini's highest end CPU. The base iMac also includes 8GB of ram which is fine for most people ($50 more to upgrade yourself on the mini.) So the real price difference is around $50 more for the iMac. IMO the graphics upgrade is worth that.

Plus you get the keyboard and trackpad included with the iMac, which you could easily sell for $40-$50 each if you didn't want them. So that actually puts the iMac just ahead in terms of price.

Once the mini gets Iris Pro graphics then I think it will be based more on your form factor preference, but right now the iMac brings a better value at the base model, plus it has even more high-end options that you just can't get with the mini. If course if you don't want an attached display then there really is only one option, unless you are loaded and need excessive amounts of power.
 
And Apple is the master of optimizing for things other than just speed. As there are battery life, heat, weight, number of parts, number of suppliers. The best GPU isn't necessary the fastest GPU.

The rest of the industry has changed as well. AMD buying ATI, turning a former independent GPU company into a mere devision of a CPU maker. Intel developing their own graphics, demoting the GPU to just another chip in the chipset surrounding their CPUs. Laptops outselling desktops, users can't swap and chose their GPU anyway.

The graphics card is on its way following the sound card. Professional musicians might still have a dedicated sound card, for everyone else its just some chip on the mainboard they (need to) know nothing about.

I really don't think the graphics card is going anywhere. I'd wager It's performance will always be better.

Both My laptop and desktop can swap/upgrade gpus. There may not be many that care about it, but enough to keep it going IMO.

Gpu is the first part to go outdated and begin choking - aside from an hdd, usually the first part to fail.

I long for a Mac mini without compromises for the sake of size.

The gpu is important for those that care about games. I don't feel the sound card analogy is completely fair since integrated sound doesn't have much of an effect on performance, only really quality (in games and nonprofessional application).
 
Last edited:
That design is based on the idea of 3 big, hot chips (Xeon CPU and 2 powerful GPUs) on 3 main boards arranged in a triangle around a central heatsink column.

Why would that make sense for a Mac Mini, with a mobile-class CPU, probably with an integrated GPU?

…unless you're thinking of a Mac Pro with i5/i7 instead of Xeon and a pair of non-workstation-class discrete GPUs - in which case, dream on.
I think Apple could release a Mac mini that is shaped like the Mac Pro by:
  1. Remove the 6 thunderbolt ports and the space between them and the dual ethernet ports.
  2. Lower the USB and audio ports.
  3. Remove one of the ethernet ports and replace it with two Thunderbolt ports.
  4. Replace the 4 DIMM slots and replace with 2 SO-DIMM slots.
  5. Replace one of the graphics cards with PCIe storage and an optional SSD or Fusion Drive.
  6. The GPU could be the AMD R7 260X. From the image on AMD's website, it looks like it could fit and will destroy, gut feeling only, the Iris Pro.

In addition to giving users a decent powered Mac mini, Apple could announce the Mac Air at WWDC2014. It will have a design similar to what the Mac mini has now, but will be smaller and powered by the A7 or A8 processor.
 
Great news if true!

I bought a Mini one year ago and it suits all my pro/non pro needs and I love it.

The only thing that I wouldn't mind having is more RAM (I use a lot of emulators and they tend to leak memory or just plain use all of it).

Let's hope the new Mini has the option of putting 32GB of RAM (and user replaceable!).

Also I wouldn't mind the following:

- More thunderbolt ports (at least total two ports)
- keep the audio input (they have been removing it on other macs)
- five USB3 ports (although four is plenty for me)
- faster (I can't complain)
- better graphics (I can't complain)
- keep it quiet and cool (mine is, even under stress it is still very quiet and below 100 celsius)
- keep it user replaceable! (I don't want to pay more for RAM or to replace an HDD)
- keep the option or even add an easier way to put another HDD.
- keeping the FW800 port (I bet they'll remove it)
 
Now that there's no need to accommodate an optical disk, I'd like to see them make it a little cube. It would be a fitting tribute to the beautiful (albeit commercially unsuccessful) Mac G4 Cube, and to a lesser extent the NeXT Cube before it.

As an owner of both a NeXT cube , a G4 cube, I would of course buy one of these just to complete the set. :)
 
And yes, laptops are outselling desktops, but there are plenty of options out there that provide for discrete GPUs.
Stop dragging me into your Windows world. This is the complete lineup of notebooks worth talking about on MacRumors. And only one of them has a discrete GPU as an option. That's not plenty, that's one far from none. A dGPU has become a bottom-right feature for people spending $2599+. For everyone else it's various flavors of Intel graphics.
The industry tends to mothball bits and pieces when they're no longer needed, or are replace by something better.
Quite the opposite, the industry tends to keep everything on board way beyond its useful life time for backward compatibility. Only Apple abandons all technologies not useful in the future. Discrete GPUs in consumer Macs have already been replaced by something better, namely Intel GPUs. That switch lies behind us, not in front of us.
The same could be said of floppy disks.
That's what I'm saying. Don't ask for your floppy drive back.
They're getting better, no doubt about it, and your theory they're on their way out might possibly be true in another 3-5 years. But now? No. It's just wishful thinking on your part.
Wishful thinking is to ask if the new Mac mini will have discrete GPU. It won't.
 
Oh man, this is news to me. Do all the models carry PCIe SSDs?

The one's with the option of an SSD or Fusion drive are PCIe SSD-based from the look of things.

I didn't mean to mislead you into thinking the whole iMac range were PCIe SSD across the board by default.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.