The new Mac mini is almost certainly coming

[Micky Do]

In 2010 a MacBook Air was $1299 w/ 128GB of storage, and 2GB of RAM. By 2013 it had dropped to $1099 for the same amount of storage and twice the RAM. The following year, they dropped the price again to $999 while equipping it with faster storage.

Case in point, Apple has shown in the past an ability to provide more for less, especially when dealing with lower priced products in their lineup. Not holding my breath that they will hit people’s wildest dreams on the spec sheet, but they’re a bit overdue for the type of “wow that is an insane value” upgrade.

Add to that, updates to OS X / Mac OS are now free, and apps such as iWork (Pages / Numbers / Keynote) are now included in the bundle that comes with a computer.

I paid an extra 5000 baht / $150 to get iWork (which came on a CD-ROM) when I got my early 2009 Mac Mini, which came with Leopard. The update to Snow Leopard a few months later also came on a CD-ROM, and cost a couple of thousand baht.

The update to Mountain Lion was only available on-line. Without a credit card, and with only a rather slow 2G connection to the mobile network (lucky to get 350 kb/sec, often only half that from a connection that advertised "ut to 7.2 GB/sec..... yeah), I got a shop to do it for me when they cleaned the dust out of the Mini and added 4 GB of RAM. All up another 5,000 baht.

Apple lead the way in providing all this at no cost. They are benefits that come with owning a Mac...... Benefits all can enjoy.....

.... Me too; fibre came to our neighbourhood late 2014. Now I have high-speed broadband for $210 a year (10 GB/sec down / 0.5 GB/sec up.... I'm getting double that, thanks 3BB. Could pay more for more, but need no more)

The cynical dilettantes here bitching and moaning about the cost of Mac hardware, might be forgetting that it is Mac OS / OS X that makes a Mac.

Hardware is not the computer; it just runs the OS and the apps. Various options suit various needs. Need more grunt than a Mac Mini or a MacBook Air for video editing and rendering at breakneck speed? Then get hardware more suited to your expectations.

Truth is you do get more bang for your buck nowadays.

I paid about 25,000 baht (then a month's pay) my first Mac Mini in 2005. It came with a 1.25 GHz CPU, 0.25 GB of RAM and a 20 GB HDD..... Office for Mac was loaded, but cost several thousand baht extra to licence (I forget just how much).

My 2009 Mac Mini (2.0 GHz CPU, 1 GB RAM, 120 GB HDD) cost 24,000 baht. Add 5,000 baht for iWork, so all up 29,000 baht (just over a month's pay at the time)

The current mid-range Mac Mini (2.8 Ghz GPU, 8 GB RAM, 1 TB HDD) is priced at 25,000 baht, and comes loaded with iWork at no extra cost. (a little over 3 weeks pay for me... thanks to the junta for the 2% increase last year, our first rise since 2007, but that's another story)

More interesting question is: Why are you working on such an outdated computer?

Why should it bother you that someone is working on an outdated computer?

My mainstay has long been a Mac Mini, first the 2005 original (the first computer I owned), then the 2009 I am using now. It remains adequate for most of my requirements.

However, next term at work I'll be needing a computer at work most days (previously just a few days a term), and looking ahead to a likely more itinerant phase in my life, a few days ago I toddled down to the local Apple retailer and bought a new 2017 MacBook Air.

The Air will supplement the Mini, which has been running mostly 24/7 since 2009, still on the original HDD. It will eventually be repaired or replaced (with the a new Mac Mini, which is almost certainly coming), I guess within a couple or three years.

 

[Miat]

Why? Because you care about your data...

If either drive making up the fusion drive dies, you lose everything. That greatly increases the risk of data loss

Good backup is required regardless of the boot drive arrangement.

 

[dirtylilhobo]

So far, no substantial confirmation there will be a new Mini this Fall...

 

[PickUrPoison]

In 2010 a MacBook Air was $1299 w/ 128GB of storage, and 2GB of RAM. By 2013 it had dropped to $1099 for the same amount of storage and twice the RAM. The following year, they dropped the price again to $999 while equipping it with faster storage.

Case in point, Apple has shown in the past an ability to provide more for less, especially when dealing with lower priced products in their lineup. Not holding my breath that they will hit people’s wildest dreams on the spec sheet, but they’re a bit overdue for the type of “wow that is an insane value” upgrade.

True but they also had the 13” MBP at around the same price point. As the MacBook Air moved to its $999 rock bottom, the 13” MBP kind of migrated up from its low (I think) of $1,099 to 1,299.

Look I’m not saying Apple never drops prices or increases specs. But I am looking across their lineup at the same-spec’ed 13” MBP ($1,499) and 1080p iMac ($1,299) and comparing them to an $899 mini. Those look like consistent price points to me, for value and BOM cost.

To think an 8/256 mini is going to come in at a $499 or even $599 is just wishful thinking, and has little basis in reality. One might as well be expecting the next Air refresh to be $599/699, or the next 1080p iMac at $699/799, or the 13” MBP at $899/999.

We would never expect a refresh to chop $300-400 off of those machines; by what logic could we possibly expect it in a refreshed mini?

 

[Count Blah]

In 2010 a MacBook Air was $1299 w/ 128GB of storage, and 2GB of RAM. By 2013 it had dropped to $1099 for the same amount of storage and twice the RAM. The following year, they dropped the price again to $999 while equipping it with faster storage.

Case in point, Apple has shown in the past an ability to provide more for less, especially when dealing with lower priced products in their lineup. Not holding my breath that they will hit people’s wildest dreams on the spec sheet, but they’re a bit overdue for the type of “wow that is an insane value” upgrade.

Forget it, he is stuck on $899 for something that should have been standard in 2016 - well with 128Gig SSD instead of 256, but you get the point.

8Gig/128Gig should be the standard, at a minimum. And with the SSD prices tanking and RAM just starting to come down in price, we are talking a $60 difference in what WE would pay, you can easily drop that to $40 for what Apple pays - if not less. Yet some want $300 for that.

 

[sublunar]

True but they also had the 13” MBP at around the same price point. As the MacBook Air moved to its $999 rock bottom, the 13” MBP kind of migrated up from its low (I think) of $1,099 to 1,299.

Look I’m not saying Apple never drops prices or increases specs. But I am looking across their lineup at the same-spec’ed 13” MBP ($1,499) and 1080p iMac ($1,299) and comparing them to an $899 mini. Those look like consistent price points to me, for value and BOM cost.

To think an 8/256 mini is going to come in at a $499 or even $599 is just wishful thinking, and has little basis in reality. One might as well be expecting the next Air refresh to be $599/699, or the next 1080p iMac at $699/799, or the 13” MBP at $899/999.

We would never expect a refresh to chop $300-400 off of those machines; by what logic could we possibly expect it in a refreshed mini?

We've already had the 13" TB MBP and 15" MBP come in with similar modernised specs and unchanged price. There's nothing to suggest that the Mac mini price points will change from this apart from the possibility that Apple will raise the entry level SKU because they would probably need to increase the base RAM to 8Gb.

On Apple's pricing scheme on from the current Minis, increasing base spec to 8Gb of RAM makes the start price $599.

And an extra $100 gets you double the hard disk space (1Tb up from 500Gb) and a better CPU with Iris Graphics (equivalent to the mid SKU).

The $499 start price is actually around $100 lower than the previous 2012 model before it was eliminated. My assumption is that Apple created this SKU to please shareholders who asked for a $499 entry SKU.

In theory, Apple would have to use the i5-8265U CPU, 500Gb HD and try and find some way to squeeze 8Gb into their price point without sacrificing too much margin.

The 2014 model had it easy because the socket across the board was the same so they could choose 2 different versions of the dual core CPUs to go onto the motherboard to feed the higher end CPUs.

The irony here now is that the i5-8250U (and presumably the i5-8265U) doesn't share the same socket as the i5-8259U so assuming Apple are only making one motherboard they can't use both in the same generation.

So if Apple need to maintain a $499 Mac Mini they'll have to go for the HD620 CPUs across the board or they would have to raise the minimum level of the Mini to match the current middle SKU 2014 at $699 potentially keeping the base model 2014 around (as a clearance model) to gather more ire from the folks here.

My own personal thoughts centre around the using i5-8265U (or i5-8365U) enabling Apple to keep the entry level low. Anyone wanting more GPU power can attach an eGPU and the saving in CPU cost could enable Apple to either lower prices or improve the storage options.

My conclusion is a $100 uplift for all SKUs of the Mini based on Apple declaring that 2018 iPad is more capable of taking up the slack at lower price points with storage improving to keep the price points apart.

The price increase allows Apple to use i5-8265U across the board with 8Gb of RAM. The middle SKU getting 1Tb Fusion Drive and the top SKU getting 2Tb Fusion.

Base Model: 8Gb RAM, 500Gb HD = $599
Middle Model: 8Gb RAM, 1Tb Fusion Drive = $799
Top Model: Slightly Faster CPU (i5-8365U?), 8Gb RAM, 2Tb Fusion Drive = $1099

 

[masterbaron]

Truth is you do get more bang for your buck nowadays.

In truth, like a drug we're weened to want more and more - with all the power available in the palms of our hand we expect relatively much more power and flexibility on the desktop - that much makes sense.

More importantly, we certainly expect existing capability, interoperability and flexibility to move forward with each new product - the reality that truly disgusts is the loss of those benefits due to profit margins and needless design changes.

The more bang for the buck is at Apple's discretion now verses buying options available to the customer.

I, like you, have resolved I don't need the latest or most powerful but I do need the capabilities I've enjoyed in the past to be merged with new capabilities -"more sauce please"!

Case in-point: I've got the Canon MX860 which is a fine MF printer for the last 7-8 years - works perfectly but no longer supported on 10.13.5 or Win10 we found out this weekend (Yes-Win 10 in the house because of my wife) - total nonsense even with a USB cable you can't print. And it's true - not Apple's fault Canon won't make the drivers - why?

This is the cycle I detest!

Aside: Win10 is a glossy mess - not entirely ... I see the "MacOS" subtly in the background waiting to be unleashed but unfortunately PC's (latest Dell) have a glitchy aspect to the integration of the OS and hardware where things tend to happen that you don't want to happen or, I've always seen this with Windows, "something is happening and you don't know what that is" - copied a file to the Diskstation (Share) and no indication on the PC it copied - checked the Diskstation w/ my Mac and the files were in-fact copied - then there's the multiple instances of the file windows - it pales to MacOS ... maybe in 5-10 when they take the useless fat out of it.

 

[twalk]

Good backup is required regardless of the boot drive arrangement.

Of course. However study after study shows pretty conclusively that 90%+ of computer users use no backup at all

Even with backup, you're not safe. I've had backups go partially and totally bad before. You also lose anything done since the last backup. Therefore you really, really want to stick with higher reliability storage methods

I've got 3 large-ish NASes (40T+26T+20T) plus about another 30T in a ceph cluster. I have roughly 140T of storage at my place right now. So this issue is pretty big for me

 

[toke lahti]

Of course. However study after study shows pretty conclusively that 90%+ of computer users use no backup at all

Even with backup, you're not safe. I've had backups go partially and totally bad before. You also lose anything done since the last backup. Therefore you really, really want to stick with higher reliability storage methods

I've got 3 large-ish NASes (40T+26T+20T) plus about another 30T in a ceph cluster. I have roughly 140T of storage at my place right now. So this issue is pretty big for me

What’s the point in higher reliability, if you don’t have backup?
Storage with higher reliability dies anyway and without backup you loose everything with it.
Btw, afaik, ssd’s usually die instantly, meaning that you loose all and have no way to predict that. Hdd’s usually dies gradually and smart-alerts notice this when it starts to happen.

 

[twalk]

What’s the point in higher reliability, if you don’t have backup?
Storage with higher reliability dies anyway and without backup you loose everything with it.
Btw, afaik, ssd’s usually die instantly, meaning that you loose all and have no way to predict that. Hdd’s usually dies gradually and smart-alerts notice this when it starts to happen.

Uh, what's the point in higher reliability, if you don’t have backup? It about the odds. Most of that 90%+ will have their ssd/hd last until their next purchase, at which point backup doesn't really matter anymore. However if you're using a fusion drive, your odds of having it go out in 2-3 years (typically before the next computer purchase) are significantly higher

I always recommend using backup, but to most people, it's a "waste of money" because they don't see anything bad happen

However, even if you're running backup you really don't know what state your backup is in. A corrupted backup isn't worth anything. Checking the SMART data is easy, but it misses a lot. Data scrubbing for bit rot effects is pretty effective, unless data gets in corrupted to begin with. Etc, etc, etc. Basically, your primary storage might be the only one with the correct data, so it's reliability is also important

That all said, a fusion drive with backup is fine for consumer level work

 

[Miat]

Even with backup, you're not safe.

Sure, but still a lot better off than no backup.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Uh, what's the point in higher reliability, if you don’t have backup? It about the odds. Most of that 90%+ will have their ssd/hd last until their next purchase, at which point backup doesn't really matter anymore. However if you're using a fusion drive, your odds of having it go out in 2-3 years (typically before the next computer purchase) are significantly higher

I always recommend using backup, but to most people, it's a "waste of money" because they don't see anything bad happen

However, even if you're running backup you really don't know what state your backup is in. A corrupted backup isn't worth anything. Checking the SMART data is easy, but it misses a lot. Data scrubbing for bit rot effects is pretty effective, unless data gets in corrupted to begin with. Etc, etc, etc. Basically, your primary storage might be the only one with the correct data, so it's reliability is also important

That all said, a fusion drive with backup is fine for consumer level work

My six year old Fusion drive is fine thanks.

But I have two backups (one offsite) to cover every eventuality.

 

[HalfNelson]

That all said, a fusion drive with backup is fine for consumer level work

Completely agree. My 2012 Mac Mini has been running dual SSDs, in a RAID 0 configuration, since day one. Also been running Time Machine since day one. It has covered all my bases for the last 5.5 years.

 

[philipma1957]

Completely agree. My 2012 Mac Mini has been running dual SSDs, in a RAID 0 configuration, since day one. Also been running Time Machine since day one. It has covered all my bases for the last 5.5 years.

I would replace the 2 ssd in a raid 0 asap if I were you. They are not faster unless you do really long read and write files such as movies and videos. If you have 5 year old ssds they can't be very large just buy a 2tb ssd like this one

www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226859

Add a new time machine as the drive is also 5 years old.

 

[Yvan256]

More interesting question is: Why are you working on such an outdated computer?

An even more interesting question: are you offering him a new computer for free? My main computer is a mid-2010 Mac mini. Are you also offering me a new computer?

 

[Cape Dave]

An even more interesting question: are you offering him a new computer for free? My main computer is a mid-2010 Mac mini. Are you also offering me a new computer?

I am riding a very fine horse. Is someone offering me a nice new car?

 

[Celts88]

I realise people want to talk about specs etc., but if no mini then specs don't matter, and if a mini does comes out then we (most people) will still buy it and keep bitching, but this time over a new mini, not a fictional mini

 

[philipma1957]

I realise people want to talk about specs etc., but if no mini then specs don't matter, and if a mini does comes out then we (most people) will still buy it and keep bitching, but this time over a new mini, not a fictional mini

They came out with good mac minis in 2012 and in 2009 the gear was close to or better then the current mac book pro on those 2 occasions. Maybe there was a quad 2011 model but my memory fails me.

If they did a good mini now they could be ahead of the intel nuc. They could then do nothing for 4 or 5 years. make lots on it as it gets older. It would attract quite a few windows and keep me around I am force feeding myself windows and Linnux and both are okay. I have reached the point I don't need Apple unless this is a good mini.

I have 3x 2012 i5's and a low end 2014 so unless the 2018/2019 is pretty good I don't need it.

I use a samsung phone basically to protest apple's I phone. I have So much pc gear from gpu mining I lose track of what I have. Apple lost me with the 2014 I don't think they get me back with the 2019.

i built a new mining build with an amd ryzen 2700 and 2 1080ti's it earns 6 dollars a day and plays netflix on a 1080p screen while I type on bitcointalk. and trade a few coins. Apple can't touch it I kept my minis more for banking and storing of cryptocoins then any other reason.

 

[saulinpa]

I have 3x 2012 i5's and a low end 2014 so unless the 2018/2019 is pretty good I don't need it.

Yeah. That's part of Apple's problem. A new mini will come out and their target market might not buy many.

 

[sublunar]

Apple did acknowledge that some professionals bought into the Mac Mini - Phil Schiller said that it's "more a mix of consumer with some pro use"

If the average consumer is more concerned with the ticket price of the Mini, the professional user may be more sensitive to the specification and perhaps the upgradability.

That said, if they don't meet their sales targets they may only have themselves to blame for not updating the Mini in 4 years as far as people with a modicum of interest in the Mini specs are concerned.

 

[Neodym]

An even more interesting question: are you offering him a new computer for free? My main computer is a mid-2010 Mac mini. Are you also offering me a new computer?

When someone refers to a “work computer”, my understanding is that this is either a computer being provided by a company or the computer in use when being self-employed.

In either case that computer is used for earning money and can be written off. Normally after 3-4 years a computer is fully written off and then usually replaced for productivity and financial reasons. Hence my question.

My apologies if I misread the statement of the OP!

 

[PickUrPoison]

We've already had the 13" TB MBP and 15" MBP come in with similar modernised specs and unchanged price. There's nothing to suggest that the Mac mini price points will change from this apart from the possibility that Apple will raise the entry level SKU because they would probably need to increase the base RAM to 8Gb.

On Apple's pricing scheme on from the current Minis, increasing base spec to 8Gb of RAM makes the start price $599.

And an extra $100 gets you double the hard disk space (1Tb up from 500Gb) and a better CPU with Iris Graphics (equivalent to the mid SKU).

The $499 start price is actually around $100 lower than the previous 2012 model before it was eliminated. My assumption is that Apple created this SKU to please shareholders who asked for a $499 entry SKU.

In theory, Apple would have to use the i5-8265U CPU, 500Gb HD and try and find some way to squeeze 8Gb into their price point without sacrificing too much margin.

The 2014 model had it easy because the socket across the board was the same so they could choose 2 different versions of the dual core CPUs to go onto the motherboard to feed the higher end CPUs.

The irony here now is that the i5-8250U (and presumably the i5-8265U) doesn't share the same socket as the i5-8259U so assuming Apple are only making one motherboard they can't use both in the same generation.

So if Apple need to maintain a $499 Mac Mini they'll have to go for the HD620 CPUs across the board or they would have to raise the minimum level of the Mini to match the current middle SKU 2014 at $699 potentially keeping the base model 2014 around (as a clearance model) to gather more ire from the folks here.

My own personal thoughts centre around the using i5-8265U (or i5-8365U) enabling Apple to keep the entry level low. Anyone wanting more GPU power can attach an eGPU and the saving in CPU cost could enable Apple to either lower prices or improve the storage options.

My conclusion is a $100 uplift for all SKUs of the Mini based on Apple declaring that 2018 iPad is more capable of taking up the slack at lower price points with storage improving to keep the price points apart.

The price increase allows Apple to use i5-8265U across the board with 8Gb of RAM. The middle SKU getting 1Tb Fusion Drive and the top SKU getting 2Tb Fusion.

Base Model: 8Gb RAM, 500Gb HD = $599
Middle Model: 8Gb RAM, 1Tb Fusion Drive = $799
Top Model: Slightly Faster CPU (i5-8365U?), 8Gb RAM, 2Tb Fusion Drive = $1099

We basically agree on probable pricing. But I’m not onboard with the idea of a move to 15W parts, for many reasons:

• They’re no cheaper than the 28W parts

• The Coffee Lake 28W CPUs are much higher performance than the upcoming Whiskey Lake 15W parts, esp. wrt base clock

• Apple would much rather use GT3e graphics than GT2

• The current enclosure easily accommodates the thermal requirements of the 28W CPUs

• It’s not reasonable to think mini buyers are going to spend another $500 for an eGPU to make up for poor performing iGPUs (though that would give them GPU performance well above the GT3e level)

• But most importantly, Apple is already using the 28W parts in the 2018 13” MBP. They’ll want to leverage that engineering and BOM in the mini (and new 1080p iMac, as well).

re: the entry level mini, there is a 28W dual-core Coffee Lake part that’s viable, the i3-8109U. It uses the same socket as the quads so a second logic board wouldn’t be needed, and using the i3-8109U for the entry level SKU is a lot better option than going 15W/GT2 across the entire lineup. (Apple could even spec a lower custom clock to reduce the price, but since that CPU could be a salvage part from flawed quad-cores I think Intel will be very flexible on price.)

I think Apple can scrape together a $499 8GB/500GB 28W dual-core entry level mini. It would have lower margins than the rest of the lineup but Apple’s ok with that; they price for average ASP for the lineup as a whole, i.e. it’s not enforced on a model-by-model basis.

The SSD snobs—easily identified by their fondness for the word “spinner”—are going to flip out, but that’s their hangup and not relevant. Get over it. If HDDs are good enough for the low-end iMac, they’re good enough for the low-end mini. Period. The alternative is a $799 8GB/128GB entry level base mini—nothing under $799. (And despite what the “HDDs are evil” crowd thinks, my grandma doesn’t need a $799 SSD mini... she’d much rather have a $499 HDD mini, and doesn’t particularly appreciate other people spending her hard-earned $300 and telling her what she “needs”.)

I see the tiers similar to today, though with 8GB minimum and mostly quad-cores. (Storage/RAM upgrades priced same as today):

Low: i3-8109U dual-core (3.0?/3.6GHz)
$499 8GB/500GB

Mid: i5-8259U quad-core (2.3/3.8GHz)
$699 8GB/1TB.
$200 upgrade to 1TB Fusion or 256 SSD.
$300 upgrade to i7-8559U (2.7/4.5GHz)

High: i5-8269U quad-core (2.6/4.2GHz)
$999 8GB/1TB Fusion or 256GB SSD
$200 upgrade to i7-8559U (2.7/4.5GHz)


All the above configurations would have two DDR4 slots and all the ports of the 2017 iMac 1080p: two USB-C Thunderbolt 3/USB 3.1 Gen 2 ports, four USB 3.0 ports, Ethernet, SDXC slot and a headphone jack.

Come October I’ll either look clairvoyant or like an idiot.

Edited on 7/29: I’ve been thinking they might switch to an external power adapter. Using USB-PD instead of an internal power supply makes sense if they intend to shrink the enclosure but is there really much to be gained?

 

[Spock]

We basically agree on probable pricing. But I’m not onboard with the idea of a move to 15W parts, for many reasons:

• They’re no cheaper than the 28W parts

• The Coffee Lake 28W CPUs are much higher performance than the upcoming Whiskey Lake 15W parts, esp. wrt base clock

• Apple would much rather use GTe3 graphics than GT2

• The current enclosure easily accommodates the thermal requirements of the 28W CPUs

• It’s not reasonable to think mini buyers are going to spend another $500 for an eGPU to make up for poor performing iGPUs (though that would give them GPU performance well above the GT3e level)

• But most importantly, Apple is already using the 28W parts in the 2018 13” MBP. They’ll want to leverage that engineering and BOM in the mini (and new 1080p iMac, as well).

re: the entry level mini, there is a 28W dual-core Coffee Lake part that’s viable, the i3-8109U. It uses the same socket as the quads so a second logic board wouldn’t be needed, and using the i3-8109U for the entry level SKU is a lot better option than going 15W/GT2 across the entire lineup. (Apple could even spec a lower custom clock to reduce the price, but since that CPU could be a salvage part from flawed quad-cores I think Intel will be very flexible on price.)

I think Apple can scrape together a $499 8GB/500GB 28W dual-core entry level mini. It would have lower margins than the rest of the lineup but Apple’s ok with that; they price for average ASP for the lineup as a whole, i.e. it’s not enforced on a model-by-model basis.

The SSD snobs—easily identified by their fondness for the word “spinner”—are going to flip out, but that’s their hangup and not relevant. Get over it. If HDDs are good enough for the low-end iMac, they’re good enough for the low-end mini. Period. The alternative is a $799 8GB/128GB entry level base mini—nothing under $799. (And despite what the “HDDs are evil” crowd thinks, my grandma doesn’t need a $799 SSD mini... she’d much rather have a $499 HDD mini, and doesn’t particularly appreciate other people spending her hard-earned $300 and telling her what she “needs”.)

I see the tiers similar to today, though with 8GB minimum and mostly quad-cores. (Storage/RAM upgrades priced same as today):

Low: i3-8109U dual-core (3.0?/3.6GHz)
$499 8GB/500GB

Mid: i5-8259U quad-core (2.3/3.8GHz)
$699 8GB/1TB.
$200 upgrade to 1TB Fusion or 256 SSD.
$300 upgrade to i7-8559U (2.7/4.5GHz)

High: i5-8269U quad-core (2.6/4.2GHz)
$999 8GB/1TB Fusion or 256GB SSD
$200 upgrade to i7-8559U (2.7/4.5GHz)


All the above configurations would have two DDR4 slots and all the ports of the 2017 iMac 1080p: two USB-C Thunderbolt 3/USB 3.1 Gen 2 ports, four USB 3.0 ports, Ethernet, SDXC slot and a headphone jack.

Come October I’ll either look clairvoyant or like an idiot.

I don't think they will use the i3, Apple has never used it in the past and the current $499 is an i5, I think they could boost the ram without raising the price.

EDIT: I didn't read all of the context before commenting but I still stand behind what I said. I think taking away the i5 and putting in an i3 will make people think its a downgrade. I could see them going to $599 to keep the i5.

 

[sublunar]

We basically agree on probable pricing. But I’m not onboard with the idea of a move to 15W parts, for many reasons:

• They’re no cheaper than the 28W parts

• The Coffee Lake 28W CPUs are much higher performance than the upcoming Whiskey Lake 15W parts, esp. wrt base clock

• Apple would much rather use GTe3 graphics than GT2

• The current enclosure easily accommodates the thermal requirements of the 28W CPUs

• It’s not reasonable to think mini buyers are going to spend another $500 for an eGPU to make up for poor performing iGPUs (though that would give them GPU performance well above the GT3e level)

• But most importantly, Apple is already using the 28W parts in the 2018 13” MBP. They’ll want to leverage that engineering and BOM in the mini (and new 1080p iMac, as well).

re: the entry level mini, there is a 28W dual-core Coffee Lake part that’s viable, the i3-8109U. It uses the same socket as the quads so a second logic board wouldn’t be needed, and using the i3-8109U for the entry level SKU is a lot better option than going 15W/GT2 across the entire lineup. (Apple could even spec a lower custom clock to reduce the price, but since that CPU could be a salvage part from flawed quad-cores I think Intel will be very flexible on price.)

I think Apple can scrape together a $499 8GB/500GB 28W dual-core entry level mini. It would have lower margins than the rest of the lineup but Apple’s ok with that; they price for average ASP for the lineup as a whole, i.e. it’s not enforced on a model-by-model basis.

The SSD snobs—easily identified by their fondness for the word “spinner”—are going to flip out, but that’s their hangup and not relevant. Get over it. If HDDs are good enough for the low-end iMac, they’re good enough for the low-end mini. Period. The alternative is a $799 8GB/128GB entry level base mini—nothing under $799. (And despite what the “HDDs are evil” crowd thinks, my grandma doesn’t need a $799 SSD mini... she’d much rather have a $499 HDD mini, and doesn’t particularly appreciate other people spending her hard-earned $300 and telling her what she “needs”.)

I see the tiers similar to today, though with 8GB minimum and mostly quad-cores. (Storage/RAM upgrades priced same as today):

Low: i3-8109U dual-core (3.0?/3.6GHz)
$499 8GB/500GB

Mid: i5-8259U quad-core (2.3/3.8GHz)
$699 8GB/1TB.
$200 upgrade to 1TB Fusion or 256 SSD.
$300 upgrade to i7-8559U (2.7/4.5GHz)

High: i5-8269U quad-core (2.6/4.2GHz)
$999 8GB/1TB Fusion or 256GB SSD
$200 upgrade to i7-8559U (2.7/4.5GHz)


All the above configurations would have two DDR4 slots and all the ports of the 2017 iMac 1080p: two USB-C Thunderbolt 3/USB 3.1 Gen 2 ports, four USB 3.0 ports, Ethernet, SDXC slot and a headphone jack.

Come October I’ll either look clairvoyant or like an idiot.

Nice post there.

While Intel's price list does make it appear that certain CPUs are priced similarly, it's difficult to tell what sorts of discounts Apple gets.

They also use the 15w Iris powered CPU from the nTB MBP in the current 2017 base iMac (i5-7360U), This is a CPU which could have been used in the Mac Mini if they'd bothered to update it last year. Bizarrely, this must mean that the bottom SKU iMac must sell enough to justify the engineering expense whereas every 2014 Mini SKU doesn't.

They could easily have used the 28w Iris powered CPU from the 2017 TB MBP but didn't - why in a desktop machine that's probably rated for a good 100w CPU+GPU combination? The previous 2015 version of the base model used the i5-5250U (a 1.6GHz CPU with HD6000 graphics). The modern version of that CPU is the i5-8250U.

Why didn't they use the Broadwell i5-5257U which has Iris Graphics 6100? That CPU had been used in the MBP 13" in early 2015 whereas the iMac of that year was updated months later. The 5250U was used in the MacBook Air of the day.

The later generation CPU was used in the non touch bar MacBook Pro - a kind of successor to the MacBook Air.

Just a little rethink about the nature of the base iMac, if the other SKUs are going to be 6 cores, 6 threads, then adding any kind of mobile i5 Coffee Lake CPU is likely to see a 4 core, 8 thread CPU being the only option on paper which could lead to some interesting benchmarks. To mitigate this Apple could go to mobile or desktop i3 (a desktop i3-8100 will be clocked at 3.6GHz, probably lower than the i5-8400 at 2.8GHz).

Apple could easily save money by using the same motherboard across the iMac 21.5" range and inserting a quad core i3 into the lowest SKU and pairing it with a cheap Radeon Pro GPU.

Back to sharing parts with the Mac Mini - the i3-8109U as you suggest could be CPU that goes into the future Mini but I think the Mini CPU would need to do double duty in the replacement for the MBA to get economy of scale and it's the wrong wattage for the product differentiation that I was looking at. The base iMac could get this CPU but I think it does enough business to not need to share with anything else.

If Apple did want to go 28w CPU across the board it might make a lot of us here quite happy but I think the minimum price would have to go up massively.

The product differentiation Apple would use would remain largely based on storage types though.

I don't think they will use the i3, Apple has never used it in the past and the current $499 is an i5, I think they could boost the ram without raising the price.

Apple briefly used a desktop i3 in the 2010 iMac, not much of a precedent but it's there. They never used i3 afterwards but the increase in core count with Coffee Lake may have caused a rethink.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Nice post there.

While Intel's price list does make it appear that certain CPUs are priced similarly, it's difficult to tell what sorts of discounts Apple gets.

They also use the 15w Iris powered CPU from the nTB MBP in the current 2017 base iMac (i5-7360U), This is a CPU which could have been used in the Mac Mini if they'd bothered to update it last year. Bizarrely, this must mean that the bottom SKU iMac must sell enough to justify the engineering expense whereas every 2014 Mini SKU doesn't.

They could easily have used the 28w Iris powered CPU from the 2017 TB MBP but didn't - why in a desktop machine that's probably rated for a good 100w CPU+GPU combination? The previous 2015 version of the base model used the i5-5250U (a 1.6GHz CPU with HD6000 graphics). The modern version of that CPU is the i5-8250U.

Why didn't they use the Broadwell i5-5257U which has Iris Graphics 6100? That CPU had been used in the MBP 13" in early 2015 whereas the iMac of that year was updated months later. The 5250U was used in the MacBook Air of the day.

The later generation CPU was used in the non touch bar MacBook Pro - a kind of successor to the MacBook Air.

Just a little rethink about the nature of the base iMac, if the other SKUs are going to be 6 cores, 6 threads, then adding any kind of mobile i5 Coffee Lake CPU is likely to see a 4 core, 8 thread CPU being the only option on paper which could lead to some interesting benchmarks. To mitigate this Apple could go to mobile or desktop i3 (a desktop i3-8100 will be clocked at 3.6GHz, probably lower than the i5-8400 at 2.8GHz).

Apple could easily save money by using the same motherboard across the iMac 21.5" range and inserting a quad core i3 into the lowest SKU and pairing it with a cheap Radeon Pro GPU.

Back to sharing parts with the Mac Mini - the i3-8109U as you suggest could be CPU that goes into the future Mini but I think the Mini CPU would need to do double duty in the replacement for the MBA to get economy of scale and it's the wrong wattage for the product differentiation that I was looking at. The base iMac could get this CPU but I think it does enough business to not need to share with anything else.

If Apple did want to go 28w CPU across the board it might make a lot of us here quite happy but I think the minimum price would have to go up massively.

The product differentiation Apple would use would remain largely based on storage types though.

Whatever happens at least we’ll have an update finally... won’t we?

I do think Apple was waiting on quad core 28W CPUs before updating, otherwise they could have done CPU updates (at the least) already, before these 8th gen.

When I saw the 2017 iMac 1080p with socketed DDR4 instead of LPDDR3 I thought we were going to get a mini update; but without a quad core part, it would mostly be a RAM and TB3 update. The timing was off, and by waiting until the Coffee Lake 28W quads were released, it’s going to be a much better update.

But it won’t be hexacores that some want; they could do it with the 45W parts + dGPU but at the prices Apple would charge I don’t think the volume would be there. And that would be a lot of heat, they’d have to improve the thermals. I just don’t see it but who knows they could surprise me.

re: the CPUs Apple uses in the entry level iMac 1080p, they’ve always been 15W parts. In 2014/2015 from the Air, then 2017 from the nTB MBP since the MBA stayed with Broadwell. Mainly for segmentation to keep from running into the model above it I think, and to encourage buyers to make that move up.

For instance in 2017, the 15W makes sense, it gives the 1080p a 2.3GHz CPU vs the 3.0GHz in the model above it (the iMac 4K). Even the slowest 28W part is 3.1GHz, which would be confusing if they used it in the entry level since it would give it a higher clock than the model above it.