Not a 1.4 GHz. The Acer C720 Chromebook sells for $199 with a 1.4 GHz chip. Hook one up to an external screen using it's HDMI port, buy an external 1 TB Toshiba drive for $65 and just use the USB 3 port with a USB hub and boom you've got an equivalent machine for $300 without buying a keyboard or mouse. When you want to travel just unplug your C720 and take it with you. Bring the external drive if it will be needed.
No OSX = No Sale. And that is not merely my opinion, it's shared by many.
Man, I remember when the 2012 Mini's were launched and there was great uproar (myself included) over the removal of a dedicated video card. As it turns out the 2012 machine crushed the model it replaced in performance. Now before the reviews are in everyone is all worked up about the new specs. You know what kids, I'm going to sit this one out until I see how it performs...
Also, by the way I ended up buying a 2012 model with the Fusion drive. Nice machine, use it almost daily, have no plans to replace it but when that time comes it'll be with another Mini...
Man, I remember when the 2012 Mini's were launched and there was great uproar (myself included) over the removal of a dedicated video card. As it turns out the 2012 machine crushed the model it replaced in performance. Now before the reviews are in everyone is all worked up about the new specs. You know what kids, I'm going to sit this one out until I see how it performs...
Just chatted to the Apple Store online & a guy called Michael said that the RAM on the new Mac Mini is user upgradeable! I would still want to check instore as I probably should have double checked that I meant the Mac Minis released today.
The base model might replace my Apple TV as it is probably the only way I'll get BBC iPlayer etc to work without having to use another device to 'send' the data first.
That's great news and exactly what I was expecting. So much for everyone on here who was so sure it was soldered despite Apple never saying so.
I'm looking to get at least a 512GB PCIe flash drive, 16GB RAM, 3.0 ghz i7, which comes out to be $1699. Maybe it would be cheaper to sell my MacBook, Cinema Display, Wireless mouse and keyboard and just get an iMac Retina, which will be much more powerful, no?
Anything above about $1500 and you're better off with a MBP or iMac.
They sell refurb 2012 MBPs for ~$1100 and you can upgrade those to 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD for ~$300 and these would be 2x CPU, 2x GPU power and portable with a display and optical drive for ~$1400.
Even the brand new Retina MBP is only $2k for quad-i7, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD with Iris Pro. They have refurbs of the 750M model with 512GB for $2k.
It's not about the initial purchase price but the depreciation.
Say you buy a mini specced out to $1200-1600, in 3 years, it'll be worth about half the value at $600-800.
If you buy a $2k MBP, in 3 years, it'll be worth $1k.
The difference you save is $400-800 minus $200-400 = $200-400 and for those 3 years, you are using a machine that isn't portable with half the CPU power, half the GPU power and doesn't come with a Retina display. For the difference, I think the iMac and MBP are the better options.
It looks to me like Apple is gearing up the mini to shrink it down like the Air once the passively cooled Broadwell parts come along. The fan in the mini is large relative to the enclosure and the PSU is quite big too. DDR4 memory also means they can cut the RAM space in half. I don't think they'll make it box-like though as they like things to be thin, I reckon it will go down to the height of a laptop base and shrink the dimensions a bit.
Say you buy a mini specced out to $1200-1600, in 3 years, it'll be worth about half the value at $600-800.
If you buy a $2k MBP, in 3 years, it'll be worth $1k.
That's a somewhat strong assumption. Your local market factors into that, unless you want to sell on ebay and eat the fees and hassle. Three years is also around the time where I've had chargers break and batteries begin to bulge in the past, so I would say you're looking at closer to $800 on the macbook pro as a reasonable estimate. Where I agree is that at the $1500 level, it's skewed strongly in favor of the macbook pro. In this revision they essentially squeezed out one configuration, then built another beneath it to make up the $500 model. If they kept it in line with the 15" macbook pro on the mid range model, price may have crept to $900. The cpu cost change was much less than it was at the low end, so it wasn't an issue of manufacturing budget. I guess they just don't want the mini to be "too" powerful relative to other options.
It used to be I bought the hardware and then had to cough up money for the OS & Apple applications. Today the OS and a majority of Apple consumer applications are free. The money to develop these has to come somewhere.
I don't mind the soldered RAM. For my purposes an 8GB mini is fine. What I can't wait to learn is what is involved in adding an SSD to it later.
Ok. So the RAM appears to NOT be soldered. But that leaves me with two choices (actually three):
1) Buy the mid-tier MacMini at $699 with the Dual Core i5 at 2.6 Ghz and the Iris graphics card. I can either buy the 16gb RAM from Apple for $200, or buy it third-party for approx. $160 (then deal with the reselling of the original 2x4 RAM), upgrade to the 1TB Fusion drive (another $200), and buy an Asus 24" monitor for $170. That's $1269 (or $1229 minus the resell of the original RAM).
2) Buy the mid-tier 21" iMac at $1299 with the Quad Core i5 at 2.7 GHz and the Iris Pro graphics card. Bump the RAM for $200, and the 1TB Fusion drive for another $200. No need to buy a monitor now. So, that's $1699.
So that's a difference of $430 (or approx. $500 with the RAM resell in option 1).
I have thousands of songs (7600+) and thousands of photos. Along with basic everyday computer uses, I'll be using the computer for processing photos from my DSLR (as a serious amateur hobbyist) using an older version of Photoshop and maybe a non-subscription alternative to Lightroom (if there is any), maybe putting together very simple home videos, and using Garage Band and several software plug-ins for music composition.
Is the spec bump to a Quad at 2.7 with the Iris Pro for the extra $430-500 worth it for these needs?
My third option… wait for that mid-tier iMac to be spec bumped with the Broadwell early next year? (I know now that the MacMini will most likely never be spec bumped to a Quad, and it would be at least a full year or longer before it got spec bumped to Broadwell).
Does Acer C720 Chromebook run iOSX? S.T.F.U, troller.
No, though there are custom BIOS firmware's available that make it possible to run Linux on them. Though the better option would be to just install Crouton, an application that installs Linux along side Chrome OS, you can run both in the same runtime using the Chrome OS Kernel which is Linux anyway. A few of the older Samsung Chromebook models were able to run OSX but as their no longer available, so it's irrelevant.
[quote name="razorpit" url="/t/182846/apples-mac-mini-receives-long-awaited-update-with-4th-gen-intel-cpus-price-cut-to-499/90#post_2622108" If you are a Chromebook user then you're in the wrong forum... [/quote]
Not if you also use a Mac or iDevice. It is possible to use other competing platforms along side a Apple as foreign of a concept that might be around here without being a Troll.
No reason they can't create a modular chassis+mobo that can scale all the way from the low-end 1.4 up to a dual-2.5" bay Quad i7 Server.
Hell, they could have even put the PCIe card on the bottom of the mobo.
I mean honestly, going so downmarket, who really has to care about every last damn penny of profit?
Apple makes plenty of money elsewhere to keep a healthy grassroots vibe alive in at least one corner of its business.
Besides, if they split the difference between prices that are most reasonable for customers, and most profitable for Apple, I'm sure they could strike a balance that would provide an agile, CTO option-set that could capture+please many more customers total.
There are many people who don't want to buy a new monitor every 3 years, so will be put off iMacs, don't need the laptop formfactor, and can't pay for a Pro.
Stupid and short-sighted. Even if the mini line had lower margins, the net-effect for the whole earnings picture would probably be negligible, esp. viz. the share of iMacs & laptops.
I guess the Quad-i7 crew will have to wait 2 product-cycles now instead of just 1.
However, let's be clear, Mac Mini 2014 cannot be used for professional creative tasks such as video, audio, or photo editing.
Why?
I'm doing professional-level video-editing on my late-2009-mac mini which only has an intel core duo at 2,26 GHz and 8 GB RAM using Final Cut Pro X. And it works and quietly too.
So I think with a 2014 macmini with i5 at 2,6 GHz it would work even better.
The question I have: Is the 2014 macmini-2,6 GHz-i5 considerably faster than my late 2009-macmini?
The other question is how much faster if at all is the 2012-quadcore-i7-macmini when used for HD-video-editing with Final Cut Pro X?
Sure the raw cpupower of the i7 would be an advantage, but it's two years older, maybe the current i5's are as fast as the i7's two years ago. As to quadcore vs dualcore, are there realworld-advantages? And how much of an impact have the faster bus and better onboard-graphics on the new minis?
P.S.: The RAM is soldered on the new minis, so choose carefully. 8 GB RAM are imho fine but if you want to be sure and want to use the macmini for more than 3 years, 16 GB might be worthwhile.
I'm doing professional-level video-editing on my late-2009-mac mini which only has an intel core duo at 2,26 GHz and 8 GB RAM using Final Cut Pro X. And it works and quietly too.
So I think with a 2014 macmini with i5 at 2,6 GHz it would work even better.
The question I have: Is the 2014 macmini-2,6 GHz-i5 considerably faster than my late 2009-macmini?
The other question is how much faster if at all is the 2012-quadcore-i7-macmini when used for HD-video-editing with Final Cut Pro X?
I'm no expert in profession audio, video, or photo editing, but I heard that video transcoding of high-definition video, especially 4K takes some serous compute power, and that one needs to have at least a four-core CPU to be able to do this. So, your definition of "professional" may differ from what others call "professional". If you are able to do "professional-level video-editing" on your late-2009 Mac Mini, which is a dual-core CPU with 8 GB of RAM, I wonder why Apple crated Mac Pro, which can have an 8-core Xeon E5 CPU and up to 128 GB of RAM in addition to two powerful graphics adapters. Those silly people must be spending $5,000 to $10,000 on a Mac Pro because they don't realize they can do the same work on a 2009 Mac Mini that they can pick up for $250.
I'm no expert in profession audio, video, or photo editing, but I heard that video transcoding of high-definition video, especially 4K takes some serous compute power, and that one needs to have a four-core CPU to be able to do this. So, your definition of "professional" may differ from what others call "professional". If you are able to do "professional-level video-editing" on your late-2009 Mac Mini, which is a dual-core CPU with 8 GB of RAM, I wonder why Apple crated Mac Pro, which can have an 8-core Xeon E5 CPU and up to 128 GB of RAM in addition to two powerful graphics adapters. Those silly people are spending $5,000 to $10,000 on a Mac Pro without even knowing they can do the same work on a 2009 Mac Mini.
I think the question is one of time and resolution: 4k-editing and rendering definitely need more power and memory to get the job done in a specific time-frame. But if you are doing 1080p which I do, and don't have deadlines where you need to complete multiple videos as quickly as possible, even a 2009-macmini with 8 GB RAM will do fine.
But if you are in a competitive market and need to be quick to produce as many videos as possible in the shortest time, then I would definitely go with a computer that is as fast as possible, so I would suggest a mac pro with lots of memory. Time is money.
But if you are doing small-business-editing or hobby-editing, macminis imho definitely do the job, even 2009-ones, and the new ones (with 8 GB+ RAM) probably much better.
They can produce professional-grade results (at least on 1080p-level) , just not so many in a given time as would be possible with a mac pro.
I've been waiting a LOOONG time for this MacMini update so that I can trash my non-upgradeable and monitor-failing PowerPC iMac stuck on Tiger. The entry-level new MacMini is a joke. But the mid-tier model is right where I needed it to be. Two questions:
For someone who has been using a PowerPC Mac Mini for so long I wouldn't think you would be so picky. The entry level Mac Mini is actually not a bad option especilly after you see the break down of the different CPU's and their total scores based on cpubenchmark.net testing system. The retail price between CPU's is also interesting, though I couldn't find the pricing for the middle 2 CPU's it should at least tell you that Apple charging $200 to go from the i5-4308U to the i7-4578U, even though there is only a $111 difference between the i5-4260U and i7-4578U. A little advice, the performance gains from the i7 are not worth the extra expenditure, at any cost.
Intel Core i5-4260U @ 1.40GHz 3651 $315
Intel Core i5-4278U @ 2.60GHz 4526 NA
Intel Core i5-4308U @ 2.60GHz 4983 NA
Intel Core i7-4578U @ 3.00GHz 5204 $426
So after seeing these I would actually get the entry model and just load it up with RAM as the difference between the different CPU's ins't enough to make any real difference. Sure going from the first to the last CPU is a little bit of a jump, but the users will never see that difference unless they were encoding something but even then though, nothing ground breaking.
For someone who has been using a PowerPC Mac Mini for so long I wouldn't think you would be so picky. The entry level Mac Mini is actually not a bad option especilly after you see the break down of the different CPU's and their total scores based on cpubenchmark.net testing system.
Intel Core i5-4260U @ 1.40GHz 3651
Intel Core i5-4278U @ 2.60GHz 4526
Intel Core i5-4308U @ 2.60GHz 4983
Intel Core i7-4578U @ 3.00GHz 5204
So after seeing these I would actually get the entry model and just load it up with RAM as the difference between the different CPU's ins't enough to make any real difference. Sure going from the first to the last CPU is a little bit of a jump, but the users will never see that difference unless they were encoding something but even then though, nothing ground breaking.
Why would you do that?
1. If you want to upgrade RAM you would have to pay Apple's bto-price as it is non-user-upgradeable.
2. With the lowend mac mini you not only get a slower CPU, half the RAM but also a slower graphic-on-board-unit.
So given that I would strongly suggest to go for the middle-level-version.
Unless you want to use it for a purpose where 4 GB RAM, the slower HD-5000 graphic chip and 1,4 GHz are enough and not likely to change in the mid-term-future. Then of course it would be a waste to pay more than necessary.
Comments
Just wondering, does anybody know if the 2014 mini can do:
- 3D bluray (1080p SBS) decoding and outputting the video + audio bitstream via HDMI ?
- 1080p H.264 decoding of high bit-rate material (> 20 Mbps)
I can't seem to find good reviews of the 1.4 GHz 21" iMac (2014 model), which seems to have a similar Haswell CPU.
I don't care about PCMark, FutureMark etc. Just what about media decoding...
If ok, I might throw out my AMD-based HTPC.
No OSX = No Sale. And that is not merely my opinion, it's shared by many.
Where are we going to find new previous version Mac Minis with the quad i7? And where are you quoting your SSDs?
Amazon and other authorized retailers still have old Mac Minis in stock.
Amazon lists the Samsung Electronics 840 EVO-Series 1TB 2.5-Inch SATA III for $426, and claims the list price is $500.
Man, I remember when the 2012 Mini's were launched and there was great uproar (myself included) over the removal of a dedicated video card. As it turns out the 2012 machine crushed the model it replaced in performance. Now before the reviews are in everyone is all worked up about the new specs. You know what kids, I'm going to sit this one out until I see how it performs...
Also, by the way I ended up buying a 2012 model with the Fusion drive. Nice machine, use it almost daily, have no plans to replace it but when that time comes it'll be with another Mini...
Fully agree sir.
"Assumptions is the mother of all fuckups"
Just chatted to the Apple Store online & a guy called Michael said that the RAM on the new Mac Mini is user upgradeable! I would still want to check instore as I probably should have double checked that I meant the Mac Minis released today.
The base model might replace my Apple TV as it is probably the only way I'll get BBC iPlayer etc to work without having to use another device to 'send' the data first.
That's great news and exactly what I was expecting. So much for everyone on here who was so sure it was soldered despite Apple never saying so.
Anything above about $1500 and you're better off with a MBP or iMac.
They sell refurb 2012 MBPs for ~$1100 and you can upgrade those to 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD for ~$300 and these would be 2x CPU, 2x GPU power and portable with a display and optical drive for ~$1400.
Even the brand new Retina MBP is only $2k for quad-i7, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD with Iris Pro. They have refurbs of the 750M model with 512GB for $2k.
It's not about the initial purchase price but the depreciation.
Say you buy a mini specced out to $1200-1600, in 3 years, it'll be worth about half the value at $600-800.
If you buy a $2k MBP, in 3 years, it'll be worth $1k.
The difference you save is $400-800 minus $200-400 = $200-400 and for those 3 years, you are using a machine that isn't portable with half the CPU power, half the GPU power and doesn't come with a Retina display. For the difference, I think the iMac and MBP are the better options.
It looks to me like Apple is gearing up the mini to shrink it down like the Air once the passively cooled Broadwell parts come along. The fan in the mini is large relative to the enclosure and the PSU is quite big too. DDR4 memory also means they can cut the RAM space in half. I don't think they'll make it box-like though as they like things to be thin, I reckon it will go down to the height of a laptop base and shrink the dimensions a bit.
Say you buy a mini specced out to $1200-1600, in 3 years, it'll be worth about half the value at $600-800.
If you buy a $2k MBP, in 3 years, it'll be worth $1k.
That's a somewhat strong assumption. Your local market factors into that, unless you want to sell on ebay and eat the fees and hassle. Three years is also around the time where I've had chargers break and batteries begin to bulge in the past, so I would say you're looking at closer to $800 on the macbook pro as a reasonable estimate. Where I agree is that at the $1500 level, it's skewed strongly in favor of the macbook pro. In this revision they essentially squeezed out one configuration, then built another beneath it to make up the $500 model. If they kept it in line with the 15" macbook pro on the mid range model, price may have crept to $900. The cpu cost change was much less than it was at the low end, so it wasn't an issue of manufacturing budget. I guess they just don't want the mini to be "too" powerful relative to other options.
I have a hard time complaining.
It used to be I bought the hardware and then had to cough up money for the OS & Apple applications. Today the OS and a majority of Apple consumer applications are free. The money to develop these has to come somewhere.
I don't mind the soldered RAM. For my purposes an 8GB mini is fine. What I can't wait to learn is what is involved in adding an SSD to it later.
Ok. So the RAM appears to NOT be soldered. But that leaves me with two choices (actually three):
1) Buy the mid-tier MacMini at $699 with the Dual Core i5 at 2.6 Ghz and the Iris graphics card. I can either buy the 16gb RAM from Apple for $200, or buy it third-party for approx. $160 (then deal with the reselling of the original 2x4 RAM), upgrade to the 1TB Fusion drive (another $200), and buy an Asus 24" monitor for $170. That's $1269 (or $1229 minus the resell of the original RAM).
2) Buy the mid-tier 21" iMac at $1299 with the Quad Core i5 at 2.7 GHz and the Iris Pro graphics card. Bump the RAM for $200, and the 1TB Fusion drive for another $200. No need to buy a monitor now. So, that's $1699.
So that's a difference of $430 (or approx. $500 with the RAM resell in option 1).
I have thousands of songs (7600+) and thousands of photos. Along with basic everyday computer uses, I'll be using the computer for processing photos from my DSLR (as a serious amateur hobbyist) using an older version of Photoshop and maybe a non-subscription alternative to Lightroom (if there is any), maybe putting together very simple home videos, and using Garage Band and several software plug-ins for music composition.
Is the spec bump to a Quad at 2.7 with the Iris Pro for the extra $430-500 worth it for these needs?
My third option… wait for that mid-tier iMac to be spec bumped with the Broadwell early next year? (I know now that the MacMini will most likely never be spec bumped to a Quad, and it would be at least a full year or longer before it got spec bumped to Broadwell).
Comparing the Acer C720 Chromebook, with its 1.4GHz Celeron processor to the new Mac Mini with its 1.4GHz Haswell i5 is equivalent to comparing
this electric car:
to this Abrams tank:
and concluding the electric car must be just as good as they both have a similar top speed.
See what the Abrams is doing to the Mustang? Well just imagine the Mac Mini tank mauling the electric car Chromebook underneath.
Oh the humanity!
Does Acer C720 Chromebook run iOSX? S.T.F.U, troller.
Does Acer C720 Chromebook run iOSX? S.T.F.U, troller.
I could be wrong but I think the only one he was trolling were Chromebook users. If you are a Chromebook user then you're in the wrong forum...
No, though there are custom BIOS firmware's available that make it possible to run Linux on them. Though the better option would be to just install Crouton, an application that installs Linux along side Chrome OS, you can run both in the same runtime using the Chrome OS Kernel which is Linux anyway. A few of the older Samsung Chromebook models were able to run OSX but as their no longer available, so it's irrelevant.
If you are a Chromebook user then you're in the wrong forum...
[/quote]
Not if you also use a Mac or iDevice. It is possible to use other competing platforms along side a Apple as foreign of a concept that might be around here without being a Troll.
Agreed w/ you & gregquinn.
This is a really downmarket move by Apple.
No reason they can't create a modular chassis+mobo that can scale all the way from the low-end 1.4 up to a dual-2.5" bay Quad i7 Server.
Hell, they could have even put the PCIe card on the bottom of the mobo.
I mean honestly, going so downmarket, who really has to care about every last damn penny of profit?
Apple makes plenty of money elsewhere to keep a healthy grassroots vibe alive in at least one corner of its business.
Besides, if they split the difference between prices that are most reasonable for customers, and most profitable for Apple, I'm sure they could strike a balance that would provide an agile, CTO option-set that could capture+please many more customers total.
There are many people who don't want to buy a new monitor every 3 years, so will be put off iMacs, don't need the laptop formfactor, and can't pay for a Pro.
Stupid and short-sighted. Even if the mini line had lower margins, the net-effect for the whole earnings picture would probably be negligible, esp. viz. the share of iMacs & laptops.
I guess the Quad-i7 crew will have to wait 2 product-cycles now instead of just 1.
However, let's be clear, Mac Mini 2014 cannot be used for professional creative tasks such as video, audio, or photo editing.
Why?
I'm doing professional-level video-editing on my late-2009-mac mini which only has an intel core duo at 2,26 GHz and 8 GB RAM using Final Cut Pro X. And it works and quietly too.
So I think with a 2014 macmini with i5 at 2,6 GHz it would work even better.
The question I have: Is the 2014 macmini-2,6 GHz-i5 considerably faster than my late 2009-macmini?
The other question is how much faster if at all is the 2012-quadcore-i7-macmini when used for HD-video-editing with Final Cut Pro X?
Sure the raw cpupower of the i7 would be an advantage, but it's two years older, maybe the current i5's are as fast as the i7's two years ago. As to quadcore vs dualcore, are there realworld-advantages? And how much of an impact have the faster bus and better onboard-graphics on the new minis?
P.S.: The RAM is soldered on the new minis, so choose carefully. 8 GB RAM are imho fine but if you want to be sure and want to use the macmini for more than 3 years, 16 GB might be worthwhile.
Why?
I'm doing professional-level video-editing on my late-2009-mac mini which only has an intel core duo at 2,26 GHz and 8 GB RAM using Final Cut Pro X. And it works and quietly too.
So I think with a 2014 macmini with i5 at 2,6 GHz it would work even better.
The question I have: Is the 2014 macmini-2,6 GHz-i5 considerably faster than my late 2009-macmini?
The other question is how much faster if at all is the 2012-quadcore-i7-macmini when used for HD-video-editing with Final Cut Pro X?
I'm no expert in profession audio, video, or photo editing, but I heard that video transcoding of high-definition video, especially 4K takes some serous compute power, and that one needs to have at least a four-core CPU to be able to do this. So, your definition of "professional" may differ from what others call "professional". If you are able to do "professional-level video-editing" on your late-2009 Mac Mini, which is a dual-core CPU with 8 GB of RAM, I wonder why Apple crated Mac Pro, which can have an 8-core Xeon E5 CPU and up to 128 GB of RAM in addition to two powerful graphics adapters. Those silly people must be spending $5,000 to $10,000 on a Mac Pro because they don't realize they can do the same work on a 2009 Mac Mini that they can pick up for $250.
I'm no expert in profession audio, video, or photo editing, but I heard that video transcoding of high-definition video, especially 4K takes some serous compute power, and that one needs to have a four-core CPU to be able to do this. So, your definition of "professional" may differ from what others call "professional". If you are able to do "professional-level video-editing" on your late-2009 Mac Mini, which is a dual-core CPU with 8 GB of RAM, I wonder why Apple crated Mac Pro, which can have an 8-core Xeon E5 CPU and up to 128 GB of RAM in addition to two powerful graphics adapters. Those silly people are spending $5,000 to $10,000 on a Mac Pro without even knowing they can do the same work on a 2009 Mac Mini.
I think the question is one of time and resolution: 4k-editing and rendering definitely need more power and memory to get the job done in a specific time-frame. But if you are doing 1080p which I do, and don't have deadlines where you need to complete multiple videos as quickly as possible, even a 2009-macmini with 8 GB RAM will do fine.
But if you are in a competitive market and need to be quick to produce as many videos as possible in the shortest time, then I would definitely go with a computer that is as fast as possible, so I would suggest a mac pro with lots of memory. Time is money.
But if you are doing small-business-editing or hobby-editing, macminis imho definitely do the job, even 2009-ones, and the new ones (with 8 GB+ RAM) probably much better.
They can produce professional-grade results (at least on 1080p-level) , just not so many in a given time as would be possible with a mac pro.
I've been waiting a LOOONG time for this MacMini update so that I can trash my non-upgradeable and monitor-failing PowerPC iMac stuck on Tiger. The entry-level new MacMini is a joke. But the mid-tier model is right where I needed it to be. Two questions:
For someone who has been using a PowerPC Mac Mini for so long I wouldn't think you would be so picky. The entry level Mac Mini is actually not a bad option especilly after you see the break down of the different CPU's and their total scores based on cpubenchmark.net testing system. The retail price between CPU's is also interesting, though I couldn't find the pricing for the middle 2 CPU's it should at least tell you that Apple charging $200 to go from the i5-4308U to the i7-4578U, even though there is only a $111 difference between the i5-4260U and i7-4578U. A little advice, the performance gains from the i7 are not worth the extra expenditure, at any cost.
Intel Core i5-4260U @ 1.40GHz 3651 $315
Intel Core i5-4278U @ 2.60GHz 4526 NA
Intel Core i5-4308U @ 2.60GHz 4983 NA
Intel Core i7-4578U @ 3.00GHz 5204 $426
So after seeing these I would actually get the entry model and just load it up with RAM as the difference between the different CPU's ins't enough to make any real difference. Sure going from the first to the last CPU is a little bit of a jump, but the users will never see that difference unless they were encoding something but even then though, nothing ground breaking.
For someone who has been using a PowerPC Mac Mini for so long I wouldn't think you would be so picky. The entry level Mac Mini is actually not a bad option especilly after you see the break down of the different CPU's and their total scores based on cpubenchmark.net testing system.
Intel Core i5-4260U @ 1.40GHz 3651
Intel Core i5-4278U @ 2.60GHz 4526
Intel Core i5-4308U @ 2.60GHz 4983
Intel Core i7-4578U @ 3.00GHz 5204
So after seeing these I would actually get the entry model and just load it up with RAM as the difference between the different CPU's ins't enough to make any real difference. Sure going from the first to the last CPU is a little bit of a jump, but the users will never see that difference unless they were encoding something but even then though, nothing ground breaking.
Why would you do that?
1. If you want to upgrade RAM you would have to pay Apple's bto-price as it is non-user-upgradeable.
2. With the lowend mac mini you not only get a slower CPU, half the RAM but also a slower graphic-on-board-unit.
So given that I would strongly suggest to go for the middle-level-version.
Unless you want to use it for a purpose where 4 GB RAM, the slower HD-5000 graphic chip and 1,4 GHz are enough and not likely to change in the mid-term-future. Then of course it would be a waste to pay more than necessary.