Quad-Core 2012 Mac Mini Mysteriously Reappears on Apple's U.S. Online Store [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
icanhazapple
macrumors 6502a
for people claiming that Sky Lake resolves the quad core issue; where are you seeing this?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're pinning it on SKL-S platform? http://wccftech.com/intel-skylake-2...set-supports-ddr4-gt4e-graphics-chip-desktop/
SKL-S is LGA, MM's have never been LGA based. I believe they were on the equivalent 'U' series platform. I know there are quad core chips that Apple uses for MBP's, they would have to design a lower cost board that's _not_ based on the MBP.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're pinning it on SKL-S platform? http://wccftech.com/intel-skylake-2...set-supports-ddr4-gt4e-graphics-chip-desktop/
SKL-S is LGA, MM's have never been LGA based. I believe they were on the equivalent 'U' series platform. I know there are quad core chips that Apple uses for MBP's, they would have to design a lower cost board that's _not_ based on the MBP.
Fantastic computer. Bought one at launch, since bunged 16gb RAM in it and a 1tb SSD to replace the Fusion drive. I've no need of more gpu umph on this (have PC for such duties) and its a splendid combination with my TBD.
Will likely tide me over till 3rd or 4th rev of the retina iMac. I though after getting a 15" rMBP my old TBD would be sandpaper to the eyes but it isn't, surprisingly. Likely 'cos I sit a bit further away. I have avoided seeing a retina iMac in the flesh though, would likely spoil it forever and I'd start getting the upgrade twitch
Will likely tide me over till 3rd or 4th rev of the retina iMac. I though after getting a 15" rMBP my old TBD would be sandpaper to the eyes but it isn't, surprisingly. Likely 'cos I sit a bit further away. I have avoided seeing a retina iMac in the flesh though, would likely spoil it forever and I'd start getting the upgrade twitch
Gudi
Suspended
I don't care about Quad-Core. With its ability to upgrade RAM and create your own Fusion Drive, the 2012 Dual-Core Mini is still the best bang for the buck. Especially if you bought it in 2012 and lived through the "no love for the mini" year 2013. Only to see it come back more expensive and less customizable in 2014. The new Mini starts at $499, but add 8GB memory and a Fusion Drive and you pay $849 minimum without monitor, keyboard and mouse.
I would have bet, that Fusion Drive would be standard by now. The price Apple charges totally defeats the purpose of combining a cheap HDD with a fast SSD. And shipping Macs with HDDs only, lets them appear slow and hurts the resale value. Apple is crippling its cheapest models. That's what bothers me, not the lack of cores in the most expensive Mac mini one can buy.
I would have bet, that Fusion Drive would be standard by now. The price Apple charges totally defeats the purpose of combining a cheap HDD with a fast SSD. And shipping Macs with HDDs only, lets them appear slow and hurts the resale value. Apple is crippling its cheapest models. That's what bothers me, not the lack of cores in the most expensive Mac mini one can buy.
LordVic
Cancelled
Intel's CPU design required them to choose between all dual-core/all quad-core. Apple opted with dual-core for Haswell.
Intel Skylake will fix this requirment between quad/dual costume socket design.
So I assume this quad-core mac mini will be in the lineup until 2016
you do know thats not true right?
Intel provides 3 power levels of their CPU's. Their Ultra Low Voltage (ULV) components, their Low Voltage (LV) and their standard CPU's.
Obviously for a mini their standard CPU line has a much higher power threshold and would not be suitable for this use.
Previous generation of Mac Mini used the LV quad core part, quite well with no issues with power or heat, while still maintaining upgradable RAM
the new version changed from the quad core LV part to the ULV intel chip, the same ones that power the MacBook airs. This seemed weird since the LV chips from intel still exist, have been refreshed to haswell, which is better for heat and power than the previous ones, and still would have outperformed the last version
The only logical reason intel made the switch to slower, less powerful parts was to bring costs down for themselves. Larger bulk orders from intel and parts manufacturers, plus less overhead for manufacturing.
Performance was 2ndary to profit in this change. And I bet Mac Mini sales are hurting because of it. Hence the sudden pop up of the old quad core device again.
spatlese44
macrumors 6502
Essentially twice as fast, not at least twice as fast. At 2.6 GHz and 64 bit, multithreaded:
2012 6590
2014 12703
Twice as fast would have been 13180. The 3 GHz version of the 2014 is 7095, which isn't that much slower than the low end quad core at 11690. That, plus faster graphics and IO aren't trivial. Depends what you do. I like hearing about the people that push their computers with tasks like that, and by all means get a 2012 while you can.
BTW, how much faster than the 2012 would a quad core 2014 have been?
I was happy to get a base model 2012 Mini last night for $419. Thank you Refurb Tracker. I just want to be able to upgrade the RAM if needed and easily replace the hard drive if it dies. After walking through the iFixit instructions for replacing a drive in the 2014 Mini I knew I didn't want one.
coolspot18
macrumors 65816
There are plenty of high end mobile / SFF friendly quad core CPUs. My guess is that that Apple did not focus on the Mac Mini in fears of cannibalizing their iMac and Mac Pro sales especially with the recent update.
This is only relevant if the applications you use take advantage of the cores, which most day-to-day applications do not. If your primary applications fully support multicore, you get a big boost, otherwise the faster clock speed is the way to go.
It would be nice to see how many people are really taking full advantage of the cores. I have a fully loaded 4GHz i7 Retina with the M295X, and 16GB RAM, and applications like Word, Powerpoint, browsers, mail, and so on do not seem significantly faster than the 2014 2.8GHz i5 MacMini I have on my TV at home. Both have fusion drives, which I think is one of the major factors in apparent speed these days, not the processor.
robogobo
Suspended
It's a bit sad that they have to hold back on the advancement of the Mini specs just to keep their higher end machines more differentiated. If the mini had kept a quad core config while updating the graphics and bus speed from the previous generation, I could have replaced my dying and obsolete Mac Pro 1,1 with it and never known the difference. Instead I have to either under perform by hacking the efi on the 1,1 or overkill with a new Mac Pro.
It's amazon what happens after 7 years.
It's amazon what happens after 7 years.
Well that's probably why it was pulled, because it was a mistake.
unplugme71
macrumors 68030
It's because everyone on here buys a mini to run 50 virtual machines
The mini is designed as an entry-level computer for personal computing. It is not meant to be a powerhouse. The current line up is more than sufficient for 99% of Apple users.
John.B
macrumors 601
Gone again.
If nothing else, this should demonstrate the level of demand for the processor power of the quad-core Mac minis vs the current crop of dual-core minis. Hopefully Apple will fix this when Intel gets around to releasing compatible Skylake processors.
As someone who has some of each, I can tell you that the current line up is only sufficient for a subset of Apple users. I won't make up random percentages (ahem!), but the fact that the 2012 i7 quad-core Mac minis continue to be in high demand leads me to believe that number is much higher than 1%.
If nothing else, this should demonstrate the level of demand for the processor power of the quad-core Mac minis vs the current crop of dual-core minis. Hopefully Apple will fix this when Intel gets around to releasing compatible Skylake processors.
It's because everyone on here buys a mini to run 50 virtual machines
The mini is designed as an entry-level computer for personal computing. It is not meant to be a powerhouse. The current line up is more than sufficient for 99% of Apple users.
As someone who has some of each, I can tell you that the current line up is only sufficient for a subset of Apple users. I won't make up random percentages (ahem!), but the fact that the 2012 i7 quad-core Mac minis continue to be in high demand leads me to believe that number is much higher than 1%.
Now that is the Apple i know
"Update 11:30 PM PT: The 2012 quad-core Mac mini appears to have disappeared from the Apple Online Store for the time being. It is unclear if it will officially return or if its appearance was a bug."
Now that is the Apple i know
How is it demonstrating the level of demand? You mean by the amount of responses from people on this forum that represent less than 1/10th of a percent of Apple's customer base? Uh, I don't think so.
"The 2012 quad-core Mac mini appears to have disappeared from the Apple Online Store" -nice
3-year old technology more sought after that the latest crap (or is it crop).
----------
VMware uses every core, for example.
John.B
macrumors 601
How's this for a gauge of demand: Watch how fast the 2012 i7 minis disappear out of the refurb store, gone literally in minutes. Compare that to the 2014 models...
Again, as someone who owns both 2012 and 2014 minis, the performance difference is obvious, running multi-core processes or multiple applications are much faster on the older hardware. Check the Geekbench scores if you need independent confirmation.
And it's not just the processor performance. Since the RAM isn't upgradable on the 2014 Mac minis, anyone wanting 16GB has to buy that as a CTO, which is currently running 3-5 business plus actual shipping times.
Darn, it was probably the last good Mac Mini
Was waiting to upgrade my mac mini server but the last refresh is horrible in performance ratings and is way overprice to configured similar to a 4 year old model. I would easily buy a 2012 model then the current gen. Hopefully Apple might quietly update the CPU on the new Mac Mini's to up the performance.
Was waiting to upgrade my mac mini server but the last refresh is horrible in performance ratings and is way overprice to configured similar to a 4 year old model. I would easily buy a 2012 model then the current gen. Hopefully Apple might quietly update the CPU on the new Mac Mini's to up the performance.
There's no need to convince me about the processing power, I'm not disputing that. And you don't know how many were available in the refurb store to come to the conclusion that they are in high demand. I've been using Macs exclusively for over 17 years and I've owned everything from a Powerbook, to an iBook, to a Sunflower iMac, to a PowerMac G3,G4 and G5 to all my unibody iMacs and not once have I found a need for a Mac mini, and still don't. They are not for everybody. Apple could've had 100 refurb mini quads and 100 people bought them. Does that really sound like a lot of people? Not really. Heck, there's only been 100 posts about this subject since it posted last night. Not too high in demand.