Why MacMini wasn't updated in 2013

[osx11]

Is it possible that the MacMini would simply be too powerful for the 'entry' Mac?

If you look at the geek bench scores for the MacMini 2012 top config:



and the 2014 Mac Pro base config:



Not that much difference in terms of raw processor power. Now image an updated topped out MacMini would probably match the $2999 Mac Pro for raw processing power (only.)

 

[martinm0]

I'm personally hoping that the Mini is undergoing some more significant updates and not to just stall for another product.

Likewise, keep in mind that even though Geekbench gives a general feeling for computing power, its not a complete picture. It's like having two 300hp cars: Ford and Audi. On paper they seem like they'll be identical due to specs, but take them out on snowy roads and you'll see the Audi outshine the Ford (granted at twice the price).

In any case, I am eagerly awaiting updates to the Mini line!

 

[osx11]

I'm personally hoping that the Mini is undergoing some more significant updates and not to just stall for another product.

Likewise, keep in mind that even though Geekbench gives a general feeling for computing power, its not a complete picture. It's like having two 300hp cars: Ford and Audi. On paper they seem like they'll be identical due to specs, but take them out on snowy roads and you'll see the Audi outshine the Ford (granted at twice the price).

In any case, I am eagerly awaiting updates to the Mini line!

You're right!

In terms of graphics performance, expandability, etc... the Mac Pro winds hands down.

But in terms of raw processing power, for like video rendering/encoding, you could get a $1000 Mac Mini with the same processing power as the entry nMP. Right?

 

[blanka]

And don't forget storage speed:
The Mini beats the Mac Pro in that department too!
Check some other topic here: one guy experimented a bit with the Mini, and mounted 2 Samsung 840 Pro 256GB SSD drives, and configured raid 0. It was like 970MB/s read, 950MB/s write!
That costs roughly 400 bucks for a 512GB SSD slightly topping the Mac Pro PCI SSD in performance!

If the Mini gets a Haswell update it will be equal to the Base Pro. If Apple skips Haswell and mounts Broadwell in the mini, at comparable speed or even higher (because of the 16nm process 3.0Ghz broadwell fits easily too), it will outperform the base pro.
Imagine a Mini with 3.0 Ghz quad core Broadwell arriving the end of spring with Iris Pro 6000 (no idea about the name: twice as fast broadwell version), 2 x 2.0 TB ports, again 2 drive bays that you fill with 2x Samsung 840Pro 512GB......

 

[CH12671]

It will still have mobile components, in a small, hard to ventilate case. It will never outwork a mac pro, and don't fool yourself....Apple doesn't look at geekbench before releasing a product.

 

[Maxedonia]

I think that most people buy the 6 or 8 core version of the nMP, so the fact that a Mac Mini could get close the the performance of the base nMP isn't gonna have much effect on the nMP sales I think. Also the main focus in the nMP are the dual GPU's not the CPU.

And I don't think a Mac Mini is suitable for rendering/encoding a project for several hours in a row...

 

[Crosscreek]

And don't forget storage speed:
The Mini beats the Mac Pro in that department too!
Check some other topic here: one guy experimented a bit with the Mini, and mounted 2 Samsung 840 Pro 256GB SSD drives, and configured raid 0. It was like 970MB/s read, 950MB/s write!
That costs roughly 400 bucks for a 512GB SSD slightly topping the Mac Pro PCI SSD in performance!

If the Mini gets a Haswell update it will be equal to the Base Pro. If Apple skips Haswell and mounts Broadwell in the mini, at comparable speed or even higher (because of the 16nm process 3.0Ghz broadwell fits easily too), it will outperform the base pro.
Imagine a Mini with 3.0 Ghz quad core Broadwell arriving the end of spring with Iris Pro 6000 (no idea about the name: twice as fast broadwell version), 2 x 2.0 TB ports, again 2 drive bays that you fill with 2x Samsung 840Pro 512GB......

I agree with you. I think in may show up in June. Im waiting to see some bench marks with Broadwell. That may give a timeframe for new laptops and Mini.

 

[Wuiffi]

You need to remember, pure cpu speed is only one reason to buy a mac pro and there are many others (ecc ram, dual graphics, 14 more PCIe lanes ...)

Of course, for those looking at just the performance in every day tasks the high end mac min is not too far behind the mac pro (but with the same argument the Macbook pro should not have gotten an update!)

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

I'm personally hoping that the Mini is undergoing some more significant updates and not to just stall for another product.

It needs more and better antennas for 802.11ac. Thunderbolt 2 requires new chips. The cooling system is also very old, and a bit inefficient (compared to the rMBP). I hope that Macs have piezo “fans” in the future.

 

[martinm0]

You're right!

In terms of graphics performance, expandability, etc... the Mac Pro winds hands down.

But in terms of raw processing power, for like video rendering/encoding, you could get a $1000 Mac Mini with the same processing power as the entry nMP. Right?

Absolutely correct. I've done a good amount of Handbrake benchmarking of various Macs over the last few years and the 2012 2.6 i7 Mini beat my early 2013 15" rMBP 2.7 i7 (16GB/512SSD), though only by a few seconds/FPS in the Big Buck Bunny encode test. Additionally, I've built a hackintosh for even less that has working Thunderbolt ports and stomps the fastest iMac in encoding (running a 3770k at 4.2). Benches around 14300 in Geekbench 3 as well.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

And don't forget storage speed:
The Mini beats the Mac Pro in that department too!
Check some other topic here: one guy experimented a bit with the Mini, and mounted 2 Samsung 840 Pro 256GB SSD drives, and configured raid 0. It was like 970MB/s read, 950MB/s write!
That costs roughly 400 bucks for a 512GB SSD slightly topping the Mac Pro PCI SSD in performance!

That's useless without TRIM support. Which SSD RAID 0 supports TRIM under OS X?

----------

Absolutely correct. I've done a good amount of Handbrake benchmarking of various Macs over the last few years and the 2012 2.6 i7 Mini beat my early 2013 15" rMBP 2.7 i7 (16GB/512SSD), though only by a few seconds/FPS in the Big Buck Bunny encode test. Additionally, I've built a hackintosh for even less that has working Thunderbolt ports and stomps the fastest iMac in encoding (running a 3770k at 4.2). Benches around 14300 in Geekbench 3 as well.

Not only that, the Mac mini has also the highest energy efficiency, compared to other OS X “desktop” computers.

 

[Crosscreek]

Absolutely correct. I've done a good amount of Handbrake benchmarking of various Macs over the last few years and the 2012 2.6 i7 Mini beat my early 2013 15" rMBP 2.7 i7 (16GB/512SSD), though only by a few seconds/FPS in the Big Buck Bunny encode test. Additionally, I've built a hackintosh for even less that has working Thunderbolt ports and stomps the fastest iMac in encoding (running a 3770k at 4.2). Benches around 14300 in Geekbench 3 as well.

I thinks its great you can build super hacks but I am a simple person who likes things that work without a bunch of conflicts and really appreciate reliability. The Mini is one of the most reliable machines on the market and is always in great demand.
People buying Pros are professionals that make their living with the power, upgradeability and reliability of a workstation. I don't care how good the refresh or redesigned Mini is, it won't compete with a Pro workstation.
I do look forward to the new Mini. I have fear of soldered components. If so I will max one out BTO. It should fulfill all I need for several years.

 

[hudson1]

Is it possible that the MacMini would simply be too powerful for the 'entry' Mac?

If you look at the geek bench scores for the MacMini 2012 top config:

View attachment 456273

and the 2014 Mac Pro base config:

View attachment 456274

Not that much difference in terms of raw processor power. Now image an updated topped out MacMini would probably match the $2999 Mac Pro for raw processing power (only.)

Apple isn't about to put server class CPUs in the mini, iMac, MBP anytime soon.

 

[nathanjbrown]

SoftRAID (http://www.softraid.com), if I'm not mistaken, will do RAID 0 with TRIM.

That's useless without TRIM support. Which SSD RAID 0 supports TRIM under OS X?

----------


Not only that, the Mac mini has also the highest energy efficiency, compared to other OS X “desktop” computers.

 

[blanka]

That's useless without TRIM support. Which SSD RAID 0 supports TRIM under OS X?

Don't most modern SSD's do cleanup internally with their controller, making TRIM irrelevant?

 

[theSeb]

But in terms of raw processing power, for like video rendering/encoding, you could get a $1000 Mac Mini with the same processing power as the entry nMP. Right?

No, because Geekbench is actually a really bad indicator of processing power in real world applications like video rendering and encoding.

 

[christarp]

A lot of enterprise applications would utilize openCL

the intel hd 4000 isn't anywhere near as capable as the $1500 worth of graphics cards in the mac pro.

 

[Jambalaya]

The Mini's "place" in the Apple line-up is as the base machine, it sits below the iMac and MacPro. Any updates to it have to respect that positioning. IMO there is zero chance Apple put a Broadwell chip into the Mini before they put it into other products. To me it made complete sense that the Mini refresh was dependent on the launch of the Mac Pro and as such 2013 was never likely. I think we'll see a Haswell Mini sometime in 2014 but it may well be there is no refresh in 2014 either.

 

[osx11]

No, because Geekbench is actually a really bad indicator of processing power in real world applications like video rendering and encoding.

This is a serious question: Is Geekbench good for anything?

Check out some previous replies above yours. Some would disagree with you.

----------

Don't most modern SSD's do cleanup internally with their controller, making TRIM irrelevant?

Yes! But I think some people don't want that reality check. :roll eyes:

For instance, the crucial SSDs essentially have a built in system that essentially does the same thing as TRIM. I've been using a 512GB Crucial M4 in my 2010 MBP for roughly a year and i just put it in, cloned my drive onto it and have been problem-free for a year. No decrease in write/write speeds. Nothing! Works fine out of the box. Many say that the SSD drive companies probably know more about drive controllers than Apple.

 

[theSeb]

This is a serious question: Is Geekbench good for anything?

My serious reply is basically, no. Geekbench is a fairly basic and unrealistic representation of how fast your computer can "sprint". The uses you mentioned should be thought of as a marathon. Geekbench does not cause any Mac that I have tested to throttle turbo boost - it is simply not intensive enough, so it's representation of real world performance is questionable, especially in heavy uses like encoding and rendering.

 

[maflynn]

Apple's done this before - an extended period of time before updating the Mac Mini, I think they want people to buy their more expensive models and so a delay in getting the mini updated makes sense. I expect to see an update at some point but I'd rather not hazard a guess.

 

[Rodster]

Apple's done this before - an extended period of time before updating the Mac Mini, I think they want people to buy their more expensive models and so a delay in getting the mini updated makes sense. I expect to see an update at some point but I'd rather not hazard a guess.

Agreed !

Apple has no incentive to update the current Mini when they sellout on Amazon within 15-30 mins and it takes several weeks for a restock. The current lineup is still potent to run most software. I recently gave up and bought the base i5 model from Amazon. It does everything I want for a great price and performance is not an issue whatsoever.

Resale value is still insane for the Mini. I have no reason to sell my i5 but I may add the new Mini when it's released.

 

[Crosscreek]

Agreed !

Apple has no incentive to update the current Mini when they sellout on Amazon within 15-30 mins and it takes several weeks for a restock. The current lineup is still potent to run most software. I recently gave up and bought the base i5 model from Amazon. It does everything I want for a great price and performance is not an issue whatsoever.

Resale value is still insane for the Mini. I have no reason to sell my i5 but I may add the new Mini when it's released.

I bought the high end 13" rMBP in November thinking it would run a 4k monitor or TV. Finding out it wasn't going to happen without a dedicated GPU was disappointing. I kept following the Mini forum and decided why spend 2k on something that won't do what I bought it for when I can get a comparably inexpensive Mini and wait for a machine that will do it. I am so impressed with this i5 with a added SSD that I will keep it also when the new ones come out. I sent the rMBP back for refund.

 

[Fishrrman]

Is it possible that the MacMini would simply be too powerful for the 'entry' Mac?

If you look at the geek bench scores for the MacMini 2012 top config:

View attachment 456273

and the 2014 Mac Pro base config:

View attachment 456274

Not that much difference in terms of raw processor power. Now image an updated topped out MacMini would probably match the $2999 Mac Pro for raw processing power (only.)

A very pertinent observation.

Makes me glad I spent the extra $$ "up front" when I bought my Mini last year, and got the 2.6ghz i7!

Starting several months ago, when we saw post after post after post here claiming a new Mini release was going to happen before the end of the year, I posted that Apple wouldn't release the Mini prior to shipping the new Mac Pro -- for fear of impacting sales of the Pro model.

And also, that no new Mini would be out before late January/Februrary/March.

Even today, the new Mac Pros aren't yet shipping in large quantities.

Looks like Apple could go two ways with the next Mini:
1. A "late-generation" Haswell release. If that's the case, the new model's specs are already cast, and the model may be "in the pipeline"
or
2. An "early generation" Broadwell release. Others have said the mobile version of the Broadwell chip will be in production in the second quarter this year. If that's the case, and if Apple has decided to skip a "Haswell Mini" and go right to the next-generation CPU, we may see a new Mini around May/June.

I'm hoping they don't mess with the current form factor much. There is the "smaller is better" fanboy crowd in here. No size reduction is warranted for the Mini -- any smaller and they'll have to cut the number of ports on the rear. They should make the shell two-pieces, instead of one -- have a removable "top plate" to give easy access to the internal drives, without having to pull the motherboard for full access...

 

[haravikk]

Not that much difference in terms of raw processor power. Now image an updated topped out MacMini would probably match the $2999 Mac Pro for raw processing power (only.)

Not quite; a Mac Mini won't outperform a Mac Pro under heavy load, and Apple doesn't usually compare Mac models with each other (only previous generations of the same product) so as long as it's faster than previous models I'm not sure they really care.

Also, Geekbench scores don't take into account the GPUs, which are very much the major computation power behind the new and future Mac Pros. Personally I expect Apple to start shifting to some kind of OpenCL metric that shows off the total compute power of a Mac, in which case you'd be adding the 7 teraflops of GPU processing onto any CPU scores for the new Mac Pros.


Just saying; I don't think Apple would delay an update for this reason, especially when the new Mac Pro isn't going to be updated for at least a year, and also because they can fairly easily change their marketing to show off which is the more powerful system.

I think it more likely the next Mac Mini will be a significant redesign, and that they're hoping to show it off somewhere rather than sticking with their usual quiet updates.