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

Reason Quad Core Removed

philipma1957

philipma1957

macrumors 603
Apr 13, 2010
6,367
251
Howell, New Jersey
Crosscreek said:
Well here is what Peter Cohen at Imore has to say about the 2014 Mac Mini.

He spells it out in defense of the new refresh and maybe in the future this maybe different but I think any new Mini's will be 2Core machines.

http://www.imore.com/nsfw-shut-about-new-mac-mini-already?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

I have to agree with his thoughts.
Click to expand...

I read it he was wrong about it being a low volume seller but couched it with the word relativity.

The mac mini is a big desktop seller . But it does not sell as many units as an iPad. A bit cheessy to defend apples decision to do this.

For the most part I like the new 499 mini. For my needs in my home it will be okay.

For my 3 or 4 audio mixing studios I built minis for this is a big setback.
 
rrl

rrl

macrumors 6502a
Jul 27, 2009
512
57
Except for the server stuff, that was just typical apologist crap. Here's my favorite ridiculous quote:

"If nothing else, the new entry level model is an opportunity to get people in the door then upsell them to the much better-equipped $699 model, which comes with a 2.6 GHz processor, 8 GB RAM, faster graphics and double the hard drive space. You're not paying $200 for memory - you're paying $200 for a lot more functionality all the way around."

We all know it's just an Apple money grab, and he applauds them for it. This guy should shut up.
 
Crosscreek

Crosscreek

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Nov 19, 2013
2,892
5,793
Margarittaville
philipma1957 said:
I read it he was wrong about it being a low volume seller but couched it with the word relativity.

The mac mini is a big desktop seller . But it does not sell as many units as an iPad. A bit cheessy to defend apples decision to do this.

For the most part I like the new 499 mini. For my needs in my home it will be okay.

For my 3 or 4 audio mixing studios I built minis for this is a big setback.
Click to expand...

I will miss the tinker days but got to get on with the program.

I will keep mine until HDMI 2.0 and H.265 codex show up and then I may invest in a new one. Probably Skylake or maybe Broadwel and until then I satisfied.

----------
rrl said:
Except for the server stuff, that was just typical apologist crap. Here's my favorite ridiculous quote:

"If nothing else, the new entry level model is an opportunity to get people in the door then upsell them to the much better-equipped $699 model, which comes with a 2.6 GHz processor, 8 GB RAM, faster graphics and double the hard drive space. You're not paying $200 for memory - you're paying $200 for a lot more functionality all the way around."

We all know it's just an Apple money grab, and he applauds them for it. This guy should shut up.
Click to expand...

Apple only knows Money Grab.
 
J

Jeremy3

macrumors newbie
Oct 25, 2014
5
0
UK
I have a quad core 2011 MAc mini.

Quad core was required to make lightroom run quickly. I also installed extra RAM (to 8GB) after purchase, again mainly for Lightroo. I also have PArallels so at least one core can be dedicated for windows whilsst other macstuff inc lightroom is still running at a good speed. So i will not be buying the 2014 model.
I'm hoping not to have to upgrade for another year or so anyway so hopefully quad core will come back in the next release as standard.
 
J

Jackintosh

macrumors 6502a
Mar 21, 2009
573
4
rrl said:
We all know it's just an Apple money grab, and he applauds them for it. This guy should shut up.
Click to expand...

True. But we all know Apple (like every othe corporation) isn't in this out of the kindness of their hearts. This is capitalism.
 
rrl

rrl

macrumors 6502a
Jul 27, 2009
512
57
Jackintosh said:
True. But we all know Apple (like every othe corporation) isn't in this out of the kindness of their hearts. This is capitalism.
Click to expand...

What ever the market will bear, right? Well, the market should tell Apple to **** off on this one.

Before this abomination that is the low-end iMac, Apple had moved every iMac up to a quad core. Every 15" MacBook Pro is a quad core. If that guy actually knew what he was doing, his article would have been titled:

"If one more person tells me that the 2014 Mac Mini was the right move, I'm gonna slap them upside the head."
 
Crosscreek

Crosscreek

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Nov 19, 2013
2,892
5,793
Margarittaville
rrl said:
What ever the market will bear, right? Well, the market should tell Apple to **** off on this one.

Before this abomination that is the low-end iMac, Apple had moved every iMac up to a quad core. Every 15" MacBook Pro is a quad core. If that guy actually knew what he was doing, his article would have been titled:

"If one more person tells me that the 2014 Mac Mini was the right move, I'm gonna slap them upside the head."
Click to expand...

I want to think that the future ones will have the same sockets to accommodate 2 or 4 core chips but the ram an HD's selection will probably remain the same.
Wether we can add another drive or Ifixit or OWC can come up with a plan is yet to be seen until the fusion tear down.
 
S

SoCalReviews

macrumors 6502a
Dec 31, 2012
582
212
rrl said:
What ever the market will bear, right? Well, the market should tell Apple to **** off on this one.

Before this abomination that is the low-end iMac, Apple had moved every iMac up to a quad core. Every 15" MacBook Pro is a quad core. If that guy actually knew what he was doing, his article would have been titled:

"If one more person tells me that the 2014 Mac Mini was the right move, I'm gonna slap them upside the head."
Click to expand...

I'm surprised the article writer didn't try to convince us that buying a new green energy Haswell Mini would help save the planet from global warming.
 
S

SoCalReviews

macrumors 6502a
Dec 31, 2012
582
212
Jackintosh said:
True. But we all know Apple (like every othe corporation) isn't in this out of the kindness of their hearts. This is capitalism.
Click to expand...

Capitalism is also about individual consumer choice and competition of ideas and products. At least with capitalism we still have the option to purchase or not purchase any product sold by a company. Those options narrow or disappear in true non-capitalist systems.

----------
Crosscreek said:
He use to be WSJ tech editor and probably doesn't care about green anything unless it's money. :)
Click to expand...

...but it would be another reason to appease Apple for it's 2014 Haswell Mini lineup.
 
Last edited:
J

Jackintosh

macrumors 6502a
Mar 21, 2009
573
4
SoCalReviews said:
Capitalism is also about individual consumer choice and competition of ideas and products. At least with capitalism we still have the option to purchase or not purchase any product sold by a company. Those options narrow or disappear in true non-capitalist systems.
Click to expand...

Not arguing for 'non-capitalist systems', but capitalism is only interested in your welfare and interests if you can pad their bottom line and make their shareholders happy. Otherwise they'd be more than happy to see you out on the street if you're out of luck. It's all a balance.
 
S

SoCalReviews

macrumors 6502a
Dec 31, 2012
582
212
Jackintosh said:
Not arguing for 'non-capitalist systems', but capitalism is only interested in your welfare and interests if you can pad their bottom line and make their shareholders happy. Otherwise they'd be more than happy to see you out on the street if you're out of luck. It's all a balance.
Click to expand...

....Yes, the companies usually have their interests first in a capitalist system but then again the consumers also usually put their interests first.... so not only is there real balance but usually the companies that don't offer products or services that the consumers want, need and desire either offer better choices for their consumers or fade away fairly quickly.

In true non-capitalist systems you normally have a select few or elite group deciding for everyone and not based on individual consumer's needs but for the supposed good of themselves or for the collective. There is less incentive to provide a product or service that fits the needs of the individual consumers and no feedback mechanism to punish those who make bad decisions. It's a terrible model and historically never benefited the majority of the people within that system... which is why most countries including traditionally non-capitalist ones... have moved towards some type of capitalist system.
 
Last edited:
A

Altis

macrumors 68040
Sep 10, 2013
3,165
4,896
I'm going on my 8th year having a quad core desktop processor. The reason it's lasted so long is because it's a quad core processor, so it does a decent job in CPU-intensive tasks.

I can't convince myself to get a dual-core laptop-grade CPU in 2014/2015 and expect it to perform much better even right now, let alone for another 6-8 years.
 
G

giggles

macrumors 65816
Dec 15, 2012
1,024
1,238
Quad core was removed because there are no quad cores for BGA1168 socket and Apple wouldn't bother using two different motherboards.

In Ivy Bridge era, dual and quad cores were on the same socket.
 
L

leman

macrumors Core
Oct 14, 2008
19,184
19,037
giggles said:
Quad core was removed because there are no quad cores for BGA1168 socket and Apple wouldn't bother using two different motherboards.
Click to expand...

I think that this is spot-on. You don't need a capitalist conspiracy theory to explain things (although that way might be more fun).

MacMini has always catered to a specific market - a energy-efficient, almost invisible desktop machine for light office, home and media consumption duty. If We just look at those qualities, these new models definitively deliver.

Of course, I am certainly not happy about the fact that the quad core option is gone — the old model was clearly more flexible.

BTW, the CPU used in the $699 model is listed at Intel at $315. So much to 'they just want higher profit margins'. Of course, the margins are still ridiculous, but Apple is certainly not earning much more on these models. For comparison, the old quad core ($799) had a CPU that was listed at $378
 
Crosscreek

Crosscreek

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Nov 19, 2013
2,892
5,793
Margarittaville
leman said:
I think that this is spot-on. You don't need a capitalist conspiracy theory to explain things (although that way might be more fun).

MacMini has always catered to a specific market - a energy-efficient, almost invisible desktop machine for light office, home and media consumption duty. If We just look at those qualities, these new models definitively deliver.

Of course, I am certainly not happy about the fact that the quad core option is gone — the old model was clearly more flexible.

BTW, the CPU used in the $699 model is listed at Intel at $315. So much to 'they just want higher profit margins'. Of course, the margins are still ridiculous, but Apple is certainly not earning much more on these models. For comparison, the old quad core ($799) had a CPU that was listed at $378
Click to expand...

Apple doesn't pay near that amount. They buy bulk and probably all the chips they are putting in these are left overs.
 
phrehdd

phrehdd

macrumors 601
Oct 25, 2008
4,313
1,311
Any discussion about the Mini not selling well as an excuse for this GPU one step forward and CPU 2 steps backward is nonsense. The amount of units sold can be changed with marketing and repositioning the Mini. Apple knows that there are people interested in the Mini as being other than an "intro" into the Apple eco system. Apple insists on keeping it in this niche and to ignore those who want to do more with the Mini rather than get an iMac or find the Mac Pro to be too much (mostly on the wallet).

Perhaps the biggest challenge is related to keeping the same dimensions and handling heat under heavy loads, decided profit margins based on price targeting that also may limit what guts are in the Mini.

For me, the new Mini is not a good fit. My main applications do better with quad than dual core. The complete absence of the quad relegates Mini as a no go purchase. For those doing lesser tasks and apps with single core in mind, hope the Mini serves them well.

- 2015 marks my return to just Windows and Linux (rather than each in a virtual) under OSX.
 
rrl

rrl

macrumors 6502a
Jul 27, 2009
512
57
phrehdd

phrehdd

macrumors 601
Oct 25, 2008
4,313
1,311
rrl said:
Don't do it, OS X is too good to throw out with the bathwater. If you don't already have a decent Mac, find a 2012 i7 and then buy one of these for your PC needs:

http://www.amazon.com/TRENDnet-4-Po...8&qid=1413044443&sr=1-7&keywords=trendnet+kvm

Make sure your monitor has at least two or more HDMI/DVI inputs because I never recommend indirect video switching.
Click to expand...

I'm sticking for the present with my 2011 and 2012 Minis. 2015 is when I'll be doing new purchases and since Apple has nothing to offer (me), I can readily build a PC with an mATX board that will do the job with a small but larger footprint case, 32 gigs RAM, possible vid card etc. I just can't imagine buying the new Mac Mini for anything I do as my primary apps exploit multi-core.
 
C

crazzapple

Guest
Oct 19, 2014
197
0
I budgeted over $1000 for a quad-core mini with iris pro plus another $800 for a 4k monitor. Instead spent a fraction of that on a dell u2415 monitor and will wait for Skylake. I absolutely need quad-core and will be switching to windows if apple fails to deliver a year from now.
 
D

dighn

macrumors newbie
Jul 24, 2011
24
0
rrl said:
Except for the server stuff, that was just typical apologist crap. Here's my favorite ridiculous quote:

"If nothing else, the new entry level model is an opportunity to get people in the door then upsell them to the much better-equipped $699 model, which comes with a 2.6 GHz processor, 8 GB RAM, faster graphics and double the hard drive space. You're not paying $200 for memory - you're paying $200 for a lot more functionality all the way around."

We all know it's just an Apple money grab, and he applauds them for it. This guy should shut up.
Click to expand...

the way I see it, they raised the price on the true entry model (which is now the mid), and introduced a lower priced gimped version to obscure what they really did.

the real travesty is that anyone who needs more processing power and locked in the apple world is now forced to get an AIO (leaving out the pro because it's a $$$ machine that very few need). people have very good reasons for not wanting AIO machines, and now they have little choice.
 
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