It would have been a perfect machine if it would have had a quad core option. I have an early 2009 Mac Mini I held out on getting the 2012 model because of the graphics. I use After Effects and Houdini 3D on my Mini at home the later for personal use and it amazes me how well the little beast holds up.
I am sure that with this 2014 model I will see a major leap in cpu performance just not as much as it could have been with a quad core and hopfully a step up on the gpu over the Nvidia GeForce 9400. Not sure how the Intel Iris compairs to the Nvidia 9400?
Its a shame Apple did not have the forsight to have a quad core option but I suspect that has to do with trying to force you to buyan iMac and thus squeeze more cash out of you. I think in this day and age for a machine that is edging of the £1100 mark when fully configured a quad core should be an option.
In some ways I think this update is a joke (no quad core option) but then looking at the rest of the specs it's a great update!
By the way is any of your software GPU accelerated? That can make a big difference with the new chips.
I use Pixelmator alot in place of Photoshop these days which I think uses the GPU. After Effects will only use a Cuda Nvidia card for gpu acceleration. Houdini and Zbrush are mostly CPU and Ram dependant. I use all the above on my 2.0Ghz Core 2 Duo Mac Mini with 8GB Ram.
I think I should get a substantial speed bump over my current system with a dual core i7 and 16Gb Ram in the new 2014 Mac Mini. As I said before I am just not sure on the speed bump I would get with the Intel Iris gpu over the Nvidia 9400? I presume it it should easily out pace such an old gpu by todays standards.
Many people have told me that Iris Pro would have made the mini too hot if they tried to put it in there.
It would have ran it just fine, the reason why the Mac Mini doesn't have it is because the Iris Pro 5200 is only available for the quad core i7-xxxxmx series of CPU's, just like you need to choose the i7 dual core option if you want the Iris 5100 instead of just the HD 5000 that comes with the i5 options.
It would have ran it just fine, the reason why the Mac Mini doesn't have it is because the Iris Pro 5200 is only available for the quad core i7-xxxxmx series of CPU's, just like you need to choose the i7 dual core option if you want the Iris 5100 instead of just the HD 5000 that comes with the i5 options.
To go quad core in a GT3e supporting chip you end up in the 47+ watt range. That is more than half the power budget in the Mini. Someplace in that power budget you have to support I/O, I would imagine that Apple budgets at least 25 watts for that. So you have about 13 watts to support the rest of the machine.
There are two core choices with Iris Plus but they are nothing to crow about. I suspect the big problem for Apple is the high cost of the chips. Of course Apple could do us all a favor and actually specify which chips go in which machine. If I'm right at least one of the chip options is 37 watts which is pretty stiff for the Mini. Apple may have went with LPDDR 3 ram simply to give them a little breathing room in the power budget.
In any event a bit of guessing there. The new machines are really nice with the only real short coming being the lack quad cores.
It would have ran it just fine, the reason why the Mac Mini doesn't have it is because the Iris Pro 5200 is only available for the quad core i7-xxxxmx series of CPU's, just like you need to choose the i7 dual core option if you want the Iris 5100 instead of just the HD 5000 that comes with the i5 options.
Only the $499 model has HD 5000. The $699 and $999 models has Iris 5100.
Only the $499 model has HD 5000. The $699 and $999 models has Iris 5100.
Once we get a handle on the chips in these machines we will know more about the GPU in each. Intel has different base clock speeds depending upon the model which can impact performance.
Once we get a handle on the chips in these machines we will know more about the GPU in each. Intel has different base clock speeds depending upon the model which can impact performance.
I think it's the same as the 13" retina MacBook Pro.
To go quad core in a GT3e supporting chip you end up in the 47+ watt range. That is more than half the power budget in the Mini. Someplace in that power budget you have to support I/O, I would imagine that Apple budgets at least 25 watts for that. So you have about 13 watts to support the rest of the machine.
There are two core choices with Iris Plus but they are nothing to crow about. I suspect the big problem for Apple is the high cost of the chips. Of course Apple could do us all a favor and actually specify which chips go in which machine. If I'm right at least one of the chip options is 37 watts which is pretty stiff for the Mini. Apple may have went with LPDDR 3 ram simply to give them a little breathing room in the power budget.
In any event a bit of guessing there. The new machines are really nice with the only real short coming being the lack quad cores.
They used a 45W chip in the 2012 mini. The 2011 supported a 35W chip + underclocked midrange discrete graphics. I say underclocked because IIRC the 6600 chips were underclocked 6700s. It wouldn't be any different than what they used in the past. Regarding the chip cost, I can retype my prior comparisons if you like. The steepest price increase by far was at the low end of the lineup, where I didn't think $600 would hold. It didn't. The mini that tracks the 13" macbook pro rose in price by $100. Intel's recommended customer pricing on that chip vs the 2012 one was a difference of around $130, but Apple probably buys a ton of these chips. I'm pretty confident of that given that the 13" notebook range has more configurations than any of the others. At the 15" level that difference drops under $100, yet none of those chips showed up. I don't buy the idea that they couldn't afford it on the $1k model. I'm not going to redo the full comparison right now, but here's the 2013 base 15" 2.0 cpu and here is the corresponding 13" base cpu. The updated 15" cpu has recommended customer pricing :"N\A", but these things don't drift much on mid cycle refreshes. It's $315 vs $434. The old one used in the 2012 base mini was around $200. The $800 2012 mini used one that was marked something like $375. In terms of relative component pricing increases, it was much less severe at toward the top. Even if they bumped the price to compensate, they could have rolled that into the $1000 model. That they didn't means they didn't want it to be too powerful.
Would using an i7 with Iris Pro undercut the sales of the 21.5" iMac with Iris Pro? Probably. Would it have made more sense to offer an i7 with HD4600?
But could they have if they wanted to? I am of the belief that graphics were more important equal to processing power.
That is a bit too absolute. It depends on your uses. For basic uses even the cheapest integrated graphics of the current generation are adequate. There are also many use cases where people think they need graphical power yet benefit very little from it. It wouldn't have been so bad if it was relatively even on cpu power. As it is two years later the thing takes a hit in one aspect and a price increase of $100. As I mentioned the $500 model has no direct ancestor. You might also note that the imacs used to all use mid range discrete graphics. Now the low end uses integrated, so I guess they don't want the mini to eat into that. It's a cheap move, but if you have any need for notebook portability, they are really becoming a better value in spite of their flaws.
It's a cheap move, but if you have any need for notebook portability, they are really becoming a better value in spite of their flaws.
Yeah personally I like the update though when someone has the opposite opinion I like to delve into the possibility. That's why I couldn't understand why you saying I have it backwards because I wasn't complaining. I want a new mini. Give me the 256 GB PCIe SSD and 16 GB RAM and I'm happy.
That is a bit too absolute. It depends on your uses. For basic uses even the cheapest integrated graphics of the current generation are adequate.
If your idea of basic use are the same as mine then yeah the low end Haswell is good enough. The problem is I see many of these computers being used beyond what could be called basic service. "Basic" might be better rephrased as business apps.
There are also many use cases where people think they need graphical power yet benefit very little from it.
The reverse is also true, people will blame sluggish Apps on the "processor" when in reality it is the GPU that is holding things up.
It wouldn't have been so bad if it was relatively even on cpu power. As it is two years later the thing takes a hit in one aspect and a price increase of $100.
The processor cores are actually faster that is a good thing for most users. The lost of the quad core is a problem for some, I for one was looking forward to a quad core, however I see these as a big step forward for the "average????" user. In some cases the GPU performance doubles. Now I know you discount GPU performance which is fine but I see it as a big deal.
As I mentioned the $500 model has no direct ancestor. You might also note that the imacs used to all use mid range discrete graphics. Now the low end uses integrated, so I guess they don't want the mini to eat into that.
integrated graphics today is pretty close to midrange graphics of the near past. If integrate graphics is good enough for basic use then it actually makes sense for Apple to ship a low cost IMac with it.
It's a cheap move, but if you have any need for notebook portability, they are really becoming a better value in spite of their flaws.
I know there is a lot of hand wringing over the new Minis on the net but I don't see any reason for it other than the lost of the quad at the high end. I see the machines as all around better values except for that one issue.
They used a 45W chip in the 2012 mini. The 2011 supported a 35W chip + underclocked midrange discrete graphics. I say underclocked because IIRC the 6600 chips were underclocked 6700s.
What I see here and frankly I could be wrong, is that they did no boost the power supply capacity. They then added another TB port for which they have to take ten watts out of the power budget. I just don't think they have the excess capacity to power up the common Haswell quad cores. I also wonder if the move to LPDDR3 RAM was to address this.
On another forum somebody also alluded to the mobile Haswell quads as using a different socket. I haven't researched that yet but it wouldn't surprise me that Apple was too lazy to do another PCB.
It wouldn't be any different than what they used in the past. Regarding the chip cost, I can retype my prior comparisons if you like. The steepest price increase by far was at the low end of the lineup, where I didn't think $600 would hold. It didn't. The mini that tracks the 13" macbook pro rose in price by $100. Intel's recommended customer pricing on that chip vs the 2012 one was a difference of around $130, but Apple probably buys a ton of these chips.
Since Intel can only discount based on volume I could see Apple spreading processor usage across a number of machines to get the best discount possible. In that regard it is hard to tell what Aple final price is.
I'm pretty confident of that given that the 13" notebook range has more configurations than any of the others. At the 15" level that difference drops under $100, yet none of those chips showed up. I don't buy the idea that they couldn't afford it on the $1k model. I'm not going to redo the full comparison right now, but here's the 2013 base 15" 2.0 cpu and here is the corresponding 13" base cpu. The updated 15" cpu has recommended customer pricing :"N\A", but these things don't drift much on mid cycle refreshes. It's $315 vs $434. The old one used in the 2012 base mini was around $200. The $800 2012 mini used one that was marked something like $375. In terms of relative component pricing increases, it was much less severe at toward the top. Even if they bumped the price to compensate, they could have rolled that into the $1000 model. That they didn't means they didn't want it to be too powerful.
I'm not sure I buy this idea that they didn't want a powerful machine. Apple is simply far more price aware than it has ever been in the past. Moving a $1000 Mini isn't the easyest thing in the world. We already know there is a perception in the market that the Mini is too expensive, something Apple would be aware of.
Comments
Why may I ask?
Who are you asking?
It would have been a perfect machine if it would have had a quad core option. I have an early 2009 Mac Mini I held out on getting the 2012 model because of the graphics. I use After Effects and Houdini 3D on my Mini at home the later for personal use and it amazes me how well the little beast holds up.
I am sure that with this 2014 model I will see a major leap in cpu performance just not as much as it could have been with a quad core and hopfully a step up on the gpu over the Nvidia GeForce 9400. Not sure how the Intel Iris compairs to the Nvidia 9400?
Its a shame Apple did not have the forsight to have a quad core option but I suspect that has to do with trying to force you to buyan iMac and thus squeeze more cash out of you. I think in this day and age for a machine that is edging of the £1100 mark when fully configured a quad core should be an option.
In some ways I think this update is a joke (no quad core option) but then looking at the rest of the specs it's a great update!
That kinda sums it up.
By the way is any of your software GPU accelerated? That can make a big difference with the new chips.
That kinda sums it up.
By the way is any of your software GPU accelerated? That can make a big difference with the new chips.
I use Pixelmator alot in place of Photoshop these days which I think uses the GPU. After Effects will only use a Cuda Nvidia card for gpu acceleration. Houdini and Zbrush are mostly CPU and Ram dependant. I use all the above on my 2.0Ghz Core 2 Duo Mac Mini with 8GB Ram.
I think I should get a substantial speed bump over my current system with a dual core i7 and 16Gb Ram in the new 2014 Mac Mini. As I said before I am just not sure on the speed bump I would get with the Intel Iris gpu over the Nvidia 9400? I presume it it should easily out pace such an old gpu by todays standards.
Many people have told me that Iris Pro would have made the mini too hot if they tried to put it in there.
It would have ran it just fine, the reason why the Mac Mini doesn't have it is because the Iris Pro 5200 is only available for the quad core i7-xxxxmx series of CPU's, just like you need to choose the i7 dual core option if you want the Iris 5100 instead of just the HD 5000 that comes with the i5 options.
To go quad core in a GT3e supporting chip you end up in the 47+ watt range. That is more than half the power budget in the Mini. Someplace in that power budget you have to support I/O, I would imagine that Apple budgets at least 25 watts for that. So you have about 13 watts to support the rest of the machine.
There are two core choices with Iris Plus but they are nothing to crow about. I suspect the big problem for Apple is the high cost of the chips. Of course Apple could do us all a favor and actually specify which chips go in which machine. If I'm right at least one of the chip options is 37 watts which is pretty stiff for the Mini. Apple may have went with LPDDR 3 ram simply to give them a little breathing room in the power budget.
In any event a bit of guessing there. The new machines are really nice with the only real short coming being the lack quad cores.
Only the $499 model has HD 5000. The $699 and $999 models has Iris 5100.
Once we get a handle on the chips in these machines we will know more about the GPU in each. Intel has different base clock speeds depending upon the model which can impact performance.
I think it's the same as the 13" retina MacBook Pro.
To go quad core in a GT3e supporting chip you end up in the 47+ watt range. That is more than half the power budget in the Mini. Someplace in that power budget you have to support I/O, I would imagine that Apple budgets at least 25 watts for that. So you have about 13 watts to support the rest of the machine.
There are two core choices with Iris Plus but they are nothing to crow about. I suspect the big problem for Apple is the high cost of the chips. Of course Apple could do us all a favor and actually specify which chips go in which machine. If I'm right at least one of the chip options is 37 watts which is pretty stiff for the Mini. Apple may have went with LPDDR 3 ram simply to give them a little breathing room in the power budget.
In any event a bit of guessing there. The new machines are really nice with the only real short coming being the lack quad cores.
They used a 45W chip in the 2012 mini. The 2011 supported a 35W chip + underclocked midrange discrete graphics. I say underclocked because IIRC the 6600 chips were underclocked 6700s. It wouldn't be any different than what they used in the past. Regarding the chip cost, I can retype my prior comparisons if you like. The steepest price increase by far was at the low end of the lineup, where I didn't think $600 would hold. It didn't. The mini that tracks the 13" macbook pro rose in price by $100. Intel's recommended customer pricing on that chip vs the 2012 one was a difference of around $130, but Apple probably buys a ton of these chips. I'm pretty confident of that given that the 13" notebook range has more configurations than any of the others. At the 15" level that difference drops under $100, yet none of those chips showed up. I don't buy the idea that they couldn't afford it on the $1k model. I'm not going to redo the full comparison right now, but here's the 2013 base 15" 2.0 cpu and here is the corresponding 13" base cpu. The updated 15" cpu has recommended customer pricing :"N\A", but these things don't drift much on mid cycle refreshes. It's $315 vs $434. The old one used in the 2012 base mini was around $200. The $800 2012 mini used one that was marked something like $375. In terms of relative component pricing increases, it was much less severe at toward the top. Even if they bumped the price to compensate, they could have rolled that into the $1000 model. That they didn't means they didn't want it to be too powerful.
Would it have made more sense to offer an i7 with HD4600?
Your numbers are off. Note they're using the HD 5000 at the low end at this point.
But could they have if they wanted to? I am of the belief that graphics were more important equal to processing power.
But could they have if they wanted to? I am of the belief that graphics were more important equal to processing power.
That is a bit too absolute. It depends on your uses. For basic uses even the cheapest integrated graphics of the current generation are adequate. There are also many use cases where people think they need graphical power yet benefit very little from it. It wouldn't have been so bad if it was relatively even on cpu power. As it is two years later the thing takes a hit in one aspect and a price increase of $100. As I mentioned the $500 model has no direct ancestor. You might also note that the imacs used to all use mid range discrete graphics. Now the low end uses integrated, so I guess they don't want the mini to eat into that. It's a cheap move, but if you have any need for notebook portability, they are really becoming a better value in spite of their flaws.
Yeah personally I like the update though when someone has the opposite opinion I like to delve into the possibility. That's why I couldn't understand why you saying I have it backwards because I wasn't complaining. I want a new mini. Give me the 256 GB PCIe SSD and 16 GB RAM and I'm happy.
Why do you feel this way?
I know there is a lot of hand wringing over the new Minis on the net but I don't see any reason for it other than the lost of the quad at the high end. I see the machines as all around better values except for that one issue.
On another forum somebody also alluded to the mobile Haswell quads as using a different socket. I haven't researched that yet but it wouldn't surprise me that Apple was too lazy to do another PCB. Since Intel can only discount based on volume I could see Apple spreading processor usage across a number of machines to get the best discount possible. In that regard it is hard to tell what Aple final price is.
I'm not sure I buy this idea that they didn't want a powerful machine. Apple is simply far more price aware than it has ever been in the past. Moving a $1000 Mini isn't the easyest thing in the world. We already know there is a perception in the market that the Mini is too expensive, something Apple would be aware of.