How much of a jump is a dual core HD 4000 to a dual core HD 4600? Same question for a quad core? Now how much of a jump is a dual core HD 4000 to the Iris 5100? And how much is a quad core HD 4000 to an Iris Pro 5200?
The answers to these would determine in my mind whether Apple is waiting for Broadwell.
Yes and from the same source the average is 381 days. The expected refresh was summer or fall of last year in the product release cycle before Xmas. Or in other words a few months ago. If the mini has shifted to a spring release that's no longer part of the pattern since 2009.
It's been so long now that I'm actually bummed out that it's being forgotten.
I don't believe it's been forgotten. I firmly believe Apple is planning an update, I'm just confused as to why what should be a fairly simple redesign is taking so long. The new tech seems to be available, so it's a question of what else Apple is waiting on.
For example, I understand the delay in updating the Thunderbolt Display. Cook is a channel supply guy, and he's waiting on a 4K panel that can be used profitably in both the TB Display and the upper end iMac, to realize the economies of scale of ordering for both lines.
But the Mini would seem to be a straight case of replace-the-tech-and-shrink-the-case. Perhaps the external SuperDrive needs to be redesign to sit under the new Mini. Or there's some new tech we don't know about. Or AppleTV capability is being added.
I firmly believe Apple is planning an update, I'm just confused as to why what should be a fairly simple redesign is taking so long. The new tech seems to be available, so it's a question of what else Apple is waiting on.
If they are moving it back to the US, they would be better to get their Mac Pros clear first. They are still over 4 week shipping times.
PCs using the dual-core chips suitable for the Mini only came out in December so it's only a couple of months over anyway. They might manage March/April and then the new laptops in June at WWDC.
Is this a rumour? Hadn't heard that Minis were slated to be produced in the homeland.
I would have thought that cost concerns on this line and ease of shipping the smaller units would mean assembly in China.
Tim only said one Mac product originally, which was the Mac Pro but he said they had a commitment to creating more US jobs. They shouldn't cost any more to make in the US - they don't have many parts:
Maybe even simpler if they go with 1 HDD, a PCIe SSD (BTO) and soldered RAM. The shipment volume should be around the same as the Mac Pro.
I'm looking to buy a quad-core Mac Mini. It seems like the logical choice given the choices. Waiting for Broadwell would put us once again at the end of the list because there's no way they'd bring a new chip out in the Mini before the other Macs. The current Mini can be built with 16GB memory, which is also the choice I'd make for RAM. I'm pretty sure any of their graphics cards would do well with the Apple 30" Cinema Display, so I don't think there'd be an issue there (aside from the differences in plugs). I've heard so much about the Iris Pro that I'd hope we'd have at least one option for it. You'd think that sooner or later they'd stop handicapping people who don't want all-in-ones. Sadly, I've become jaded as of late with the folks in engineering thinking everyone on the globe only wants all-in-ones. I'd love to remind them to "Think Different"!
How much of a jump is a dual core HD 4000 to a dual core HD 4600? Same question for a quad core? Now how much of a jump is a dual core HD 4000 to the Iris 5100? And how much is a quad core HD 4000 to an Iris Pro 5200?
As for the graphics subsection of the machine, you best bet there is to look at some of the benchmarking sites. Iris and Iris Pro is pretty darn good. However don't expect discrete level or even AMD APU level of performance at the extremes. Given that for mainstream use Iris is impressive.
The answers to these would determine in my mind whether Apple is waiting for Broadwell.
The only reason I could see Apple waiting for Broadwell is if there is a compelling thermal property permitting a much smaller Mini. Personally I don't think we need a smaller Mini, in fact I'd rather see the opposite, but you know Apple. The potential is there for a very compact machine due to some Broadwell chips effectively being a SoC.
Tim only said one Mac product originally, which was the Mac Pro but he said they had a commitment to creating more US jobs. They shouldn't cost any more to make in the US - they don't have many parts:
Actually the cost of production could increase significantly. Not that that is a huge component of the final price. Let's not forget that a good part of the Mac Pro is apparently still imported into the USA.
Maybe even simpler if they go with 1 HDD, a PCIe SSD (BTO) and soldered RAM.
I could see Apple dropping magnetic drive support altogether. All they need to do to make up for it is to offer another TB2 port, hopefully on another controller. If they do go with an all SSD machine I would hope that they offer two slots. Ideally they will have the PCI Express lanes free to do that. That isn't a given anymore with Intel tailoring hardware to specific uses.
The shipment volume should be around the same as the Mac Pro.
Huh??????
The Mac Pro has never come close to Mini shipments as far as I can tell. Of course that is historical, right now the Mac Pro is probably feeding pent up demand and the Mini is obviously over due for an upgrade.
Don't let history influence you. Intel is adapting to the new reality, which is low power and portable. They have already indicated that there will be no major upgrades to the desktop chips this year. The Broadwell initiative is all about lower thermal power, high integration and portability. The Minis potential here is that it has always been a machine built with "laptop" parts.
I'm looking to buy a quad-core Mac Mini. It seems like the logical choice given the choices.
Quad cores make a lot of sense.
Waiting for Broadwell would put us once again at the end of the list because there's no way they'd bring a new chip out in the Mini before the other Macs.
I don't buy that! Some of the initial Broadwell solutions might only be suitable for a low end machine like the Mini. It really comes down to what Intel can squeeze out of the new processes Broadwell will be built upon. That and how aggressively Intel intends to go after low power, because at some point lower power means lower performance.
The current Mini can be built with 16GB memory, which is also the choice I'd make for RAM. I'm pretty sure any of their graphics cards would do well with the Apple 30" Cinema Display, so I don't think there'd be an issue there (aside from the differences in plugs).
The Mini doesn't have graphics cards as the GPU is integrated into the CPU chip. Right now the Minis have only adequate GPU performance for less demanding users. If you want to drive a 30" display I'd highly recommend waiting for a Mini with an Iris or Iris Pro or better GPU. It isn't a given that the Mini is good enough for that display or will be even with Haswell or something better. Rather it depends very much upon how you intend to use that machine.
I've heard so much about the Iris Pro that I'd hope we'd have at least one option for it. You'd think that sooner or later they'd stop handicapping people who don't want all-in-ones.
I've never understood this either. It is one reason why I have supported the idea of an XMac because the Mini is thermally limited. You can't get significantly better performance out of that little box along with its tiny power supply. If people don't like the XMac name you can call it Mac Pro Lite for all I care.
Sadly, I've become jaded as of late with the folks in engineering thinking everyone on the globe only wants all-in-ones. I'd love to remind them to "Think Different"!
It isn't engineering that is the problem. Read up on some of the history of the Mac, most of the engineers involved tried very hard right from the beginning to think different but where forced by Jobs and company to build closed systems. As of late though the desktop has suffered from neglect. Think about it the Mini hasn't changed drastically since the days of the Power PC. Frankly the entire desktop line up has been in stasis for a long time. I'm actually surprised that they pulled off the Mac Pro overhaul.
However it is the Mac Pro overhaul that gives me hope that the Mini is also being overhauled. I'm expecting a significantly different machine if it ever comes out. An A8 based Mini would certainly be neat if it ran Mac OS and not iOS.
The Mini doesn't have graphics cards as the GPU is integrated into the CPU chip. Right now the Minis have only adequate GPU performance for less demanding users. If you want to drive a 30" display I'd highly recommend waiting for a Mini with an Iris or Iris Pro or better GPU. It isn't a given that the Mini is good enough for that display or will be even with Haswell or something better. Rather it depends very much upon how you intend to use that machine.
You are entitled to whatever opinions you want but please stop spreading FUD about the performance of the Mini. It drives a 30" ACD just fine today for non-gaming applications as long as you buy the Apple dual link DVI adapter and have a reasonable amount of RAM (8GB will work fine).
The HD4000 is much faster than the 7300GT in my very first Mac Pro I had with the 30" ACD.
Even for some modern games the current mini is fine as long as you have reasonable expectations.
The Mini doesn't have graphics cards as the GPU is integrated into the CPU chip. Right now the Minis have only adequate GPU performance for less demanding users. If you want to drive a 30" display I'd highly recommend waiting for a Mini with an Iris or Iris Pro or better GPU. It isn't a given that the Mini is good enough for that display or will be even with Haswell or something better. Rather it depends very much upon how you intend to use that machine.
It depends what you're doing. For some things an Iris chip would still be inadequate. If it's just a matter of ensuring against repeated frames on a 60hz display, integrated shouldn't be much different. You would have to get into something that actually taxes OpenGL to see a difference. Integrated stuttering just due to slightly higher resolution basically died out with the GMA chips. The 30" isn't that big a deal at this point unless you're trying to deal with something that relies on pixel shaders, whereas in 2004 it required a specific gpu.
I doubt that the Mini production is coming state side. You would think that we would have heard about a production line by now if it was.
Would it have to be a different production line from the Mac Pro? Once the Mac Pro orders slow down, they can push the Minis through the same line. It's all hand assembly so they just have a different bucket of parts.
I could see Apple dropping magnetic drive support altogether.
The only problem there is the base price. A 500GB hard drive can easily start at $50 but a 128GB entry SSD would be over $100. If the net margin on a $599 Mini is 25%, that's just $150 profit. It doesn't give a lot of room to adjust component prices. I think the SSD + HDD setup like the iMac is the way to go for now if they want to keep the entry price.
The Mac Pro has never come close to Mini shipments as far as I can tell. Of course that is historical, right now the Mac Pro is probably feeding pent up demand and the Mini is obviously over due for an upgrade.
The iMac has always taken the bulk of the sales. They were selling about 1.2m desktops per quarter. When the iMac was not for sale for 2 months (November, December), the sales dropped 700,000 units. They were slowed in January too so it's perhaps not 1m units but it's the vast majority of the desktops.
While the following is just a survey and for gamers, it shows the right distribution for desktops at around 29% - Apple reported it to be 25%:
The Mini has 50% more units there but that's pretty close. If you work that distribution out of the 1.2m, it becomes 960k iMac, 147k Mini, 95k Mac Pro per quarter. I doubt the peak demand goes up very high for the Mini as they rarely have long delays but clearly they do with the Mac Pro. It might be about 200k each peak.
The Mini is one of those problem computer models because it's the largest potential audience due to the price but the price is so low that it's almost not worth bothering unless they get huge sales and because their accessories are so expensive, that's not going to happen and the iMac ends up being the better option for a lot of people.
If you work out the revenue from the Mac Pro and Mini at those volumes and say the Mini averages $700 and the Mac Pro $4000, you get the Mini at $103m revenue and the Mac Pro at $380m and the margins will be much better on the Pro. Net profit is probably $20m and $114m respectively. Pretty laughable relative to their $9b quarterly net income.
Maybe it's time to scrap the entry model. Apple will know customer buying history to tell if the Minis are first buys but I'm skeptical that the Mini convinces a lot of Windows users to switch. If they reduced it to 1 model, they'd save on inventory and having a higher entry price pushes up the revenue. They'd always use the same CPU as the entry 15" MBP.
This single model could then be:
2GHz quad i7-4750HQ, Iris Pro
8GB soldered RAM (this makes 16GB $200)
500GB HDD (PCI SSD optional, 256GB for $200)
$799
Get rid of the i5 altogether and this means never waiting on Intel making dual-core chips.
This can still attract switchers because the assumption is that they have their own peripherals anyway and they get a faster machine. Because of the reduced inventory and higher average selling price, they can price the parts better. It might be pushing it with 8GB RAM but this drops the HDD size from 1TB. If they want a preconfigured server model, they can either bundle the SSD or 16GB soldered RAM for $999.
You are entitled to whatever opinions you want but please stop spreading FUD about the performance of the Mini. It drives a 30" ACD just fine today for non-gaming applications as long as you buy the Apple dual link DVI adapter and have a reasonable amount of RAM (8GB will work fine).
The HD4000 is much faster than the 7300GT in my very first Mac Pro I had with the 30" ACD.
Even for some modern games the current mini is fine as long as you have reasonable expectations.
I'm really perplexed with your non sense in this forum. I specifically excluded less demanding users from the picture. That isn't FUD it is an accurate representation of the product. The reality is the majority of Mini owners fit into that less demanding category.
I really fail to see how anything I've said is FUD, in fact I generally praise the Haswell GPUs as being a big step forward.
It depends what you're doing. For some things an Iris chip would still be inadequate.
Funny thing here is that, that is exactly what I thought I said, effectively saying it is suitable for less demanding users.
If it's just a matter of ensuring against repeated frames on a 60hz display, integrated shouldn't be much different. You would have to get into something that actually taxes OpenGL to see a difference. Integrated stuttering just due to slightly higher resolution basically died out with the GMA chips.
The two work together to produce performance problems that is high resolution and OpenGL can tax a GPU. Things are vastly improved on Haswell but people need to realize it is no Mac Pro. It isn't even in the same class as a desktop with a modern performance discrete GPU. A person responding to such posts really needs to moderate expectations.
The 30" isn't that big a deal at this point unless you're trying to deal with something that relies on pixel shaders, whereas in 2004 it required a specific gpu.
I've probably said this dozens of times but I will say it again, Haswell is the first integrated GPU that I'd consider good enough for my own needs. At least this is my experience (a few minutes at a time) with Haswell based Macs in the Apple store. That probably puts me into the category of the less demanding user. However that isn't long term exposure to such machines.
Would it have to be a different production line from the Mac Pro?
Most likely yes. The exception would be if the new Mini borrows much of the Mac Pros new design. Look at it this way, a new iPhone requires complete reworking of the production line.
Once the Mac Pro orders slow down, they can push the Minis through the same line. It's all hand assembly so they just have a different bucket of parts.
No buckets in an Apple factory!????. Seriously though parts handling is a big factor in the success of modern production lines. Often the mechanical systems are custom tailored to the parts in question.
The only problem there is the base price. A 500GB hard drive can easily start at $50 but a 128GB entry SSD would be over $100.
True there is a price differential but it isn't as large as retail prices seem to imply. Beyond that the design of Apples blade SSDs is about as cheap as you can get. So with the continual slide in the price of flash devices I don't think it is an impossibility. Further an SSD gives them several advantages especially in thermal needs and power budget. Not to mention space.
If (it is a big if) Apple continues its trend of ever smaller machines I can see them dropping the bulky mechanical drives. They would have to be able to do that with a 256GB device though. To keep margins I wouldn't be shocked at all to see Apple bump the price a bit.
If the net margin on a $599 Mini is 25%, that's just $150 profit. It doesn't give a lot of room to adjust component prices. I think the SSD + HDD setup like the iMac is the way to go for now if they want to keep the entry price.
The iMac has always taken the bulk of the sales. They were selling about 1.2m desktops per quarter. When the iMac was not for sale for 2 months (November, December), the sales dropped 700,000 units. They were slowed in January too so it's perhaps not 1m units but it's the vast majority of the desktops.
While the following is just a survey and for gamers, it shows the right distribution for desktops at around 29% - Apple reported it to be 25%:
The Mini has 50% more units there but that's pretty close. If you work that distribution out of the 1.2m, it becomes 960k iMac, 147k Mini, 95k Mac Pro per quarter. I doubt the peak demand goes up very high for the Mini as they rarely have long delays but clearly they do with the Mac Pro. It might be about 200k each peak.
As far as Mac Pro sales go this year I'm taking no bets at all. I simply don't know if delays are are the result of pent up demand, slow ramp up or something else. Further it is almost impossible to judge overall acceptance of the machine. It is a radical design after all, thus it may take people time to adjust or feel comfortable with a purchase.
The Mini is one of those problem computer models because it's the largest potential audience due to the price but the price is so low that it's almost not worth bothering unless they get huge sales and because their accessories are so expensive, that's not going to happen and the iMac ends up being the better option for a lot of people.
I still see significantly reduced demand for Apples low end desktops because of the iPad effect. Thus the idea that Apple might see fit to offer only one low end device and instead fill out the rest of the line up with a more robust platform. The iMac is only a good option if an all in one works for you.
If you work out the revenue from the Mac Pro and Mini at those volumes and say the Mini averages $700 and the Mac Pro $4000, you get the Mini at $103m revenue and the Mac Pro at $380m and the margins will be much better on the Pro. Net profit is probably $20m and $114m respectively. Pretty laughable relative to their $9b quarterly net income.
Yes it is a significant problem. However for whatever reason sales aren't that bad for Mac hardware. This is a surprise actually though most of that volume appears to be laptops.
Maybe it's time to scrap the entry model. Apple will know customer buying history to tell if the Minis are first buys but I'm skeptical that the Mini convinces a lot of Windows users to switch.
The idea that the Mini is a switchers machine has always been a joke in my mind. All it is is a machine that Apple can market at a reasonable price point. Because of the importance of having a play at the lower price points I don't think the "Mini" will go away completely, Apple will have a low cost option. It might be something different though. If you buy that the market for low end hardware is shrinking fast and that the majority of desktop sales are now balanced to more powerful machines I can see Apple having a lot of success with a machine that is half the cost of the entry level Mac Pro. Call it the XMac, Mac Pro Lite or whatever you want but they are missing significant opportunity here in my opinion. The Mac Pro is excellent for the markets it serves but not every professional needs such a machine.
If they reduced it to 1 model, they'd save on inventory and having a higher entry price pushes up the revenue. They'd always use the same CPU as the entry 15" MBP.
I suspect that a single model is the short term goal simply to have a play in the low end market. However the chips due this year from Intel and frankly the possibility of an A8 SoC have me thinking about whole new approaches to an entry level machine.
For example, build the computer into a keyboard. If the chip power is kept low enough this can be done. Apple already has a monitor that functions as a dock so you wouldn't need a lot of I/O cables. An SSD in the keyboard would promote reliability and control size. This deals effectively with the unbundled nature of the current iMac and the associated extra costs. A keyboard big enough to support Apples trackpad would have plenty of space right on the keyboard PCB for the CPU/GPU SoC. People may laugh at such a suggestion but Apple has history here with the Apple 2 and the IPad demonstrates how easily one can put a powerful PC into a keyboard type device.
There are a bunch of other form factor options that could lead to a smaller machine. Or the could go more radical to a cube like the new networking hardware or even to a scaled down cylinder ala the Mac Pro.
This single model could then be:
2GHz quad i7-4750HQ, Iris Pro
8GB soldered RAM (this makes 16GB $200)
500GB HDD (PCI SSD optional, 256GB for $200)
$799
Nice machine but a single model would need to come in at a much lower price point.
Get rid of the i5 altogether and this means never waiting on Intel making dual-core chips.
This year will be very interesting just to see how Intels mobile plans unfold. I just see the potential for a radical Mini make over.
This can still attract switchers because the assumption is that they have their own peripherals anyway and they get a faster machine. Because of the reduced inventory and higher average selling price, they can price the parts better. It might be pushing it with 8GB RAM but this drops the HDD size from 1TB. If they want a preconfigured server model, they can either bundle the SSD or 16GB soldered RAM for $999.
In my estimation the Mini is a terrible server machine. It just looks like they didn't have a good option but needed a platform to offer a server on.
Comments
No. Standard cycle was a few months ago.
The answers to these would determine in my mind whether Apple is waiting for Broadwell.
Yes and from the same source the average is 381 days. The expected refresh was summer or fall of last year in the product release cycle before Xmas. Or in other words a few months ago. If the mini has shifted to a spring release that's no longer part of the pattern since 2009.
It's been so long now that I'm actually bummed out that it's being forgotten.
I don't believe it's been forgotten. I firmly believe Apple is planning an update, I'm just confused as to why what should be a fairly simple redesign is taking so long. The new tech seems to be available, so it's a question of what else Apple is waiting on.
For example, I understand the delay in updating the Thunderbolt Display. Cook is a channel supply guy, and he's waiting on a 4K panel that can be used profitably in both the TB Display and the upper end iMac, to realize the economies of scale of ordering for both lines.
But the Mini would seem to be a straight case of replace-the-tech-and-shrink-the-case. Perhaps the external SuperDrive needs to be redesign to sit under the new Mini. Or there's some new tech we don't know about. Or AppleTV capability is being added.
If they are moving it back to the US, they would be better to get their Mac Pros clear first. They are still over 4 week shipping times.
PCs using the dual-core chips suitable for the Mini only came out in December so it's only a couple of months over anyway. They might manage March/April and then the new laptops in June at WWDC.
If they are moving it back to the US, they would be better to get their Mac Pros clear first.
Is this a rumour? Hadn't heard that Minis were slated to be produced in the homeland.
I would have thought that cost concerns on this line and ease of shipping the smaller units would mean assembly in China.
Tim only said one Mac product originally, which was the Mac Pro but he said they had a commitment to creating more US jobs. They shouldn't cost any more to make in the US - they don't have many parts:
Maybe even simpler if they go with 1 HDD, a PCIe SSD (BTO) and soldered RAM. The shipment volume should be around the same as the Mac Pro.
I'm looking to buy a quad-core Mac Mini. It seems like the logical choice given the choices. Waiting for Broadwell would put us once again at the end of the list because there's no way they'd bring a new chip out in the Mini before the other Macs. The current Mini can be built with 16GB memory, which is also the choice I'd make for RAM. I'm pretty sure any of their graphics cards would do well with the Apple 30" Cinema Display, so I don't think there'd be an issue there (aside from the differences in plugs). I've heard so much about the Iris Pro that I'd hope we'd have at least one option for it. You'd think that sooner or later they'd stop handicapping people who don't want all-in-ones. Sadly, I've become jaded as of late with the folks in engineering thinking everyone on the globe only wants all-in-ones. I'd love to remind them to "Think Different"!
That might sound like a cop out but the reality is the value of quad cores is highly dependent up in how you use the machine. As for the graphics subsection of the machine, you best bet there is to look at some of the benchmarking sites. Iris and Iris Pro is pretty darn good. However don't expect discrete level or even AMD APU level of performance at the extremes. Given that for mainstream use Iris is impressive.
The only reason I could see Apple waiting for Broadwell is if there is a compelling thermal property permitting a much smaller Mini. Personally I don't think we need a smaller Mini, in fact I'd rather see the opposite, but you know Apple. The potential is there for a very compact machine due to some Broadwell chips effectively being a SoC.
Actually the cost of production could increase significantly. Not that that is a huge component of the final price. Let's not forget that a good part of the Mac Pro is apparently still imported into the USA. I could see Apple dropping magnetic drive support altogether. All they need to do to make up for it is to offer another TB2 port, hopefully on another controller. If they do go with an all SSD machine I would hope that they offer two slots. Ideally they will have the PCI Express lanes free to do that. That isn't a given anymore with Intel tailoring hardware to specific uses.
Huh??????
The Mac Pro has never come close to Mini shipments as far as I can tell. Of course that is historical, right now the Mac Pro is probably feeding pent up demand and the Mini is obviously over due for an upgrade.
Quad cores make a lot of sense. I don't buy that! Some of the initial Broadwell solutions might only be suitable for a low end machine like the Mini. It really comes down to what Intel can squeeze out of the new processes Broadwell will be built upon. That and how aggressively Intel intends to go after low power, because at some point lower power means lower performance. The Mini doesn't have graphics cards as the GPU is integrated into the CPU chip. Right now the Minis have only adequate GPU performance for less demanding users. If you want to drive a 30" display I'd highly recommend waiting for a Mini with an Iris or Iris Pro or better GPU. It isn't a given that the Mini is good enough for that display or will be even with Haswell or something better. Rather it depends very much upon how you intend to use that machine. I've never understood this either. It is one reason why I have supported the idea of an XMac because the Mini is thermally limited. You can't get significantly better performance out of that little box along with its tiny power supply. If people don't like the XMac name you can call it Mac Pro Lite for all I care. It isn't engineering that is the problem. Read up on some of the history of the Mac, most of the engineers involved tried very hard right from the beginning to think different but where forced by Jobs and company to build closed systems. As of late though the desktop has suffered from neglect. Think about it the Mini hasn't changed drastically since the days of the Power PC. Frankly the entire desktop line up has been in stasis for a long time. I'm actually surprised that they pulled off the Mac Pro overhaul.
However it is the Mac Pro overhaul that gives me hope that the Mini is also being overhauled. I'm expecting a significantly different machine if it ever comes out. An A8 based Mini would certainly be neat if it ran Mac OS and not iOS.
The Mini doesn't have graphics cards as the GPU is integrated into the CPU chip. Right now the Minis have only adequate GPU performance for less demanding users. If you want to drive a 30" display I'd highly recommend waiting for a Mini with an Iris or Iris Pro or better GPU. It isn't a given that the Mini is good enough for that display or will be even with Haswell or something better. Rather it depends very much upon how you intend to use that machine.
Even for some modern games the current mini is fine as long as you have reasonable expectations.
The Mini doesn't have graphics cards as the GPU is integrated into the CPU chip. Right now the Minis have only adequate GPU performance for less demanding users. If you want to drive a 30" display I'd highly recommend waiting for a Mini with an Iris or Iris Pro or better GPU. It isn't a given that the Mini is good enough for that display or will be even with Haswell or something better. Rather it depends very much upon how you intend to use that machine.
It depends what you're doing. For some things an Iris chip would still be inadequate. If it's just a matter of ensuring against repeated frames on a 60hz display, integrated shouldn't be much different. You would have to get into something that actually taxes OpenGL to see a difference. Integrated stuttering just due to slightly higher resolution basically died out with the GMA chips. The 30" isn't that big a deal at this point unless you're trying to deal with something that relies on pixel shaders, whereas in 2004 it required a specific gpu.
The Mac Mini is a dam good machine for it's value today.
Would it have to be a different production line from the Mac Pro? Once the Mac Pro orders slow down, they can push the Minis through the same line. It's all hand assembly so they just have a different bucket of parts.
The only problem there is the base price. A 500GB hard drive can easily start at $50 but a 128GB entry SSD would be over $100. If the net margin on a $599 Mini is 25%, that's just $150 profit. It doesn't give a lot of room to adjust component prices. I think the SSD + HDD setup like the iMac is the way to go for now if they want to keep the entry price.
The iMac has always taken the bulk of the sales. They were selling about 1.2m desktops per quarter. When the iMac was not for sale for 2 months (November, December), the sales dropped 700,000 units. They were slowed in January too so it's perhaps not 1m units but it's the vast majority of the desktops.
While the following is just a survey and for gamers, it shows the right distribution for desktops at around 29% - Apple reported it to be 25%:
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey?platform=mac
The Mini has 50% more units there but that's pretty close. If you work that distribution out of the 1.2m, it becomes 960k iMac, 147k Mini, 95k Mac Pro per quarter. I doubt the peak demand goes up very high for the Mini as they rarely have long delays but clearly they do with the Mac Pro. It might be about 200k each peak.
The Mini is one of those problem computer models because it's the largest potential audience due to the price but the price is so low that it's almost not worth bothering unless they get huge sales and because their accessories are so expensive, that's not going to happen and the iMac ends up being the better option for a lot of people.
If you work out the revenue from the Mac Pro and Mini at those volumes and say the Mini averages $700 and the Mac Pro $4000, you get the Mini at $103m revenue and the Mac Pro at $380m and the margins will be much better on the Pro. Net profit is probably $20m and $114m respectively. Pretty laughable relative to their $9b quarterly net income.
Maybe it's time to scrap the entry model. Apple will know customer buying history to tell if the Minis are first buys but I'm skeptical that the Mini convinces a lot of Windows users to switch. If they reduced it to 1 model, they'd save on inventory and having a higher entry price pushes up the revenue. They'd always use the same CPU as the entry 15" MBP.
This single model could then be:
2GHz quad i7-4750HQ, Iris Pro
8GB soldered RAM (this makes 16GB $200)
500GB HDD (PCI SSD optional, 256GB for $200)
$799
Get rid of the i5 altogether and this means never waiting on Intel making dual-core chips.
This can still attract switchers because the assumption is that they have their own peripherals anyway and they get a faster machine. Because of the reduced inventory and higher average selling price, they can price the parts better. It might be pushing it with 8GB RAM but this drops the HDD size from 1TB. If they want a preconfigured server model, they can either bundle the SSD or 16GB soldered RAM for $999.
I'm really perplexed with your non sense in this forum. I specifically excluded less demanding users from the picture. That isn't FUD it is an accurate representation of the product. The reality is the majority of Mini owners fit into that less demanding category.
I really fail to see how anything I've said is FUD, in fact I generally praise the Haswell GPUs as being a big step forward.
I've probably said this dozens of times but I will say it again, Haswell is the first integrated GPU that I'd consider good enough for my own needs. At least this is my experience (a few minutes at a time) with Haswell based Macs in the Apple store. That probably puts me into the category of the less demanding user. However that isn't long term exposure to such machines.
In the end I hate lag!
If (it is a big if) Apple continues its trend of ever smaller machines I can see them dropping the bulky mechanical drives. They would have to be able to do that with a 256GB device though. To keep margins I wouldn't be shocked at all to see Apple bump the price a bit. As far as Mac Pro sales go this year I'm taking no bets at all. I simply don't know if delays are are the result of pent up demand, slow ramp up or something else. Further it is almost impossible to judge overall acceptance of the machine. It is a radical design after all, thus it may take people time to adjust or feel comfortable with a purchase. I still see significantly reduced demand for Apples low end desktops because of the iPad effect. Thus the idea that Apple might see fit to offer only one low end device and instead fill out the rest of the line up with a more robust platform. The iMac is only a good option if an all in one works for you. Yes it is a significant problem. However for whatever reason sales aren't that bad for Mac hardware. This is a surprise actually though most of that volume appears to be laptops. The idea that the Mini is a switchers machine has always been a joke in my mind. All it is is a machine that Apple can market at a reasonable price point. Because of the importance of having a play at the lower price points I don't think the "Mini" will go away completely, Apple will have a low cost option. It might be something different though. If you buy that the market for low end hardware is shrinking fast and that the majority of desktop sales are now balanced to more powerful machines I can see Apple having a lot of success with a machine that is half the cost of the entry level Mac Pro. Call it the XMac, Mac Pro Lite or whatever you want but they are missing significant opportunity here in my opinion. The Mac Pro is excellent for the markets it serves but not every professional needs such a machine. I suspect that a single model is the short term goal simply to have a play in the low end market. However the chips due this year from Intel and frankly the possibility of an A8 SoC have me thinking about whole new approaches to an entry level machine.
For example, build the computer into a keyboard. If the chip power is kept low enough this can be done. Apple already has a monitor that functions as a dock so you wouldn't need a lot of I/O cables. An SSD in the keyboard would promote reliability and control size. This deals effectively with the unbundled nature of the current iMac and the associated extra costs. A keyboard big enough to support Apples trackpad would have plenty of space right on the keyboard PCB for the CPU/GPU SoC. People may laugh at such a suggestion but Apple has history here with the Apple 2 and the IPad demonstrates how easily one can put a powerful PC into a keyboard type device.
There are a bunch of other form factor options that could lead to a smaller machine. Or the could go more radical to a cube like the new networking hardware or even to a scaled down cylinder ala the Mac Pro. Nice machine but a single model would need to come in at a much lower price point. This year will be very interesting just to see how Intels mobile plans unfold. I just see the potential for a radical Mini make over.
In my estimation the Mini is a terrible server machine. It just looks like they didn't have a good option but needed a platform to offer a server on.