or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's new Minis and Airs benchmark twice as fast as predecessors
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's new Minis and Airs benchmark twice as fast as predecessors

post #1 of 37
Thread Starter 
Apple's new line of Mac Minis and MacBook Airs launched Wednesday are not only strikingly faster than their predecessors in raw processor and memory performance, but in some cases rival premium-priced Macs that made their debut just one year ago for more than twice the cost.

2011 Mac minis

Macminicolo, which received both the server and baseline Mac Mini models, proclaim that the new desktops "are absolute screamers."

The entry-level 2.3 GHz Core i5 model soars 50% to a Geekbench score of 6395 when compared to its predecessor, while the top of the line 2.0 GHz i7 model provides an even more monumental performance with a score of 9573, roughly doubling last year's models. Â*

The latest Mac Minis start at $599 -- a $100 reduction from the previous generation's entry point -- and have controversially parted with optical drives while gaining a ThunderBolt port and an upgrade from Intel's Core 2 Duo chips to its latest Core i5 and i7 ultra-low-voltage processors.



2011 MacBook Airs

Meanwhile, benchmarks for Apple's new line of Macbook Airs supplied by Laptop Magazine (via Electricpig) highlight momentous performance increases when compared to the previous generation. Testing showed the new 13-inch Macbook Air registered a Geekbench score of 5860, outperforming its predecessor by 100%, while the 11-inch MacBook AirÂs score rose an incredible 149% from 2024 to 5040.



The latest benchmarks for the new notebooks are noteworthy given that the 11.6-inch Air, which starts at $999, put up a score that rivals the 5423 registered by last year's top-of-the-line, $2499 17-inch MacBook Pro.

It should be noted that Geekbench scores machines based on their raw processing and memory performance, which may or may not translate to real-world performance that takes into account different variables in each situation.
post #2 of 37
So do these things have Hyperthreading and Turbo Boost or not? Looking at that score, I'm thinking HT might be enabled as GB gives a big boost to any processor with it.
post #3 of 37
I say that is a bargain!!! MacBook Pro performance at $999!
post #4 of 37
deleted
post #5 of 37
Extreme disappointment that the new Airs aren't available with 8GB memory and can't be upgraded. The microprocessors used support it.
post #6 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipoo View Post

So do these things have Hyperthreading and Turbo Boost or not?

Both HT and TB.
http://ark.intel.com/products/54620/...ache-1_70-GHz)
post #7 of 37
The benchmark results shown for the new MacBook Air are with 64-bit kernels, which are unfairly compared with the MacBook Pro and old MacBook Air running with 32-bit kernels -- despite the fact that higher scores for these machines are listed when running 64-bit kernels.
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
post #8 of 37
I have an aging 1st gen white iMac 24' that is long in the tooth (bought in 2004). I think keep it a museum piece and see if it becomes a classic like the Apple II

I was going to buy a new macbook air with Lion, but now I have my iPad2, I think it makes better sense to buy a new MacMini, I already have a new wireless keyboard and I can get a 26+ inch lcd screen from Costco for $200, all I need is to get a touchpad to use gestures.

Essentially I'm moving away from having a dedicated desktop to using the macmini as a kind of media center that doubles as a computer the few times I need it for that and to sync the iPad/iPhone, watch Netflix, and so on.

I'm thinking of getting another TV with wif-fi for my bedroom and connect the mac to it and my main 46" lcd tv in the living room.

I'm almost back to windows PC pricing now~ 599 for mini, $200 for screen, vs over $1000 for mac air

I wonder if Apple is basically changing from a computer company to a entertainment media delivery company. They did remove Computer from their name right?
post #9 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling View Post

The benchmark results shown for the new MacBook Air are with 64-bit kernels, which are unfairly compared with the MacBook Pro and old MacBook Air running with 32-bit kernels -- despite the fact that higher scores for these machines are listed when running 64-bit kernels.

In my experience, as long as the same bitness of Geekbench is used (either the 32-bit or 64-bit version), any difference in kernel bitness will translate into only a meager difference in Geekbench score.
post #10 of 37
Looks like the i7 was the quad core server version. I'd be keen to see what the non server dual core i7 gets. It's another $160 NZD to upgrade, wondering if it's worth it.... Also, wondering if the CPU is soldered like the last one, or socketed so it can be upgraded later...
Replace user and press any key to continue!
Reply
Replace user and press any key to continue!
Reply
post #11 of 37
Up until yesterday, I was disappointed in the state of Apple's headless desktop offerings.

The new Mini is close enough to what I wanted that I placed an order for one ASAP. It seems to me that removing the optical drive to give the Mini form factor the room to take on more powerful internals is exactly what Apple needed to do.

The absence of an optical drive is well offset by the substantial boost in performance. Worst case you pay $79 for an external DVD burner though in my case even that expense might be spared. I have a USB DVD burner already that I'm sure would work with the new Mini and yet I might not need it. I am now using my current Mini (a 2.53 circa 2009) on my TV and as such I'll have remote access to the DVD drive in that unit. I'm going to give that a try and if that fails, will turn to the USB unit.

I am really looking forward to seeing how much faster the new machine will be. I'm going with the 2.7 i7, running off the 256 SSD/750 HDD combo, and with 8GB of RAM. I hope that I'll see more than double the speed. Can't wait to throw Handbrake at it and see what it can do. I'm especially curious to see what impact remotely accessing material off an optical drive will have on performance.
post #12 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

In my experience, as long as the same bitness of Geekbench is used (either the 32-bit or 64-bit version), any difference in kernel bitness will translate into only a meager difference in Geekbench score.

Running Lion, Macbook Unibody-2.4ghz, 5Gb Ram, 7200 Rpm Hdd.
Geek Bench 32 bit-3354
Geek Bench 64 bit-3723
Not a huge difference and my scores have been jumping around a bit.
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
post #13 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabuga View Post

Looks like the i7 was the quad core server version. I'd be keen to see what the non server dual core i7 gets. It's another $160 NZD to upgrade, wondering if it's worth it.... Also, wondering if the CPU is soldered like the last one, or socketed so it can be upgraded later...

Can't say for sure, but since the update from the core duo to the core 2 Duo all Minis have their Cpu's soldered in place.

*update* iFixit confirmed that the chip is indeed soldered in place.
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
post #14 of 37
Why won't Apple sell me the quad-core 2Ghz i7 Mac Mini with the Radeon 6630M graphics and a single hard drive? Do they not like my money?
post #15 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddyp View Post

Running Lion, Macbook Unibody-2.4ghz, 5Gb Ram, 7200 Rpm Hdd.
Geek Bench 32 bit-3354
Geek Bench 64 bit-3723
Not a huge difference and my scores have been jumping around a bit.

That's 11%. You're (presumably) looking at the difference in results between the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Geekbench. The difference seen between the 32-bit and 64-bit Darwin kernel is less - on the order of 1-2% IIRC.
post #16 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

Why won't Apple sell me the quad-core 2Ghz i7 Mac Mini with the Radeon 6630M graphics and a single hard drive? Do they not like my money?

Shouldn't the question that matters be, can the Mini, as it is now configurable, do some rather demanding work rather well. In many applications, for example, the higher clock speed of the 2.7 i7 would more than offset only having two cores instead of four. And in absolute terms, how fast is the dual-core unit?

Seems to me that being able to get much faster drives and the introduction of a discrete GPU, albeit a modest one (I should say re-introduction because the original Mini had one), may well have an even bigger impact on overall performance than which CPU is being employed.

It's not just about the CPU's muscle but the overall system performance that matters.
post #17 of 37
Isn't it interesting what Apple has done with this machine? Remember how the first "Airs" were overpriced and underpowered? Unlike with the iPad, Apple didn't get it right the first time around - and no one ever considered it Apple's finest notebook. Fast forward to today though. Cheap, powerful, sturdy, and a joy to own. In my opinion, the MacBook Air is Apple's finest notebook ever... And I've owned them all(including the first generation Air with the horrendous latch/USB door and $1800 price tag).

I'm rocking an iPhone 4, iPad 2, and an 11" 2010 MacBook Air( soon to be 2011)... I never imagined that all my favorite today's combined would weigh less than 5 lbs.

Heck, as a kid, my favorite Tonka truck weighed at least 15 lbs.
post #18 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

Shouldn't the question that matters be, can the Mini, as it is now configurable, do some rather demanding work rather well. In many applications, for example, the higher clock speed of the 2.7 i7 would more than offset only having two cores instead of four. And in absolute terms, how fast is the dual-core unit?

Seems to me that being able to get much faster drives and the introduction of a discrete GPU, albeit a modest one (I should say re-introduction because the original Mini had one), may well have an even bigger impact on overall performance than which CPU is being employed.

It's not just about the CPU's muscle but the overall system performance that matters.

I'd be very interested to see how the dual-core 2.7Ghz i7 Mac Mini stacks up against the entry-level quad-core 2.5Ghz i5 iMac in real world tasks. I use a lot of programs that theoretically take full advantage of all cores available (After Effects, Aperture, Compressor, Final Cut Pro) but that doesn't mean that they really do. You may be right that the extra 700Mhz per core make up the difference.
post #19 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

Up until yesterday, I was disappointed in the state of Apple's headless desktop offerings.

The new Mini is close enough to what I wanted that I placed an order for one ASAP. It seems to me that removing the optical drive to give the Mini form factor the room to take on more powerful internals is exactly what Apple needed to do.

The absence of an optical drive is well offset by the substantial boost in performance. Worst case you pay $79 for an external DVD burner though in my case even that expense might be spared. I have a USB DVD burner already that I'm sure would work with the new Mini and yet I might not need it. I am now using my current Mini (a 2.53 circa 2009) on my TV and as such I'll have remote access to the DVD drive in that unit. I'm going to give that a try and if that fails, will turn to the USB unit.

I am really looking forward to seeing how much faster the new machine will be. I'm going with the 2.7 i7, running off the 256 SSD/750 HDD combo, and with 8GB of RAM. I hope that I'll see more than double the speed. Can't wait to throw Handbrake at it and see what it can do. I'm especially curious to see what impact remotely accessing material off an optical drive will have on performance.

If they offered an AMD 6950M as an optional (hell, even the 6850M would be nice) it would be sooooooooooooooooo sweeeeeet

iPhone 4S 64GB, Black, soon to be sold in favor of a Nokia Lumia 920
Early 2010 MacBook Pro 2.4GHz, soon to be replaced with a Retina MacBook Pro, or an Asus U500

Reply

iPhone 4S 64GB, Black, soon to be sold in favor of a Nokia Lumia 920
Early 2010 MacBook Pro 2.4GHz, soon to be replaced with a Retina MacBook Pro, or an Asus U500

Reply
post #20 of 37
I'll never buy a MacBook Pro again, next time I'll get a MacBook Air and replace it more often.

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #21 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

I'll never buy a MacBook Pro again, next time I'll get a MacBook Air and replace it more often.

Yeah it doesn't really pay to get the top of the line, does it? It's the same story oh the desktop side; this year's iMac is matching or besting last years Mac Pro. I find myself buying cheaper and cheaper Macs, even though my needs are becoming more and more demanding. My first Mac was a $2,500 blue and white G3, and now I'm considering a $799 Mac Mini!
post #22 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

Both HT and TB.
http://ark.intel.com/products/54620/...ache-1_70-GHz)

I know the processors support it, it would not be unprecedented for a company to disable them for some reason though. Apple does not mention it on the product page, unlike other macs.
post #23 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipoo View Post

So do these things have Hyperthreading and Turbo Boost or not? Looking at that score, I'm thinking HT might be enabled as GB gives a big boost to any processor with it.

Only the i7s have Turbo Boost and Hyperthreading not these i5s. WRONG.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronTed View Post

I say that is a bargain!!! MacBook Pro performance at $999!

$899 for the 2.7 GHz Dual Core i7 with AMD graphics capable of driving 3 monitors - confirmed with Apple Sales this morning - 2 daisy chained out the Thunderbolt port plus 1 out the HDMI port. The Quad Core i7 is a no go because it has no AMD graphics assist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

I'm not sure about Turbo Boost, but I believe the Minis do have Hyperthreading.

The $899 2.7 GHz i7 has both Turbo Boost up to 3.4 GHz and Hyperthreading - dual threads per core - but not these i5s. WRONG
So all these reports don't even include what is likely to be the fastest Mini of all which I, a long time Mac Pro kind of guy, am seriously thinking of pulling the trigger on soon.

I stand corrected. Looks like 2nd Gen i5s do have both Turbo Boost and Hyperthreading. 2.5 Boosts to 3.2 GHz. 2.7 i7 Boosts to 3.4 GHz. So what does one gain by getting the top of the line Dual Core i7 besides a very small speed bump? Anyone? It seems like i7 means something more than just the i5 speed difference doesn't it?

Will someone please post what you gain from the i7 processor besides the 200 MHz difference in speed? There's gotta be something else or they wouldn't call it an i7 instead of just a faster i5. I see 4MB vs 3MB cache difference. Does that matter? And the i5 doesn't include Intel Insider. The retail price difference is $121. I did a comparison setup on the Intel website and could only find those two differences. Anyone know what Intel Insider is?

Conclusion: the $799 Mac Mini is the way to go unless an extra 1MB in the cache makes a difference.

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply
post #24 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

Yeah it doesn't really pay to get the top of the line, does it? It's the same story oh the desktop side; this year's iMac is matching or besting last years Mac Pro. I find myself buying cheaper and cheaper Macs, even though my needs are becoming more and more demanding. My first Mac was a $2,500 blue and white G3, and now I'm considering a $799 Mac Mini!

There was a time when systems struggled to keep up. So it was important to acquire as much power as possible.

What would be interesting is to determine what the new Mini in it's most powerful form stacks up against looking at Mac Pro performance historically. By that I mean how far back in the Pro range do you go to arrive at the numbers delivered now by the new Mini. Three years? Four years? Less? More?

By the way, a good combination, I think would be a Mini desktop plus something portable but lower cost like the entry-level Air or the iPad. I'm heading in that direction.
post #25 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

That's 11%. You're (presumably) looking at the difference in results between the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Geekbench. The difference seen between the 32-bit and 64-bit Darwin kernel is less - on the order of 1-2% IIRC.

I would say so, also a fresh instal of Lion so there may have been some spotlight indexing running in the background.
I should have run both versions before doing the lion install but did not think to do that.
*derp*
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
post #26 of 37
Plus AppleInsider discount when those sales kick in.

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply
post #27 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipoo View Post

I know the processors support it, it would not be unprecedented for a company to disable them for some reason though. Apple does not mention it on the product page, unlike other macs.

My guess is the detail of HT or TB isn't really that relevant to the target market.

OS X uses the Turbo Boost as it can request P0 access, I can't see why they'd disable those code requests for an Air specifically. Would certainly add an unnecessary overhead to execution, if nothing else.
post #28 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

I'll never buy a MacBook Pro again, next time I'll get a MacBook Air and replace it more often.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

Yeah it doesn't really pay to get the top of the line, does it? It's the same story oh the desktop side; this year's iMac is matching or besting last years Mac Pro. I find myself buying cheaper and cheaper Macs, even though my needs are becoming more and more demanding. My first Mac was a $2,500 blue and white G3, and now I'm considering a $799 Mac Mini!

I'd be with you except my notebook is now going to be my main machine and I'd really like the high-res 15" screen for the number of pixels I need on screen for some tasks. Of course, I don't need those on the road generally, so a maxxed out 13" MBA (faster than any computer I've ever had, which, in practical if not ego terms, matters more to me than having the faster mobile computer ever, i.e., next year's 15" MBP) and the new monitor for my serious photoediting and multi-tasking at home could work.

And I do need a new notebook computer. Now. Maybe the iPad2 would meet those needs, but I see the iPad2 as a tweener model, and next year's as the first really mature iteration - just as I see this just released MBA as a mature iteration (TB, speed, backlit KB, Lion, etc. - all the main new things in the Apple PC world which aren't going to be obseleted for a bit.)

And then I could wait for, first the iPhone 5 and then the next gen iPad - and like another poster said, have all the devices I need for my full digital life circa 2012 style (not counting the stationary monitor at home (with peripheral optical and hard drives) in less than five pounds of gear - all tied together by Lion, iOS 5 and iCloud. And get all three of the high end models of each for ~$3,000 (again not including the big monitor).

So, yeah, since I don't do high-end video editing or gaming, you guys definitely have a point - and Apple will probably garner at least as much revenue if users like you follow that model.

Hmmmmmm........

.....I was thinking a 15" MBP next spring, but now I'm thinking why wait?

...unless the next phone would tide me over with enough ubiquitous mobile net.... ...'cos that new TB monitor's a bit spendy and the 15" screen could do me for a year.

Decisions, decisions. But hey, at least between attractive alternatives......

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #29 of 37
For the longest time computers have been getting faster to run programs faster. At the same time programmers have been making programs more complex thus requiring faster computers. New programs don't always work well on two year old hardware. Last year I recall someone who is a programmer comment that many programmers are lazy these days and don't try to optimize their code to run at the maximum efficiency.

Right now technology is producing better hardware which handles the latest programs faster. Eventually the hardware will outstrip the bloat of programming largess. Only voice recognition, artificial intelligence, and holographic output will demand higher processing speed. When it comes down to it, there is only so much horsepower needed to do a spread sheet or play video games.

Social media will be a new challenge with incorporating multiple windows of video chats simultaneously. Right now my 2008 2.4 GHz Mac has trouble with just one pair of videos playing.
post #30 of 37
Intel website comparison of all 3 top Mini processors.

Now you see what I mean about them all being so similar?

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply
post #31 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

I'll never buy a MacBook Pro again, next time I'll get a MacBook Air and replace it more often.

I'm very happy to see these benchmarks because they show the beginning of the end of the belief that MBAs can't be used for anything serious. It will be hard to completely eradicate that belief, but it's just a matter of time, and these benchmarks mark the start point.

Regarding your post stating you won't buy a MBP again, if you say it because you dislike how soon a new machine can outperform a previous one, take also into consideration that if you want a powerful MBA it's not cheap. For example, if you want an MBA with a performance as close as possible to an MBP, it costs $1700 (because in that case you want the best processor and you also really need the 256GB SSD).

In the case of users needing a powerful MBA, it's not a $900 machine, so don't see it as a machine you replace everymonth.

I bought my late 2010 MBA 4 months ago (top configuration: not cheap at all) and I'm really satisfied with its performance, which will be more than adequate for my needs of at least a couple of years. I won't buy a MBA every year, but every 2, 3 or 4 years.

Cheers!
post #32 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

I'll never buy a MacBook Pro again, next time I'll get a MacBook Air and replace it more often.

i thought the same thing until i was unhappy with the USB dongle for etherent. the performance stinks with that thing. when you travel with a laptop, some places you go (businesses) only offer lan to hook into.

maybe one day there will be a thunderbolt ethernet adapter.....
post #33 of 37
I wonder how well the base Mini's graphics speed compare to the Nivida in the outgoing model? The Intel Graphics chips have never impressed me much.....

I have the latest MBP 13" with the 2.7Ghz i7 processor. The system is very fast, but the integrated Intel Graphics chips really hamper the video performance. My old 2.66Mhz Core Duo with the Nivida GT enabled can easy out pace it when running graphics intensive applications...

Maybe that have gotten better lately....
post #34 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

Why won't Apple sell me the quad-core 2Ghz i7 Mac Mini with the Radeon 6630M graphics and a single hard drive? Do they not like my money?

Get a MacPro. That will last you longer as it's easier to upgrade, on more internals as well, including the motherboard and CPU.
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #35 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Get a MacPro. That will last you longer as it's easier to upgrade, on more internals as well, including the motherboard and CPU.

Let me go get something to drink so that I can snort it out of my nose all over everything.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #36 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

Why won't Apple sell me the quad-core 2Ghz i7 Mac Mini with the Radeon 6630M graphics and a single hard drive? Do they not like my money?

They like your money, but it's your... ...soul... ...they're really after. (And maybe they already have it, bwahh, hah, hah....).

It is amazing that the company that does the least consumer pre-product wish-list surveys and feature/form-factor testing (zero, zip, nada zilch of either), AND which carefully restricts its SKU's to a precious few - all of which are always missing something that's whizzing many to most (gear-head) buyers off (either because they're "saving" it or "perfecting" it for the next iteration or have already dropped it) has been such a consistently amazing sales growth powerhouse for the last decade....

...so I dunno bout souls, really, but some kinda 'streme secret sauce is involved.....

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #37 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics View Post

They like your money, but it's your... ...soul... ...they're really after. (And maybe they already have it, bwahh, hah, hah....).

It is amazing that the company that does the least consumer pre-product wish-list surveys and feature/form-factor testing (zero, zip, nada zilch of either), AND which carefully restricts its SKU's to a precious few - all of which are always missing something that's whizzing many to most (gear-head) buyers off (either because they're "saving" it or "perfecting" it for the next iteration or have already dropped it) has been such a consistently amazing sales growth powerhouse for the last decade....

...so I dunno bout souls, really, but some kinda 'streme secret sauce is involved.....

I'm pretty sure the've had my soul in a jar for over a decade now

You're implying that, based on their huge financial success, Apple knows best? I'll agree that Apple knows whats best for themselves, but not always their customers. And I don't think it's a gear head request; any smart shopper could compare the high-end Mac Mini and the entry-level iMac and realize that for a few-hundred more they get about four times the computer. I believe the Mac Mini still exists almost solely to make the iMac look like a great deal; I imagine the only reason the Mac Mini can now be had with a graphics card or quad processors but not both is because such a machine would actually be of value and therefore cannibalize iMac sales.

In fact if you add three of the things the Mac Mini is missing compared to the iMac (7200rpm drive, superdrive, magic trackpad) you're only $102 short of an iMac. Apple has intentionally positioned the Mac Mini to where it makes zero financial sense.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's new Minis and Airs benchmark twice as fast as predecessors