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.
I didn't see the Apple presentation today. When I heard about the Mini being priced lower I was excited. Then I went to the Apple site and saw the specifications of the $499 model. What a let down. At $350 I would get interested in having a Mini with those specifications.
The Acer ChromeBook has an Intel Celeron 2955U @ 1.40GHz which has a score of 1523 over at cpubenchmark.net, the i5 Core i5-4260U @ 1.4Ghz which is found in the Mac Mini entry model has a score of 3651, a bit of a difference don't you think, the i5 also has a much bigger L2 and L3 cache. Why are you comparing the MacMini to the ChromeBook anyway, wouldn't the ChromeBox be a better fit, the Asus ChromeBox with the i5 Core i5-4250U @ 1.3Ghz, 4GB RAM and 32GB of SSD costs $420, I think I would rather have the Mac Mini for that price don't you. I like the ChromeBook and ChromeBox, I have a Google Pixel for goodness sake's, even though there isn't much you can't do on a Chrome device, especially now that Adobe has released their suite for them, there are still things where a traditional desktop comes in handy.
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 doubt you can even play video on the 27" Cinema Display using your Mac Mini 2009. I used to have a 15" MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo 2009 with Mini Display Port, and even though it could drive the 27" Cinema Display for static content (like regular desktop elements, word processing, and even Aperture photo editing), as soon as I would try to play video from Aperture or Youtube, everything would become extremely jerky. As soon as I replaced that MacBook Pro with a 2012 Mac Mini i7 quad core 2.6 GHz with the Intel 4000 integrated graphics, I could play video very smoothly. So, maybe your Mac Mini can drive 1080p displays with video, but not much higher resolution - that's based on my personal experience.
The 2014 Mac Mini's graphics performance is definitely adequate for semi-professional video editing, but its compute power (even the high-end one with 3.0 GHz i7 dual-core CPU) is not on par with where it should be for such tasks.
Of course, for regular home tasks, even the mid-range one is adequate. If anyone is considering it, definitely get the upgrade to 1 TB Fusion Drive - it's totally worth it. I have two Mac Mini's 2012 - 2.6 GHz i7 CPU both with 16 GB of RAM. One is with Fusion Drive, and the other one is with the regular 1TB HDD. There's a HUGE difference in performance.
I was kind of surprised that it didn't have a smaller case. I mean, I was glad that it was updated, but there are smaller mini PCs now (e.g. Intel NUC) and with Apple's design chops you kind of expect them to leapfrog that, even if it is a low priority product category (which I have no proof that it is). But yeah, still an amazing deal though. In the sense of getting 20Mbit I/O ports on a budget computer. And the $100 price drop.
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.
I didn't see the Apple presentation today. When I heard about the Mini being priced lower I was excited. Then I went to the Apple site and saw the specifications of the $499 model. What a let down. At $350 I would get interested in having a Mini with those specifications.
Ghz != performance. It refers to the length of a clock cycle when the cpu is operating at its base clock rate. It does not describe the amount of work accomplished during a cycle, only its duration. If they aren't from the same chip design, the comparison is 100% useless and another silly example of spreading misinformation on the internet. If you want to read about the end of the mhz wars, look up the stories of the old Pentium III architecture. Actually architecture might be the wrong way to describe it, but I was referring to the long pipelines combined with the use of predictive branching that made for a lot of redundant computations.
Crap. I waited too long to get me a mini server. Just i5 dual core doesn't interest me at all.
So, a bog standard old PC running some *nix will have to do. *sigh*
Keep checking the Apple refurb store. 2012 Servers sometimes show up there. At the very least the quad core base model comes up and you can add 2nd drive or make it a fusion for very little and some elbow grease. Server OS is available from App Store for $120.
Other people should have the 2012 Quads on closeout as well often without sales tax.
I doubt you can even play video on the 27" Cinema Display using your Mac Mini 2009. I used to have a 15" MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo 2009 with Mini Display Port, and even though it could drive the 27" Cinema Display for static content (like regular desktop elements, word processing, and even Aperture photo editing), as soon as I would try to play video from Aperture or Youtube, everything would become extremely jerky. As soon as I replaced that MacBook Pro with a 2012 Mac Mini i7 quad core 2.6 GHz with the Intel 4000 integrated graphics, I could play video very smoothly. So, maybe your Mac Mini can drive 1080p displays with video, but not much higher resolution - that's based on my personal experience.
The 2014 Mac Mini's graphics performance is definitely adequate for semi-professional video editing, but its compute power (even the high-end one with 3.0 GHz i7 dual-core CPU) is not on par with where it should be for such tasks.
Of course, for regular home tasks, even the mid-range one is adequate. If anyone is considering it, definitely get the upgrade to 1 TB Fusion Drive - it's totally worth it. I have two Mac Mini's 2012 - 2.6 GHz i7 CPU both with 16 GB of RAM. One is with Fusion Drive, and the other one is with the regular 1TB HDD. There's a HUGE difference in performance.
You are right, playback of highresolution videos can be jerky on the 2009-mac-mini especially when driving big screens, but I don't use it for playback, just for editing and rendering 1080p-videos.
The question I have is which mac mini would be overall faster:
The new 2014-middle-macmini with its dual core 2,6 Ghz i5 or the 2012 quadcore i7 macmini?
Keep checking the Apple refurb store. 2012 Servers sometimes show up there. At the very least the quad core base model comes up and you can add 2nd drive or make it a fusion for very little and some elbow grease. Server OS is available from App Store for $120.
Well, no refurb store in my country unfortunately but I found that several of my local online retailers still have the old model in stock. I'll hold out until there's some more solid information regarding the new model on RAM and drive replacement/expansion options before buying. Key is I really don't like being restricted to dual core and like having the drives replaceable as needed without falling back on external drives.
Personally, I don't like the direction Apple is taking at the moment. Their gear hasn't been very user configurable in a long time but this is getting extreme. Not saying it's bad for them, just doesn't fit my personal preference.
You are right, playback of highresolution videos can be jerky on the 2009-mac-mini especially when driving big screens, but I don't use it for playback, just for editing and rendering 1080p-videos.
The question I have is which mac mini would be overall faster:
The new 2014-middle-macmini with its dual core 2,6 Ghz i5 or the 2012 quadcore i7 macmini?
Overall faster is not a scientific definition. If you are interested in editing and transcoding high-definition videos but are not planning to drive 4K resolution monitors, you should go with the 2012 i-7 quad-core 2.6 GHz Mac Mini. If you can help it, buy it with the least amount of RAM (if you buy it refurb from Apple) and upgrade RAM to 16 GB for around $75.
If you are interested in driving 4K displays, go with the 2014 Mini. I don't know how well the highest-end i7 dual-core CPU would perform with video transcoding, but the quad-core i7 from two years ago would blow it out of the water for CPU-intensive tasks like this.
In both cases, definitely get the Fusion Drive. In either case, don't pay ridiculous premium Apple charges for SSD. Fusion Drive is fabulous and all you would need for your definition of professional video work.
In fact, if you do a lot of video editing, you may want to consider a 3TB Fusion Drive option, which was only available in the 2012 Mac Mini.
The reason people are so upset is that there's no good choice in your dilemma. Either way you go, there's a considerable downside if you want to stick with the Mac Mini line. The alternatives in the iMac line are significantly more expensive, and with Apple now starting to introduce 5K displays, getting a non-retina iMac makes little sense this year.
Overall faster is not a scientific definition. If you are interested in editing and transcoding high-definition videos but are not planning to drive 4K resolution monitors, you should go with the 2012 i-7 quad-core 2.6 GHz Mac Mini. If you can help it, buy it with the least amount of RAM (if you buy it refurb from Apple) and upgrade RAM to 16 GB for around $75.
If you are interested in driving 4K displays, go with the 2014 Mini. I don't know how well the highest-end i7 dual-core CPU would perform with video transcoding, but the quad-core i7 from two years ago would blow it out of the water for CPU-intensive tasks like this.
In both cases, definitely get the Fusion Drive. In either case, don't pay ridiculous premium Apple charges for SSD. Fusion Drive is fabulous and all you would need for your definition of professional video work.
In fact, if you do a lot of video editing, you may want to consider a 3TB Fusion Drive option, which was only available in the 2012 Mac Mini.
The reason people are so upset is that there's no good choice in your dilemma. Either way you go, there's a considerable downside if you want to stick with the Mac Mini line. The alternatives in the iMac line are significantly more expensive, and with Apple now starting to introduce 5K displays, getting a non-retina iMac makes little sense this year.
I've already come to a similar conclusion. For my uses, ie. Final Cut Pro X, transcoding, converting..., a quadcore-mini is probably the best bang for the buck.
And since I've already got enough external HD's, I can opt for the 256 GB SSD to keep things snappy. I'll opt for 8 GB, and later on if I see the need, expand for 16 GB.
Since I don't use my mac mini for playback and neither for gaming, the better equipped GPU that Iris offers over HD 4000, won't be needed.
The reason people are so upset is that there's no good choice in your dilemma. Either way you go, there's a considerable downside if you want to stick with the Mac Mini line. The alternatives in the iMac line are significantly more expensive, and with Apple now starting to introduce 5K displays, getting a non-retina iMac makes little sense this year.
If they had stuck with tracking the 15" hardware at $900-1000, that could have been a winner. The price increase on processors shouldn't have been as severe as it was with the 13". They accomplished the transition with the (previously) low end model by bumping the price upwards $100 to account for bumps in cpu cost. If they wanted to, they could have done the same thing with the one above it rather than expand what used to be their base offering. The $500 mini is a configuration that didn't previously exist relative to component choices, which is why I word it that way.
I can't believe just how much of a performance hit the new Mac Mini has taken, it's quite bad actually, it's in line with 2011's performance, with 2012 still being the fastest release. If you don't need to drive a 4K monitor I would buy a refurbished 2012 model with a Core i7-3720QM and 16GB of RAM. Also of note, Apple charges 200 dollars to upgrade from the 15-4308U to the i7-4578U, which is pretty ridiculous when there is actually only a 27 dollar difference between the two chips and that isn't even bulk price, heck, there is only a 111 dollar difference between the slowest i5-4278U($315 retail) and the i7-4578U($426 retail).
I can't believe just how much of a performance hit the new Mac Mini has taken, it's quite bad actually, it's in line with 2011's performance, with 2012 still being the fastest release. If you don't need to drive a 4K monitor I would buy a refurbished 2012 model with a Core i7-3720QM and 16GB of RAM. Also of note, Apple charges 200 dollars to upgrade from the 15-4308U to the i7-4578U, which is pretty ridiculous when there' is actually only a 27 dollar difference between the two chips and that isn't even a bulk price, heck, there is only a 111 dollar difference between the slowest i5-4278U($315) and the i7-4578U($426).
At least it shows that the 2,6 GHz dualcore i5 this year is faster than the 2,5 GHz dual core i5 from 2012.
It's only natural that a quadcore i7 from 2012 would be faster in multithreading-benchmarks than a dualcore i5 or dualcore i7 from 2014.
But the i5 in 2012 was also in the lowest model so it's not a fair comparison. Apple should have added a quad core option and charged 200 for that, not the current anemic i7 dualcore, which isn't even the fastest dualcore i7 that's available. No, the whole line up is a mess and defiantly not worth what their charging, I believe this is the last of the Mac Mini, why did they even bother.
Thanks for the informative post, Relic! For us looking at Mini as a server, this iteration sure is a letdown. So it's either go with a 2012 i7 quad or hoping the specs will be bumped once Broadwell is out. Gut feeling unfortunately says "fat chance" to that.
But the i5 in 2012 was also in the lowest model so it's not a fair comparison. Apple should have added a quad core option and charged 200 for that, not the current anemic i7 dualcore, which isn't even the fastest dualcore i7 that's available. No, the whole line up is a mess and defiantly not worth what their charging, I believe this is the last of the Mac Mini, why did they even bother.
They bother because one thing Tim Cook has been doing is making things available at lower prices than in the past. Even with the iPad Air 2 and iPad Mini 3 they refused to discontinue the iPad Air and iPad Mini 2, just so they could have something to sell at a lower price. Also they still sell a lot of devices with only 16GB storage.
I think it's a dangerous game because the standard used to be "We will not ship anything that's not a great product (even if we could make money by doing so)" And at what point do low specs make something not a great product? If people can't upgrade their OS because 16GB is not enough disk space, is it still a great product? If a Mac in 2014 only has 2 cores is it still a great product?
They bother because one thing Tim Cook has been doing is making things available at lower prices than in the past. Even with the iPad Air 2 and iPad Mini 3 they refused to discontinue the iPad Air and iPad Mini 2, just so they could have something to sell at a lower price. Also they still sell a lot of devices with only 16GB storage.
I think it's a dangerous game because the standard used to be "We will not ship anything that's not a great product (even if we could make money by doing so)" And at what point do low specs make something not a great product? If people can't upgrade their OS because 16GB is not enough disk space, is it still a great product? If a Mac in 2014 only has 2 cores is it still a great product?
The only thing Tim Cook has been doing steadily is increase profit margins. It's the only game he's good at. He doesn't have any other niche.
This is boutique computing which Sony used to be known for, Apple is the new Sony.
Most buyers don't care what's inside the Mac Mini they only know that Core i7 4th Gen > Core i7 3rd Gen.
They bother because one thing Tim Cook has been doing is making things available at lower prices than in the past. Even with the iPad Air 2 and iPad Mini 3 they refused to discontinue the iPad Air and iPad Mini 2, just so they could have something to sell at a lower price. Also they still sell a lot of devices with only 16GB storage.
I think it's a dangerous game because the standard used to be "We will not ship anything that's not a great product (even if we could make money by doing so)" And at what point do low specs make something not a great product? If people can't upgrade their OS because 16GB is not enough disk space, is it still a great product? If a Mac in 2014 only has 2 cores is it still a great product?
Well those are arguments the individual will have to make when purchasing one. I personally believe the 2014 Mac Mini lineup has just to big of a performance hit to be considered a worth while update, especially over the previous generation. The only good that came out of this is that 2012 models will be marked down. I for own didn't realize just how fast the server edition with the Intel Core i7-3720QM @ 2.60GHz actually was until I made the chart above, with a score of 8328 it's even faster then the new Retina iMac with the Intel Core i5-4690 @ 3.50GHz which got a score of 7671. I will wait another few months and then see if I can grab one off of eBay for 600 to 700 bucks, their about 900 to 1000 now.
The current Mac Mini lineup is not even worth a second look as far as I'm concerned. The fastest 2014 Mac Mini with the Intel Core i7-4578U @ 3.00GHz, CPU score of 5204, 16GB of RAM is $1400.00. When compared to a Dell X51 with the Intel i7-4790k (which is the same CPU used in the top of the line iMac), CPU score of 11,322, 16GB RAM as well as a dedicated AMD R9-270 GPU for 1250.00, it's a no brainier which one I would choose. Though installing OSX on none Apple hardware is considered taboo around here, it's still very easily to do so on the X51 as all of the components are compatible. To also give you an idea of the difference in graphics power between the Dell and the Mac Mini, according to http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/ the Intel 5000 has a score of 605, the AM9 R9-270 on the other hand has a score of 4212, yea. Though the Mac Mini is smaller than the Dell X51 and let's face it a lot more attractive, the Dell is still small enough and at a 150 dollars less than the Mac Mini with a CPU and GPU scores that absolutely demolishes it, including most of the iMac line except for the top model that costs 1700 dollars more, I just couldn't in good conscience buy a fully loaded 2014 Mac Mini.
I'm also not even promoting the Dell XPS here, I just wanted to show how much of a gap there is when compared to another product in the price range and there is no denying that it's a huge one.
Both BT and wifi? It's not a big deal to replace the card but still an annoyance.
Cheaper than a build your own?
Yes actually, no problem, I always check the compatibility list against the spec list to see what's compatible and what's not, the X51 is a rare one in which everything seems to work as is, even the video card has the proper drivers for the Dell as the iMac uses the new AMD R9.
Yes actually, no problem, I always check the compatibility list against the spec list to see what's compatible and what's not, the X51 is a rare one in which everything seems to work as is, even the video card has the proper drivers for the Dell as the iMac uses the new AMD R9.
Hmmm. Guess I'll buy one as a windows/steam box for the kids and hackintosh it for my own use.
Comments
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.
I didn't see the Apple presentation today. When I heard about the Mini being priced lower I was excited. Then I went to the Apple site and saw the specifications of the $499 model. What a let down. At $350 I would get interested in having a Mini with those specifications.
The Acer ChromeBook has an Intel Celeron 2955U @ 1.40GHz which has a score of 1523 over at cpubenchmark.net, the i5 Core i5-4260U @ 1.4Ghz which is found in the Mac Mini entry model has a score of 3651, a bit of a difference don't you think, the i5 also has a much bigger L2 and L3 cache. Why are you comparing the MacMini to the ChromeBook anyway, wouldn't the ChromeBox be a better fit, the Asus ChromeBox with the i5 Core i5-4250U @ 1.3Ghz, 4GB RAM and 32GB of SSD costs $420, I think I would rather have the Mac Mini for that price don't you. I like the ChromeBook and ChromeBox, I have a Google Pixel for goodness sake's, even though there isn't much you can't do on a Chrome device, especially now that Adobe has released their suite for them, there are still things where a traditional desktop comes in handy.
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 doubt you can even play video on the 27" Cinema Display using your Mac Mini 2009. I used to have a 15" MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo 2009 with Mini Display Port, and even though it could drive the 27" Cinema Display for static content (like regular desktop elements, word processing, and even Aperture photo editing), as soon as I would try to play video from Aperture or Youtube, everything would become extremely jerky. As soon as I replaced that MacBook Pro with a 2012 Mac Mini i7 quad core 2.6 GHz with the Intel 4000 integrated graphics, I could play video very smoothly. So, maybe your Mac Mini can drive 1080p displays with video, but not much higher resolution - that's based on my personal experience.
The 2014 Mac Mini's graphics performance is definitely adequate for semi-professional video editing, but its compute power (even the high-end one with 3.0 GHz i7 dual-core CPU) is not on par with where it should be for such tasks.
Of course, for regular home tasks, even the mid-range one is adequate. If anyone is considering it, definitely get the upgrade to 1 TB Fusion Drive - it's totally worth it. I have two Mac Mini's 2012 - 2.6 GHz i7 CPU both with 16 GB of RAM. One is with Fusion Drive, and the other one is with the regular 1TB HDD. There's a HUGE difference in performance.
I was kind of surprised that it didn't have a smaller case. I mean, I was glad that it was updated, but there are smaller mini PCs now (e.g. Intel NUC) and with Apple's design chops you kind of expect them to leapfrog that, even if it is a low priority product category (which I have no proof that it is). But yeah, still an amazing deal though. In the sense of getting 20Mbit I/O ports on a budget computer. And the $100 price drop.
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.
I didn't see the Apple presentation today. When I heard about the Mini being priced lower I was excited. Then I went to the Apple site and saw the specifications of the $499 model. What a let down. At $350 I would get interested in having a Mini with those specifications.
Ghz != performance. It refers to the length of a clock cycle when the cpu is operating at its base clock rate. It does not describe the amount of work accomplished during a cycle, only its duration. If they aren't from the same chip design, the comparison is 100% useless and another silly example of spreading misinformation on the internet. If you want to read about the end of the mhz wars, look up the stories of the old Pentium III architecture. Actually architecture might be the wrong way to describe it, but I was referring to the long pipelines combined with the use of predictive branching that made for a lot of redundant computations.
Crap. I waited too long to get me a mini server. Just i5 dual core doesn't interest me at all.
So, a bog standard old PC running some *nix will have to do. *sigh*
Keep checking the Apple refurb store. 2012 Servers sometimes show up there. At the very least the quad core base model comes up and you can add 2nd drive or make it a fusion for very little and some elbow grease. Server OS is available from App Store for $120.
Other people should have the 2012 Quads on closeout as well often without sales tax.
I doubt you can even play video on the 27" Cinema Display using your Mac Mini 2009. I used to have a 15" MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo 2009 with Mini Display Port, and even though it could drive the 27" Cinema Display for static content (like regular desktop elements, word processing, and even Aperture photo editing), as soon as I would try to play video from Aperture or Youtube, everything would become extremely jerky. As soon as I replaced that MacBook Pro with a 2012 Mac Mini i7 quad core 2.6 GHz with the Intel 4000 integrated graphics, I could play video very smoothly. So, maybe your Mac Mini can drive 1080p displays with video, but not much higher resolution - that's based on my personal experience.
The 2014 Mac Mini's graphics performance is definitely adequate for semi-professional video editing, but its compute power (even the high-end one with 3.0 GHz i7 dual-core CPU) is not on par with where it should be for such tasks.
Of course, for regular home tasks, even the mid-range one is adequate. If anyone is considering it, definitely get the upgrade to 1 TB Fusion Drive - it's totally worth it. I have two Mac Mini's 2012 - 2.6 GHz i7 CPU both with 16 GB of RAM. One is with Fusion Drive, and the other one is with the regular 1TB HDD. There's a HUGE difference in performance.
You are right, playback of highresolution videos can be jerky on the 2009-mac-mini especially when driving big screens, but I don't use it for playback, just for editing and rendering 1080p-videos.
The question I have is which mac mini would be overall faster:
The new 2014-middle-macmini with its dual core 2,6 Ghz i5 or the 2012 quadcore i7 macmini?
Keep checking the Apple refurb store. 2012 Servers sometimes show up there. At the very least the quad core base model comes up and you can add 2nd drive or make it a fusion for very little and some elbow grease. Server OS is available from App Store for $120.
Well, no refurb store in my country unfortunately but I found that several of my local online retailers still have the old model in stock. I'll hold out until there's some more solid information regarding the new model on RAM and drive replacement/expansion options before buying. Key is I really don't like being restricted to dual core and like having the drives replaceable as needed without falling back on external drives.
Personally, I don't like the direction Apple is taking at the moment. Their gear hasn't been very user configurable in a long time but this is getting extreme. Not saying it's bad for them, just doesn't fit my personal preference.
Overall faster is not a scientific definition. If you are interested in editing and transcoding high-definition videos but are not planning to drive 4K resolution monitors, you should go with the 2012 i-7 quad-core 2.6 GHz Mac Mini. If you can help it, buy it with the least amount of RAM (if you buy it refurb from Apple) and upgrade RAM to 16 GB for around $75.
If you are interested in driving 4K displays, go with the 2014 Mini. I don't know how well the highest-end i7 dual-core CPU would perform with video transcoding, but the quad-core i7 from two years ago would blow it out of the water for CPU-intensive tasks like this.
In both cases, definitely get the Fusion Drive. In either case, don't pay ridiculous premium Apple charges for SSD. Fusion Drive is fabulous and all you would need for your definition of professional video work.
In fact, if you do a lot of video editing, you may want to consider a 3TB Fusion Drive option, which was only available in the 2012 Mac Mini.
The reason people are so upset is that there's no good choice in your dilemma. Either way you go, there's a considerable downside if you want to stick with the Mac Mini line. The alternatives in the iMac line are significantly more expensive, and with Apple now starting to introduce 5K displays, getting a non-retina iMac makes little sense this year.
Overall faster is not a scientific definition. If you are interested in editing and transcoding high-definition videos but are not planning to drive 4K resolution monitors, you should go with the 2012 i-7 quad-core 2.6 GHz Mac Mini. If you can help it, buy it with the least amount of RAM (if you buy it refurb from Apple) and upgrade RAM to 16 GB for around $75.
If you are interested in driving 4K displays, go with the 2014 Mini. I don't know how well the highest-end i7 dual-core CPU would perform with video transcoding, but the quad-core i7 from two years ago would blow it out of the water for CPU-intensive tasks like this.
In both cases, definitely get the Fusion Drive. In either case, don't pay ridiculous premium Apple charges for SSD. Fusion Drive is fabulous and all you would need for your definition of professional video work.
In fact, if you do a lot of video editing, you may want to consider a 3TB Fusion Drive option, which was only available in the 2012 Mac Mini.
The reason people are so upset is that there's no good choice in your dilemma. Either way you go, there's a considerable downside if you want to stick with the Mac Mini line. The alternatives in the iMac line are significantly more expensive, and with Apple now starting to introduce 5K displays, getting a non-retina iMac makes little sense this year.
I've already come to a similar conclusion. For my uses, ie. Final Cut Pro X, transcoding, converting..., a quadcore-mini is probably the best bang for the buck.
And since I've already got enough external HD's, I can opt for the 256 GB SSD to keep things snappy. I'll opt for 8 GB, and later on if I see the need, expand for 16 GB.
Since I don't use my mac mini for playback and neither for gaming, the better equipped GPU that Iris offers over HD 4000, won't be needed.
The reason people are so upset is that there's no good choice in your dilemma. Either way you go, there's a considerable downside if you want to stick with the Mac Mini line. The alternatives in the iMac line are significantly more expensive, and with Apple now starting to introduce 5K displays, getting a non-retina iMac makes little sense this year.
If they had stuck with tracking the 15" hardware at $900-1000, that could have been a winner. The price increase on processors shouldn't have been as severe as it was with the 13". They accomplished the transition with the (previously) low end model by bumping the price upwards $100 to account for bumps in cpu cost. If they wanted to, they could have done the same thing with the one above it rather than expand what used to be their base offering. The $500 mini is a configuration that didn't previously exist relative to component choices, which is why I word it that way.
I can't believe just how much of a performance hit the new Mac Mini has taken, it's quite bad actually, it's in line with 2011's performance, with 2012 still being the fastest release. If you don't need to drive a 4K monitor I would buy a refurbished 2012 model with a Core i7-3720QM and 16GB of RAM. Also of note, Apple charges 200 dollars to upgrade from the 15-4308U to the i7-4578U, which is pretty ridiculous when there is actually only a 27 dollar difference between the two chips and that isn't even bulk price, heck, there is only a 111 dollar difference between the slowest i5-4278U($315 retail) and the i7-4578U($426 retail).
Performance numbers were taken from http://www.cpubenchmark.net/
What I would have used
Intel Core i5-4278U @ 2.60GHz 4526
Intel Core i7-4578U @ 3.00GHz 5204
Intel Core i7-4700MQ @ 2.4GHz 7878
2014
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
2012
Intel Core i5-3210M @ 2.50GHz 3804
Intel Core i7-3615QM @ 2.30GHz 7344
Intel Core i7-3720QM @ 2.60GHz 8328
2011
Intel Core i5-2415M @ 2.30GHz 3215
Intel Core i5-2520M @ 2.50GHz 3547
Intel Core i7-2620M @ 2.70GHz 3871
Intel Core i7-2635QM @ 2.00GHz 5874
I can't believe just how much of a performance hit the new Mac Mini has taken, it's quite bad actually, it's in line with 2011's performance, with 2012 still being the fastest release. If you don't need to drive a 4K monitor I would buy a refurbished 2012 model with a Core i7-3720QM and 16GB of RAM. Also of note, Apple charges 200 dollars to upgrade from the 15-4308U to the i7-4578U, which is pretty ridiculous when there' is actually only a 27 dollar difference between the two chips and that isn't even a bulk price, heck, there is only a 111 dollar difference between the slowest i5-4278U($315) and the i7-4578U($426).
Performance numbers were taken from http://www.cpubenchmark.net/
2014
Intel Core i5-4278U @ 2.60GHz 4526
2012
Intel Core i5-3210M @ 2.50GHz 3804
At least it shows that the 2,6 GHz dualcore i5 this year is faster than the 2,5 GHz dual core i5 from 2012.
It's only natural that a quadcore i7 from 2012 would be faster in multithreading-benchmarks than a dualcore i5 or dualcore i7 from 2014.
At least it shows that the 2,6 GHz dualcore i5 this year is faster than the 2,5 GHz dual core i5 from 2012.
It's only natural that a quadcore i7 from 2012 would be faster in multithreading-benchmarks than a dualcore i5 or dualcore i7 from 2014.
But the i5 in 2012 was also in the lowest model so it's not a fair comparison. Apple should have added a quad core option and charged 200 for that, not the current anemic i7 dualcore, which isn't even the fastest dualcore i7 that's available. No, the whole line up is a mess and defiantly not worth what their charging, I believe this is the last of the Mac Mini, why did they even bother.
Thanks for the informative post, Relic! For us looking at Mini as a server, this iteration sure is a letdown. So it's either go with a 2012 i7 quad or hoping the specs will be bumped once Broadwell is out. Gut feeling unfortunately says "fat chance" to that.
But the i5 in 2012 was also in the lowest model so it's not a fair comparison. Apple should have added a quad core option and charged 200 for that, not the current anemic i7 dualcore, which isn't even the fastest dualcore i7 that's available. No, the whole line up is a mess and defiantly not worth what their charging, I believe this is the last of the Mac Mini, why did they even bother.
They bother because one thing Tim Cook has been doing is making things available at lower prices than in the past. Even with the iPad Air 2 and iPad Mini 3 they refused to discontinue the iPad Air and iPad Mini 2, just so they could have something to sell at a lower price. Also they still sell a lot of devices with only 16GB storage.
I think it's a dangerous game because the standard used to be "We will not ship anything that's not a great product (even if we could make money by doing so)" And at what point do low specs make something not a great product? If people can't upgrade their OS because 16GB is not enough disk space, is it still a great product? If a Mac in 2014 only has 2 cores is it still a great product?
They bother because one thing Tim Cook has been doing is making things available at lower prices than in the past. Even with the iPad Air 2 and iPad Mini 3 they refused to discontinue the iPad Air and iPad Mini 2, just so they could have something to sell at a lower price. Also they still sell a lot of devices with only 16GB storage.
I think it's a dangerous game because the standard used to be "We will not ship anything that's not a great product (even if we could make money by doing so)" And at what point do low specs make something not a great product? If people can't upgrade their OS because 16GB is not enough disk space, is it still a great product? If a Mac in 2014 only has 2 cores is it still a great product?
The only thing Tim Cook has been doing steadily is increase profit margins. It's the only game he's good at. He doesn't have any other niche.
This is boutique computing which Sony used to be known for, Apple is the new Sony.
Most buyers don't care what's inside the Mac Mini they only know that Core i7 4th Gen > Core i7 3rd Gen.
They bother because one thing Tim Cook has been doing is making things available at lower prices than in the past. Even with the iPad Air 2 and iPad Mini 3 they refused to discontinue the iPad Air and iPad Mini 2, just so they could have something to sell at a lower price. Also they still sell a lot of devices with only 16GB storage.
I think it's a dangerous game because the standard used to be "We will not ship anything that's not a great product (even if we could make money by doing so)" And at what point do low specs make something not a great product? If people can't upgrade their OS because 16GB is not enough disk space, is it still a great product? If a Mac in 2014 only has 2 cores is it still a great product?
Well those are arguments the individual will have to make when purchasing one. I personally believe the 2014 Mac Mini lineup has just to big of a performance hit to be considered a worth while update, especially over the previous generation. The only good that came out of this is that 2012 models will be marked down. I for own didn't realize just how fast the server edition with the Intel Core i7-3720QM @ 2.60GHz actually was until I made the chart above, with a score of 8328 it's even faster then the new Retina iMac with the Intel Core i5-4690 @ 3.50GHz which got a score of 7671. I will wait another few months and then see if I can grab one off of eBay for 600 to 700 bucks, their about 900 to 1000 now.
The current Mac Mini lineup is not even worth a second look as far as I'm concerned. The fastest 2014 Mac Mini with the Intel Core i7-4578U @ 3.00GHz, CPU score of 5204, 16GB of RAM is $1400.00. When compared to a Dell X51 with the Intel i7-4790k (which is the same CPU used in the top of the line iMac), CPU score of 11,322, 16GB RAM as well as a dedicated AMD R9-270 GPU for 1250.00, it's a no brainier which one I would choose. Though installing OSX on none Apple hardware is considered taboo around here, it's still very easily to do so on the X51 as all of the components are compatible. To also give you an idea of the difference in graphics power between the Dell and the Mac Mini, according to http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/ the Intel 5000 has a score of 605, the AM9 R9-270 on the other hand has a score of 4212, yea. Though the Mac Mini is smaller than the Dell X51 and let's face it a lot more attractive, the Dell is still small enough and at a 150 dollars less than the Mac Mini with a CPU and GPU scores that absolutely demolishes it, including most of the iMac line except for the top model that costs 1700 dollars more, I just couldn't in good conscience buy a fully loaded 2014 Mac Mini.
I'm also not even promoting the Dell XPS here, I just wanted to show how much of a gap there is when compared to another product in the price range and there is no denying that it's a huge one.
Both BT and wifi? It's not a big deal to replace the card but still an annoyance.
Cheaper than a build your own?
Both BT and wifi? It's not a big deal to replace the card but still an annoyance.
Cheaper than a build your own?
Yes actually, no problem, I always check the compatibility list against the spec list to see what's compatible and what's not, the X51 is a rare one in which everything seems to work as is, even the video card has the proper drivers for the Dell as the iMac uses the new AMD R9.
Hmmm. Guess I'll buy one as a windows/steam box for the kids and hackintosh it for my own use.
Any particular model?