Apple's Mac mini receives long-awaited update with 4th-gen Intel CPUs, price cut to $499

1234568

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 169
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nht View Post





    Hmmm. Guess I'll buy one as a windows/steam box for the kids and hackintosh it for my own use.



    Any particular model?

    Well that will depend completely on your budget but I think the $1250.00 model is the the best.

  • Reply 142 of 169
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    ascii wrote: »
    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?

    Apple got people so use to OTA updates that they fogot how to use iTunes to update. That's the real reason for the low iOS adoption rate. At one time that would have been considered an unacceptable compromise. I know of someone who recently got an 8GB phone who didn't know any better. To me that's criminal for Apple to offer that and lock someone into a two-year contract.. How do you think buyers will feel once they realize how useless that device is?
  • Reply 143 of 169
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ascii View Post

     

    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?


     

    Those things could be perfectly sufficient for some people. I think memory and storage constraints are likely to be a far greater aggravation for lighter users. What I dislike is how they artificially constrained the top minis. I do agree with you on the iPads, but it's not like this is new. They have cheaped out on weird things as long as I've used them. I recall the older earbuds, charger problems with both the early G4s and certain macbook pros, battery issues (check Apple store review for that one), and shipping a 64GB Air way too long.

  • Reply 144 of 169

    I'm not an expert at all, but I took a look at this link: http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks and found that the i7 4578 3.0 (on an Macbook Pro 13 Retina) stated better than the i7 quad (included on the 2012 Mac Mini).

    What do you guys think? Is it a fair comparisson? Does it make any sense?

    Cheers,

     

    Guido

  • Reply 145 of 169

    I just ordered a 2,3 GHz-quadcore i7-2012-macmini new before they are outsold as new.  With only 4 GB and the standard 1 TB HD. Planning on upgrading it to 8 or 16 GB RAM and a 500 GB-SSD.

     

    The upside will not only be nearly double the performance in working with Final Cut Pro X compared to the 2014 mac minis, but also getting the Mac with Mavericks instead of Yosemite. What a hideous new UI  Yosemite got!

  • Reply 146 of 169
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,360moderator
    guidocm wrote: »
    I'm not an expert at all, but I took a look at this link: http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks and found that the i7 4578 3.0 (on an Macbook Pro 13 Retina) stated better than the i7 quad (included on the 2012 Mac Mini).
    What do you guys think? Is it a fair comparisson? Does it make any sense?
    Cheers,

    Guido

    The default scores for some reason are single-core 32-bit. You need to click the 64-bit multi-core tab. The $300 mini upgrade to the i7-4578U is still only ~60% of the 2012 quad-i7. It took 2 years to drop 40% in CPU performance and that option is also $200 higher at $999 than the old $799 quad-core (which is now ~$500 refurb when it's in stock).
  • Reply 147 of 169
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    The default scores for some reason are single-core 32-bit. You need to click the 64-bit multi-core tab. The $300 mini upgrade to the i7-4578U is still only ~60% of the 2012 quad-i7. It took 2 years to drop 40% in CPU performance and that option is also $200 higher at $999 than the old $799 quad-core (which is now ~$500 refurb when it's in stock).

     

    What's even more disconcerting is that you can get one of the new Gigabyte Mini PC's which uses a i5-4570R (score of 6452), with the faster Iris Pro 5200, add 16GB of Crucial RAM and a Samsung 840 EVO eSATA 240GB for $760.00 on Amazon. A fully loaded Mac Mini with the slower i7-4578U (score of 5204) and 256GB SSD costs $1400, so you get a 640 dollar savings if you go the Gigabyte route, which is not only much faster but easy to upgrade in the future, including the CPU. I honestly don't understand Apples pricing model here, it's way off of the mark, also charging $200 extra for such an anemic processor is just completely uncalled for, especially when there is barely a 30 dollar difference between the i5 chip that you would be upgrading from. Again I know installing OSX on none Apple hardware is not considered Kosher but if it works I don't see the problem, especially when your saving $640, I mean that's just, wow, just wow.

     

     

     




  • Reply 148 of 169

    I have to admit that I'm extremely disappointed with the latest Mac Mini offering.  I just pulled the trigger on a 2012 server version.  It's only a 2.3GHz, but it's quad-core.  I know they don't make Server anymore, but I'm not going to use this as a server.  I'm just tired of waiting for a new Mac Mini that isn't a downgrade.  Can you imagine how slow using iMovie with the new Mac Mini's will be?  All current iPhones shoot 1080p, and it's going to suck editing video on these new ones.  I'd rather have quad-core.

     

    I know it doesn't matter to him in the least, because we are nothing, but I've written to Tim Cook voicing my disapproval of the current Mac Mini offerings, and I'd highly suggest you all do so as well.  The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

  • Reply 149 of 169
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post

     

    I have to admit that I'm extremely disappointed with the latest Mac Mini offering.  I just pulled the trigger on a 2012 server version.  It's only a 2.3GHz, but it's quad-core.  I know they don't make Server anymore, but I'm not going to use this as a server.  I'm just tired of waiting for a new Mac Mini that isn't a downgrade.  Can you imagine how slow using iMovie with the new Mac Mini's will be?  All current iPhones shoot 1080p, and it's going to suck editing video on these new ones.  I'd rather have quad-core.

     

    I know it doesn't matter to him in the least, because we are nothing, but I've written to Tim Cook voicing my disapproval of the current Mac Mini offerings, and I'd highly suggest you all do so as well.  The squeaky wheel gets the grease.


     

    Well you made a good choice, I truly believe this is the last Mac Mini we will see, which begs to differ why did Apple even bother upgrading it in the first place. In the end though it doesn't really matter, their are some pretty great alternatives on the market right now. 

  • Reply 150 of 169
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,360moderator
    relic wrote: »
    I truly believe this is the last Mac Mini we will see, which begs to differ why did Apple even bother upgrading it in the first place

    That's assuming the people who bought the old models are not the target audience for the new ones. 80% of the mini sales could have been the old entry i5 model for all we know. Dropping the entry price $100 could increase sales volume significantly. It worked last quarter with $100 off the Air and cheaper iMac. This has boosted unit sales by 660k units. The average selling price is lower but overall revenue is up.
  • Reply 151 of 169
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Vision33r View Post

     

     

    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.


     

    Well-said. When Steve used to say, "Tim isn't really a 'Product Guy'", I never knew how much he meant by that until a refresh like this.

  • Reply 152 of 169
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post

     

    I have to admit that I'm extremely disappointed with the latest Mac Mini offering.  I just pulled the trigger on a 2012 server version.  It's only a 2.3GHz, but it's quad-core.  I know they don't make Server anymore, but I'm not going to use this as a server.  I'm just tired of waiting for a new Mac Mini that isn't a downgrade.  Can you imagine how slow using iMovie with the new Mac Mini's will be?  All current iPhones shoot 1080p, and it's going to suck editing video on these new ones.  I'd rather have quad-core.

     

    I know it doesn't matter to him in the least, because we are nothing, but I've written to Tim Cook voicing my disapproval of the current Mac Mini offerings, and I'd highly suggest you all do so as well.  The squeaky wheel gets the grease.




    I did too. I'm sure he doesn't care either.

  • Reply 153 of 169
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    That's assuming the people who bought the old models are not the target audience for the new ones. 80% of the mini sales could have been the old entry i5 model for all we know. Dropping the entry price $100 could increase sales volume significantly. It worked last quarter with $100 off the Air and cheaper iMac. This has boosted unit sales by 660k units. The average selling price is lower but overall revenue is up.

     

    You're probably right, anyone wanting more power will most likely look else where, most likely the iMac. Though you can buy an Intel NUC with a similar performing CPU, 8GB of RAM and a 240GB SSD drive for just $30 more than Mac Mini entry model and that does run OSX perfectly, plus it's smaller in size, perfect for mounting behind a monitor.

     

  • Reply 154 of 169
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,360moderator
    relic wrote: »
    Though you can buy an Intel NUC with a similar performing CPU, 8GB of RAM and a 240GB SSD drive for just $30 more than Mac Mini entry model and that does run OSX perfectly, plus it's smaller in size, perfect for mounting behind a monitor.

    You cover up the reality of the situation when promoting Apple alternatives. To get OS X to run on an Intel NUC, there's a guide here:

    http://www.thev.net/PaulLiu/nuc-hackintosh.html

    "But was all this effort worthwhile? Let’s compare a full NUC system to a Mac Mini. Mine is about $500 (after discount), D54250WYK + 8G memory + 180GB Intel SSD 530. The low end Mac Mini starts at $599, with Core i5 (not Haswell) + 4GB memory + 500GB hard drive. It may be a little bit pricier, but then everything would work out-of-box.

    Maybe I’ll think twice the next time around."

    There's no assurance an OS update from the App Store won't just break the whole setup and the savings are usually minimal.
  • Reply 155 of 169
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    You cover up the reality of the situation when promoting Apple alternatives. To get OS X to run on an Intel NUC, there's a guide here:



    http://www.thev.net/PaulLiu/nuc-hackintosh.html



    "But was all this effort worthwhile? Let’s compare a full NUC system to a Mac Mini. Mine is about $500 (after discount), D54250WYK + 8G memory + 180GB Intel SSD 530. The low end Mac Mini starts at $599, with Core i5 (not Haswell) + 4GB memory + 500GB hard drive. It may be a little bit pricier, but then everything would work out-of-box.



    Maybe I’ll think twice the next time around."



    There's no assurance an OS update from the App Store won't just break the whole setup and the savings are usually minimal.

    Well to be fare his problems were from buying the wrong hardware, I've installed OSX on a NUC with a HD 5000 and the correct WiFi which everyone know as their listed on every single Hackintosh guide, it's very simple to do but fair enough, I guess for some, paying extra for  plug'n play trumps a little work any day. The NUC where you only save a 100 or say may not be worth it but saving $640 by going with the Gigabyte instead of the top Mac Mini defiantly is.

  • Reply 156 of 169
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,360moderator
    relic wrote: »
    The NUC where you only save a 100 or say may not be worth it but saving $640 by going with the Gigabyte instead of the top Mac Mini defiantly is.

    There's no reason to pay for the $300 i7 upgrade though. The i5-4278U scores ~6600 in Geekbench just like the comparison i5-4570R, the i7-4578U scores ~7200 (not 5204 you mentioned earlier). That would make the price difference $1099 vs $758 = $341. The Gigabyte still has Iris Pro vs Iris so double the GPU for $341 less:


    [VIDEO]


    Apple's never matched PCs on price because they actually plan to stay in business. The Iris Pro chip would have added ~$150 to the price. I think an Iris Pro mini would have been quite a nice desktop machine but Apple knows their buying audience better than anyone. If it would have been a profitable move for them, they'd have done it.
  • Reply 157 of 169
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post



    There's no reason to pay for the $300 i7 upgrade though. The i5-4278U scores ~6600 in Geekbench just like the comparison i5-4570R, the i7-4578U scores ~7200 (not 5204 you mentioned earlier). That would make the price difference $1099 vs $758 = $341. The Gigabyte still has Iris Pro vs Iris so double the GPU for $341 less:

     

    Where are you getting your geekbench results with the new mini?  Here's the estimates since there aren't any actuals yet:

     

     

     

    http://www.primatelabs.com/blog/2014/10/estimating-mac-mini-performance/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+primatelabsblog+(Primate+Labs+Blog)

     

    The Core i5-4278U mini is estimated to score 5852.

    The Core i7-4578U mini is estimated to score 6458.

     

    So if the target score is 6600 then you need to get the Core i7 version of the mini.  Unless you think you can estimate Geekbench scores better than John Poole anyway.

     


    Apple's never matched PCs on price because they actually plan to stay in business. The Iris Pro chip would have added ~$150 to the price. I think an Iris Pro mini would have been quite a nice desktop machine but Apple knows their buying audience better than anyone. If it would have been a profitable move for them, they'd have done it.


     

    While Apple doesn't compete on price it has always been competitive (at launch anyway) on value.  It is clear that the old mini with a geekbench score of 11319 was a great value...much better than the new mini.  Which is a remarkably poor value in comparison to other SFF machines at every price point.  

     

    Maybe Broadwell will see a return to quad minis and a good value proposition but I doubt it.

  • Reply 158 of 169
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    There's no reason to pay for the $300 i7 upgrade though. The i5-4278U scores ~6600 in Geekbench just like the comparison i5-4570R, the i7-4578U scores ~7200 (not 5204 you mentioned earlier). That would make the price difference $1099 vs $758 = $341. The Gigabyte still has Iris Pro vs Iris so double the GPU for $341 less:









    Apple's never matched PCs on price because they actually plan to stay in business. The Iris Pro chip would have added ~$150 to the price. I think an Iris Pro mini would have been quite a nice desktop machine but Apple knows their buying audience better than anyone. If it would have been a profitable move for them, they'd have done it.

    I prefer using cpubenchmark.net, that's where my scores came from, it's a much more comprehensive testing platform for Intel CPU's than GeekBench. Doesn't matter though, a person should buy what they feel comfortable with, I personally find the new Mac Mini not worth the money. I would get an iMac or stay with the 2012 Mac Mini.

  • Reply 159 of 169
    chiachia Posts: 713member
    Originally Posted by fallenjt View Post

    Does Acer C720 Chromebook run iOSX? S.T.F.U, troller.


     

    Does anything run iOSX?

    Who makes this iOSX?  Does it even exist?

    There is iOS and OS X, this iOSX must be news to even Apple.

  • Reply 160 of 169
    chiachia Posts: 713member
    Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

    The differences between the electric car and the tank are gigantic compared to a Celeron and an i5, especially for somebody just doing office work. Who needs an i5 to do office work and watch videos streamed via the internet?  The bus speeds are now so quick on the low end chips that HD videos look great.

     

    The i5 is a great chip and will do things faster than a Celeron at 1.4 GHz but how much more will an i5 at 1.4 GHz do?

     

    Video games aren't my thing. About the only thing an i5 might do for me..


     

    The point is that if you're shopping for a Mac Mini or indeed, the cheapest new Apple OS X computer, you're looking at Mac Minis, not Chromebooks.

    There are those who have posted in this thread their doubts as to whether the current Mac Mini range can meet their OS X computing needs.

    As the Acer 720 Chromebook:


    1. doesn't run OS X

    2. uses a processor less than half the speed of the i5 in the current base model Mac Mini.

    3. has a inferior integrated graphics card

    4. only has less than a tenth of the Mac Mini's storage capacity built in.

     

    then the Acer 720 Chromebook is even less likely to meet their needs.

Sign In or Register to comment.