Return of Quad Core Mac Mini's likely?

[cbautis2]

With the upcoming release of Skylake mobile chips, will Apple refresh the Mac Mini's with i5-6300HQ @ 2.3 GHz - 3.2 GHz Turbo as a base model or will they go bollocks again by using a dual core i5-6267U 2.9 GHz - 3.3 GHz Turbo just to get the ever so slightly faster Iris 550 graphics (vs HD 530).

I'm eager to purchase a Skylake Mac Mini (if they will refresh), but I would be so disappointed again when they go dual core + iris graphics route.

We all know dual core 28 W TDP chips aren't fast enough for lengthy video editing and iris graphics don't even help at all with those tasks. I would really like to see Apple bring back the quad core mac minis on the next refresh.

 

[Andres Cantu]

I know it's not what you want to hear, but I would bet a lot of money on them sticking to the dual-core U's

More than likely we will see these processors on next year's MacBook Airs in the Spring while not until the Fall for the Mac Mini (at least that's what I think). What is likely, however, is a redesign.

 

[fat jez]

They might if both dual and quad core chips are interchangeable, I.e. Both can use the same logic board. In the last model, the quad core would have needed a different logic board from the dual core processors.

 

[mcnallym]

They might if both dual and quad core chips are interchangeable, I.e. Both can use the same logic board. In the last model, the quad core would have needed a different logic board from the dual core processors.

This will definitely need to be true to get Quad back into the mini. With the 2012 models then the Dual and Quad used the same packaging so could use the same board. With the current Intel chips then is different packaging and so need different logic board.

 

[Crosscreek]

Iris Pro Skylake chips will not be available until 2016 which combined with quad core would make for an ideal Mac Min but Apple will probably stay with dual core low power chips.

Apple could surprise us but I hold very little hope for future quad core Mini s.

 

[fat jez]

Iris Pro Skylake chips will not be available until 2016 which combined with quad core would make for an ideal Mac Min but Apple will probably stay with dual core low power chips.

Apple could surprise us but I hold very little hope for future quad core Mini s.

I'd sadly agree. I don't think they like the idea of a lower end machine being as powerful as an iMac for less money.

 

[cbautis2]

Iris Pro Skylake chips will not be available until 2016 which combined with quad core would make for an ideal Mac Min but Apple will probably stay with dual core low power chips.

Apple could surprise us but I hold very little hope for future quad core Mini s.

I know it's too sad that Apple is too greedy with charging too much money for an underpowered device. Might as well discontinue the line up if they keep this greed up. The price of the Quad i5 is far cheaper than the price of the dual i5 + iris for Pete's sakes. I guess Apple just wants the Mac Mini as an entry level device now, and not a powerhouse video encoding / code compiling machine. I wanted the power close to a quad core iMac, but with the flexibility and mobility of a compact desktop. I don't like Windoze at all, but I might be building a hackintosh if i'm desperate though.

 

[paulrbeers]

I know it's too sad that Apple is too greedy with charging too much money for an underpowered device. Might as well discontinue the line up if they keep this greed up. The price of the Quad i5 is far cheaper than the price of the dual i5 + iris for Pete's sakes.

Please clarify your last statement? Are you talking about the cost of the CPU? You do realize that the very nature of OSX is heavily GPU dependent, so having anything less than an Iris is going to give a very terrible experience.

I guess Apple just wants the Mac Mini as an entry level device now, and not a powerhouse video encoding / code compiling machine.

You do realize that prior to the Mid-2012 Mini, they were all entry level devices right?!?! If Apple had never made the 2012 quad-core i7 mini's, we wouldn't be having this discussion today.

I'm not saying I wouldn't buy a quad-core Mini, but people keep missing on what Apple has (with the exception of the 2012's) always meant the Mini to be an entry level machine.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Apple will use whatever CPUs they order the most of for their most popular computer product line. Most likely, whatever goes into the 13" Macbook Pro or Macbook Air will go into the Mac Mini.

As far as I know, Apple has never offered a CPU in a Mac Mini that wasn't also sold in a Macbook.

 

[QuantumLo0p]

Apple really should put a quad core in the Mini since a "middle of the road" quad can be considered minimum, or even low end, in the computing industry nowadays.

As for a problem with differentiating between the iMac and the Mini, well the iMac is definitely positioned higher than the Mini so common sense should dictate a much better processor than the Mini's chip which really should be a quad. if Apple doesn't want/cannot put a mightier chip in the Imac then perhaps that underscores the iMac might just be at the end of its design capability without a significant change to accommodate more/faster cores. Just sayin'.

Hopefully this situation isn't simply a return to the old "let's just sell the heck out of this design until it's horribly long in the tooth and losing market share" days Apple was so infamous for.

 

[Andres Cantu]

Apple really should put a quad core in the Mini since a "middle of the road" quad can be considered minimum, or even low end, in the computing industry nowadays.

As for a problem with differentiating between the iMac and the Mini, well the iMac is definitely positioned higher than the Mini so common sense should dictate a much better processor than the Mini's chip which really should be a quad. if Apple doesn't want/cannot put a mightier chip in the Imac then perhaps that underscores the iMac might just be at the end of its design capability without a significant change to accommodate more/faster cores. Just sayin'.

Hopefully this situation isn't simply a return to the old "let's just sell the heck out of this design until it's horribly long in the tooth and losing market share" days Apple was so infamous for.

You mean like the Apple TV and the iPods? I have a feeling that's exactly what they're thinking.

 

[paulrbeers]

Apple really should put a quad core in the Mini since a "middle of the road" quad can be considered minimum, or even low end, in the computing industry nowadays.

I beg to differ. Other than large computational tasks, most people are just fine with dual cores. Name a single day to day task that a dual core isn't sufficient for? Office Apps, Internet browsing, Email, Video playback, Music. Even start going with web development, basic video editing, general photo editing (not photoshop), etc. etc....

The needs of 90%+ of the population is often overstated on tech web forums....

I run my entire business off of a 2013 Macbook Air with 8GB of RAM. Web development, occasional VM for cross compatibility, minor graphics creation/editing, etc.....

 

[Rallybrick]

Unfortunately Apple would have to use two different logic boards for the Mac mini because the Skylake U-series BGA1356 package will be used in the MBA with a 15W TDP and for the 13" MBP with a 28W TDP.

The H-series BGA1440 package 45W TDP will be used for the 15" MBP.

Only Sandybridge and Ivybridge used the same BGA package for the dual and quad core models.

 

[cbautis2]

Please clarify your last statement? Are you talking about the cost of the CPU? You do realize that the very nature of OSX is heavily GPU dependent, so having anything less than an Iris is going to give a very terrible experience.


You do realize that prior to the Mid-2012 Mini, they were all entry level devices right?!?! If Apple had never made the 2012 quad-core i7 mini's, we wouldn't be having this discussion today.

I'm not saying I wouldn't buy a quad-core Mini, but people keep missing on what Apple has (with the exception of the 2012's) always meant the Mini to be an entry level machine.

Yes. The cost of CPU. Sure OS X is GPU dependent, but how does Windoze run so fluidly on an Atom iGPU which is far weaker than Skylake iGPU (even with so many layered animations). Many users here have deduced that it's software API limited (not hardware since the lag is still present even in much more powerful dedicated GPU), hence the introduction of "Metal" which is supposed to be on par with Direct3D and DirectDraw in tapping GPU hardware acceleration.

Also, looking at the "glorified" iris graphics, it's proven that in 4th Gen and 5th Gen Core chips, HD4600 & HD5600 is faster than Iris 5100 & Iris 6100 respectively so your GPU dependent is MOOT. See Benches here: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-5600.125595.0.html

I even bet that HD530 in the Core i5-6300HQ will smoke that Iris 550 on the dual core on a long benchmark test. IMO, I speculate that it's about Available TDP for allocation and a 45W TDP CPU can allocate more power/voltage to the HD530 than a 28W TDP can to the Iris 550. This can also explain why HD5600 can beat a Iris 6100 despite iris 6100 having 2x EU.

It's just Apple is clearly stubborn with their product hierarchy and pricing their entry level device too high for the performance you get especially as a desktop class computer.

 

[cbautis2]

I beg to differ. Other than large computational tasks, most people are just fine with dual cores. Name a single day to day task that a dual core isn't sufficient for? Office Apps, Internet browsing, Email, Video playback, Music. Even start going with web development, basic video editing, general photo editing (not photoshop), etc. etc....

The needs of 90%+ of the population is often overstated on tech web forums....

I run my entire business off of a 2013 Macbook Air with 8GB of RAM. Web development, occasional VM for cross compatibility, minor graphics creation/editing, etc.....

For the tasks you mentioned, Dual cores and even Intel Atom is perfectly capable of those.

People who compile large codes or people who have 3 hour worth of raw videos on FCP X/iMovie and want to put multiple layers of editing will need quad cores. Sure dual core will work, but they won't be satisfied with the jerkiness of the preview as more and more layers are added and the long waiting time to transcode/convert those to Blu-ray format. A quad core will cut the time by more than 2x while allowing you to multitask unlike dual core where your whole OS will slow to a crawl due to the whole CPU cache/usage being allocated to the encoding process.

 

[paulrbeers]

Yes. The cost of CPU. Sure OS X is GPU dependent, but how does Windoze run so fluidly on an Atom iGPU which is far weaker than Skylake iGPU (even with so many layered animations). Many users here have deduced that it's software API limited (not hardware since the lag is still present even in much more powerful dedicated GPU), hence the introduction of "Metal" which is supposed to be on par with Direct3D and DirectDraw in tapping GPU hardware acceleration.

Also, looking at the "glorified" iris graphics, it's proven that in 4th Gen and 5th Gen Core chips, HD4600 & HD5600 is faster than Iris 5100 & Iris 6100 respectively so your GPU dependent is MOOT. See Benches here: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-5600.125595.0.html

I even bet that HD530 in the Core i5-6300HQ will smoke that Iris 550 on the dual core on a long benchmark test. IMO, I speculate that it's about Available TDP for allocation and a 45W TDP CPU can allocate more power/voltage to the HD530 than a 28W TDP can to the Iris 550. This can also explain why HD5600 can beat a Iris 6100 despite iris 6100 having 2x EU.

It's just Apple is clearly stubborn with their product hierarchy and pricing their entry level device too high for the performance you get especially as a desktop class computer.

So just b

Yes. The cost of CPU. Sure OS X is GPU dependent, but how does Windoze run so fluidly on an Atom iGPU which is far weaker than Skylake iGPU (even with so many layered animations). Many users here have deduced that it's software API limited (not hardware since the lag is still present even in much more powerful dedicated GPU), hence the introduction of "Metal" which is supposed to be on par with Direct3D and DirectDraw in tapping GPU hardware acceleration.

Also, looking at the "glorified" iris graphics, it's proven that in 4th Gen and 5th Gen Core chips, HD4600 & HD5600 is faster than Iris 5100 & Iris 6100 respectively so your GPU dependent is MOOT. See Benches here: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-5600.125595.0.html

I even bet that HD530 in the Core i5-6300HQ will smoke that Iris 550 on the dual core on a long benchmark test. IMO, I speculate that it's about Available TDP for allocation and a 45W TDP CPU can allocate more power/voltage to the HD530 than a 28W TDP can to the Iris 550. This can also explain why HD5600 can beat a Iris 6100 despite iris 6100 having 2x EU.

It's just Apple is clearly stubborn with their product hierarchy and pricing their entry level device too high for the performance you get especially as a desktop class computer.

I'm really not even sure what you linked to because it most cases the benchmarks didn't even include 6100's.

Here's a really nice graph about how much faster each generation is from the previous and includes comparisons within those generations. So yes the 6100 is faster than the 5X00's and the new 530 is the fastest yet...
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/three-generations-intel-hd-graphics-tested/

 

[paulrbeers]

For the tasks you mentioned, Dual cores and even Intel Atom is perfectly capable of those.

People who compile large codes or people who have 3 hour worth of raw videos on FCP X/iMovie and want to put multiple layers of editing will need quad cores. Sure dual core will work, but they won't be satisfied with the jerkiness of the preview as more and more layers are added and the long waiting time to transcode/convert those to Blu-ray format. A quad core will cut the time by more than 2x while allowing you to multitask unlike dual core where your whole OS will slow to a crawl due to the whole CPU cache/usage being allocated to the encoding process.

And that's the point isn't it? 95% of the people out there aren't going to be messing with FCP X right? They might do a bit of iMovie, but who cares. These are ENTRY level machines. Just like buying a Windows Machine, you aren't doing any heavy development or movies on a $700 machine right? Again, Apple has always positioned the Mini as an entry level machine with the exception of the 2012 Mid-Mini. Again, if they hadn't made that a quad core, none of this would even be an argument right?

 

[cbautis2]

So just b



I'm really not even sure what you linked to because it most cases the benchmarks didn't even include 6100's.

Here's a really nice graph about how much faster each generation is from the previous and includes comparisons within those generations. So yes the 6100 is faster than the 5X00's and the new 530 is the fastest yet...
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/three-generations-intel-hd-graphics-tested/

Those GPUs are from the ULV class CPUs. I'm comparing full voltage 35W - 45W HD5600 against Iris 6100 from 28W chips. Benchmark comparison says they are more or less equal in performance.
HD5600 Game Benchmark: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-5600.125595.0.html
Iris 6100 Game Benchmark: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Iris-Graphics-6100.125591.0.html





This, however, can change with Iris 540 and Iris 550 from skylake where it truly is faster than any HD5xx GPU. Then again, software optimization is the key and many would really choose double the CPU power than a slightly faster GPU. Sad to see Apple classifying Mac Mini as entry level. Might as well banish this line up and stick with iMac since it's clear that they are ripping customers off with exorbitant prices for entry level performance.

 

[Crosscreek]

Those GPUs are from the ULV class CPUs. I'm comparing full voltage 35W - 45W HD5600 against Iris 6100 from 28W chips. Benchmark comparison says they are more or less equal in performance.
HD5600 Game Benchmark: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-5600.125595.0.html
Iris 6100 Game Benchmark: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Iris-Graphics-6100.125591.0.html

View attachment 579898

View attachment 579899

This, however, can change with Iris 540 and Iris 550 from skylake where it truly is faster than any HD5xx GPU. Then again, software optimization is the key and many would really choose double the CPU power than a slightly faster GPU. Sad to see Apple classifying Mac Mini as entry level. Might as well banish this line up and stick with iMac since it's clear that they are ripping customers off with exorbitant prices for entry level performance.

Apple could take advantage of the Mini computer market with the addition of quad core processors and the upcoming Iris Pro IGPUs but the iMac is their flagship Prosumer desktop and will likely stay that way.

As the desktop computer market shrinks Apple has chosen to concentrate on the mobile market that has substantially higher profits due to the volume of sales.

With what you want to do your choices are limited to an iMac or Mac Pro which is way to much over kill. Unfortunately Apple will not build a in-between headless desktop. The market for Appleis not their for it in this mobile age.

I can say though that Mini Pcs will take full advantage of Skylake Iris Pro and discrete graphics and sell a ton of Windows 10 machines. Windows have the market to support the development and sales of just about any configuration for a much more cheaper, probably plastic and noisy PC.

 

[cbautis2]

I want OS X on a QUALITY Mini PC such Mac Mini that possesses power close to a base rmbp 15" for less than $800 though. That's where quad core i5 comes in to make that happen.

 

[Miat]

...Apple has (with the exception of the 2012's) always meant the Mini to be an entry level machine.

Fine. But where's the mid-level headless machine between the Mini and the Pro?

Other than large computational tasks, most people are just fine with dual cores. Name a single day to day task that a dual core isn't sufficient for? ...basic video editing...?

I do a bit of video editing and processing at home (mostly stuff recorded from TV, plus the occasional DVD/Blu-ray rip). Really do need the quad core to handle that. Even the quad is straining at times with 1080 res. No way a dual core will cut it for me.

 

[paulrbeers]

Fine. But where's the mid-level headless machine between the Mini and the Pro?



I do a bit of video editing and processing at home (mostly stuff recorded from TV, plus the occasional DVD/Blu-ray rip). Really do need the quad core to handle that. Even the quad is straining at times with 1080 res. No way a dual core will cut it for me.

That's fine, but see my post.... I've already stated that 95% of the people out there do not need it (so you are in the 5%). Tech boards are going to be those who have a much higher technical need than the average person. I take a look at my family of 4, my parents, and my sister's family of 4.... Out of all of those, I'm the only one who ever needs more than a dual core and that's on my machine that runs Handbrake for converting Blu-Ray's.... 1 out of 10 isn't a large audience and I bet most of us would find that's about the right ratio. The rest of family doesn't do anything more than basic tasks with their computers.

And AGAIN I also stated I am not opposed to a quad core model. I have two 2012's for a reason. But people need to understand what the Mini is supposed to be and if Apple doesn't make a machine that fits your needs then you need to look elsewhere. They have already made this decision. Either learn to live within the confines or figure something else out. Belly aching about it doesn't do a d@#$ thing does it?

 

[Crosscreek]

And AGAIN I also stated I am not opposed to a quad core model. I have two 2012's for a reason. But people need to understand what the Mini is supposed to be and if Apple doesn't make a machine that fits your needs then you need to look elsewhere. They have already made this decision. Either learn to live within the confines or figure something else out. Belly aching about it doesn't do a d@#$ thing does it?

Awwww....be nice.....Miat is just feeling bit frustrated like a lot of us. The truth does hurt about the quad cores but thats Apple saying of telling us .....Too Bad!!!! ....But we will sell you a magical AIO.

 

[paulrbeers]

Awwww....be nice.....Miat is just feeling bit frustrated like a lot of us. The truth does hurt about the quad cores but thats Apple saying of telling us .....Too Bad!!!! ....But we will sell you a magical AIO.

True true and as pretty as they made the 27" 5K and the upcoming 21.5" 4K (I'm just assuming it is coming based on the rumors), I can't justify those either. I prefer the "bring your own" monitor. But to be honest, what I would REALLY love, is a quad core 13" MBP. That would be my ultimate dream machine. I had the early 2011 15" MBP (first quad core) and it was not portable. My wife has a 2013 rMBP and it is better but still too big (she rarely takes hers out of the house). I love the size of my MBA, but I could see the benefit of having 4 cores and always leaving a VM (or two) running.....

I accept that I want to run OSX and that means not having the perfect machine for me. I've changed my habits to fit the machines available from Apple.....

 

[Crosscreek]

True true and as pretty as they made the 27" 5K and the upcoming 21.5" 4K (I'm just assuming it is coming based on the rumors), I can't justify those either. I prefer the "bring your own" monitor. But to be honest, what I would REALLY love, is a quad core 13" MBP. That would be my ultimate dream machine. I had the early 2011 15" MBP (first quad core) and it was not portable. My wife has a 2013 rMBP and it is better but still too big (she rarely takes hers out of the house). I love the size of my MBA, but I could see the benefit of having 4 cores and always leaving a VM (or two) running.....

I accept that I want to run OSX and that means not having the perfect machine for me. I've changed my habits to fit the machines available from Apple.....

I was actually being sarcastic about the AIO but the fact is that anyone who wants to run OS X on a quad core desktop without going hackintosh will either have to go with iMac or Mac Pro.

I totally agree with the bring your own screen thing.

I'm not due for a new machine until next year and I know I will really be struggling with what to do.