Originally Posted by Winter
I am quoting most of your post but did not want to quote the entire thing including the links however my first reaction was "Holy shit!" as I am just trying to imagine having a Mac mini with the i7-4800MQ and trying to exploit it for all it's worth.
It just gets better and better each year as process technology catches up with the Minis case. This is why I was posting for a very long time about a smaller Mac Pro even if what we got wasn't imagined. Also consider this, Mini uses laptop chips so Broadwell isn't out of the question in a future Mini. At least some of the Broadwell chips are rather complete SoC which could make for another round of performance increases in the Mini. These increases won't come just from the SoC buy also from the freed up board space in the Mini. If the Mini doesn't get refactored for a Haswell, Broadwell may give Apple the incentive it needs.
It clearly tells me that if I do want to invest in a machine I'll have for a lot of years, definitely go for a quad core mini over the base (most likely) dual core.
I remember back to when dual processors started to become common, this was before dual cores. Everybody would say why do you need that and then sneer when you said the machine works better. When dual core chips became mainstream people began to realize that the early dual processor guys where onto something as the machines work all around better. Mind you this was before operating systems really had the technologies in place to leverage more than one core well.
In any event, on the desktop, we are at the same point with quad cores, they are a far better investment if you are thinking long term. So much so I advise most people to buy quad core if they have a usage profile that at all suggests a benefit. Even then it is hard to guess how an individual will benefit as you really don't know how, when or where any given app will benefit from Grand Central Dispatch or other technology that leverages the cores in your machine.