fastasleep said: Huh? You can locate your Dropbox folder on any drive you want, and you can use Selective Sync to choose which folders you want to sync locally. Both options are in Preferences > Sync.
No, I know that and have been using both features. But, if you move your Dropbox storage to an external drive, then you'd have to bring that external drive with you. The newer features I'm talking about are paid features that allow you to sync multiple points in the directory structure, as well as just store things on Dropbox that don't get synced. If you were just using Dropbox with one or two of your own computers, it would also be easier, but I've had Dropbox nearly since it started, and setup across our family, as well as a couple business partnerships.
But, I'm happy they made this one, as it is the machine *I* need and have been waiting for.
Thank god.
I give credit where it is due. Apple did good on this one. They could have done even a bit better by making it reach an even broader audience, but this is much better than what might have happened (i.e.: no more mini, or too redesigned of a mini).
This also shows that they've been actually listening to some of the feedback and criticisms (also, I'm hoping the TouchBar-less MBA indicates something too).
As commented elsewhere. Simply too expensive. (especially if you need to buy a decent 4K screen and a mouse/keyboard of any quality).
You probably already have them, or what to pick your own. If you want the best deal, then get the 5k iMac.
Maurizio said: Well, in the far past, nobody used to buy a Mini for speed intensive work.
But these Mini are different; 6 i7 cores, fast flash storage, lots of RAM (user upgradable) means that many people, including probably myself, will use for middle to high performance tasks. As someone else said in the thread, it is a perfect machine for all the people still using 2008/2012 Mac Pros.
We need to know more about the cooling capabilities (and noise for those concerned about that), but also keep in mind that the true Pro machines use the error correcting RAM and even higher-end CPUs, etc. So, it still may not be as good, but maybe good enough for your particular situation.
Hi all. I currently have a 27” iMac late 2012 with the Nvidia GTX 680mx graphics option. How would the new mini’s Intel Iris UHD 630 compare with this for general UI fluidity, photo manipulation and full screen, but casual, gaming (Diablo or Elite Dangerous for example)? Clearly the mini’s CPU is loads better, but not sure about the Intel GPU. Would I need to get an eGPU to make these use cases “acceptable” on a 5K screen ?
To the bolded part -- you absolutely would. The UHD 630 is slower than the 680mx.
Thanks for this reply. It’s strange really, I’ve been really wishing that Apple would release a fully modular desktop using TB3 to interconnect expansion units, and this mini seems to be the base unit of that dream. But, something is missing, something is holding me back - maybe the really poor integrated graphics, or lack of an eGPU from Apple (or anyone) that takes the mini form factor, or the history of thermal issues on many recent macs. I’m hoping that tests will reveal that the CPU has no thermal throttling and that the 4 TB3 ports don’t show (excessive) bandwidth sharing constraints, but I’m finding it surprisingly tricky to justify clicking on the “buy” button.
I wouldn’t get my hopes too high yet. Firstly, there is no confirmation if the RAM chips can be upgraded or only replaced. In the latter case, buying a 16GB machine will only allow using chips not exceeding this amount.
What would impose such a limitation? Doesn't the existence of the slots mean the capability exists to install as much as the system is capable of accessing? If a buy a mini with 32GB of Apple-supplied RAM, what part of the configuration would Apple set that would prevent me from upgrading to 64GB with third-party modules?
Secondly, macOS Mojave’s new APFS file system is not fully compatible with external or non-Apple SSD. Users are reporting extremely slow boot times.
I've read here (on Appleinsider) that APFS makes an external drive unsuitable for Time Machine, but nothing related to any other problems with using it for external drives. Have I missed something significant?
Even if we assume an external APFS drive may cause boot issues, it seems like an easily manageable problem. Either boot from the internal storage rather than the external, or format the external with HFS+ instead of APFS.
1) I’m unaware of any four-port Thunderbolt 3 controller chips. Are you sure there’s only one controller? If so, are they possibly daisy chained?
2) The off the shelf 8x00 CPUs I’ve been assuming Apple used don’t appear to support 5K resolution. Actually I didn’t think any Intel iGPU supported 5120 x 2880. Are these custom SKUs?
Intel CPUs don't support 5K but over standard ports such as eDP/DP/HDMI/DVI. Mac Mini uses Thunderbolt and HDMI as display output, 5K needs Thunderbolt.
Sure 5K requires TB3. My question was regarding iGPU support for 5120x2880 resolution, or lack thereof. Intel’s specs for UHD630 don’t include 5K support, and the technical data sheet (manual) for 8th/9th generation S-series, linked from the ARK, doesn’t either.
I use my Mac mini as a Home Theater/Music PC. But given the long wait I must future proof as much as possible.
WHat should I upgrade now.
1. Faster Ethernet? It will probably take 3 plus years for routers to be cheap and support that. Skip
2. Faster CPU. Hmm sounds tempting. But today I only need to view 1080p content I, um, acquire on the Web. Stick to the basic i3? Why should I go for the i5? The i7 is overkill for 4k/8k movies right?
3. SSD. From what I read here and my own research, the THunderbolt 3 ssd external are only slightly cheaper than Apple's internal SSD. Dropping to USB 3.1 saves a few bucks however, but I can wait. I will probably take the standard SSD for running the OS and wait a year or two for T3 SSDs to drop in price. I skipped the SSD bandwagon when they first came out and I am glad I did.
4. Ram. I agree Apple has always fu@#ed customers on Ram. I will upgrade myself, but I will wait for ram prices to drop. Of all commodities, ram looses its value the most. If there is anything I have learned is to wait a year or two and RAM goes through the floor. I think my HTPC mini can run just fine with stock ram. Or should I buy 3rd party ram right away?
Having written this post, I have actually convinced myself on a configuration. Unless you advise differently, I will pull the trigger on this
-3.0Gig i5 CPU
-8gig Stock RAM
-256 gig SSD
-Stock Ethernet
Total $1,099 Mac Mini Home Theater Mac
I use my Mac mini as a Home Theater/Music PC. But given the long wait I must future proof as much as possible.
WHat should I upgrade now.
1. Faster Ethernet? It will probably take 3 plus years for routers to be cheap and support that. Skip
2. Faster CPU. Hmm sounds tempting. But today I only need to view 1080p content I, um, acquire on the Web. Stick to the basic i3? Why should I go for the i5? The i7 is overkill for 4k/8k movies right?
3. SSD. From what I read here and my own research, the THunderbolt 3 ssd external are only slightly cheaper than Apple's internal SSD. Dropping to USB 3.1 saves a few bucks however, but I can wait. I will probably take the standard SSD for running the OS and wait a year or two for T3 SSDs to drop in price. I skipped the SSD bandwagon when they first came out and I am glad I did.
4. Ram. I agree Apple has always fu@#ed customers on Ram. I will upgrade myself, but I will wait for ram prices to drop. Of all commodities, ram looses its value the most. If there is anything I have learned is to wait a year or two and RAM goes through the floor. I think my HTPC mini can run just fine with stock ram. Or should I buy 3rd party ram right away?
Having written this post, I have actually convinced myself on a configuration. Unless you advise differently, I will pull the trigger on this
-3.0Gig i5 CPU
-8gig Stock RAM
-256 gig SSD
-Stock Ethernet
Total $1,099 Mac Mini Home Theater Mac
My media server is a 2009 mini. You'd be fine with the lowest end model I would guess, though I don't know about 4K/8K content. As far as storage goes, USB 3.1 gen2 is 10Gbps and more than fast enough to serve files, I wouldn't waste the money on TB3/SSD for bulk storage. You don't really need more than 8GB of RAM to serve media either.
Lorin Schultz said: This raises another question for me: Should Apple be using the most expensive storage format in mid-range machines? Is there an argument to be made for using more "generic" storage in machines like the mini and Air? Like you said, no one is buying a mini for speed-intensive work. That's what the "Pro" machines are for. I do not presume to speak for anyone else, but I'd actually be happier with slower and cheaper.
I really don't understand Apple's approach to this issue, as it's inconsistent with other parts of their machines. They don't use top-of-the-line CPUs, the mini and Air both use integrated graphics rather than dedicated chipsets, and even in the days of hard drives we had to pay extra just to get a 7200 rpm drive instead of 5400. Why are they now driving up the price of Macs by using only bleeding edge storage? Why single out this one aspect of overall performance when "good vanilla" is acceptable for other parts of the machine?
I think the SSD is a great step, myself. I’ve owned two minis, one 2009 and now a 2011 model. In both cases I upgraded the hard drive to an SSD right off the bat. If I can’t get a mini for $499 now, at least I don’t have to install my own SSD. The 5400 rpm drive that used to be stock in the minis were dogs. I just don’t have enough time to sit and wait for a physical hard drive these days. So, no, slower doesn’t work for everyone. That said, I do wish the drive was upgradable.
Lorin Schultz said: This raises another question for me: Should Apple be using the most expensive storage format in mid-range machines? Is there an argument to be made for using more "generic" storage in machines like the mini and Air? Like you said, no one is buying a mini for speed-intensive work. That's what the "Pro" machines are for. I do not presume to speak for anyone else, but I'd actually be happier with slower and cheaper.
I really don't understand Apple's approach to this issue, as it's inconsistent with other parts of their machines. They don't use top-of-the-line CPUs, the mini and Air both use integrated graphics rather than dedicated chipsets, and even in the days of hard drives we had to pay extra just to get a 7200 rpm drive instead of 5400. Why are they now driving up the price of Macs by using only bleeding edge storage? Why single out this one aspect of overall performance when "good vanilla" is acceptable for other parts of the machine?
I think the SSD is a great step, myself. I’ve owned two minis, one 2009 and now a 2011 model. In both cases I upgraded the hard drive to an SSD right off the bat. If I can’t get a mini for $499 now, at least I don’t have to install my own SSD. The 5400 rpm drive that used to be stock in the minis were dogs. I just don’t have enough time to sit and wait for a physical hard drive these days. So, no, slower doesn’t work for everyone. That said, I do wish the drive was upgradable.
What you have is what I mean by slower. Obviously not a hard drive -- those days are long since over -- but do we really need the fastest, and therefore most expensive, storage on the planet in a mini, or would chips that are still plenty fast but cost 1/3 as much, like the ones in your SSD, be good enough?
Lorin Schultz said: This raises another question for me: Should Apple be using the most expensive storage format in mid-range machines? Is there an argument to be made for using more "generic" storage in machines like the mini and Air? Like you said, no one is buying a mini for speed-intensive work. That's what the "Pro" machines are for. I do not presume to speak for anyone else, but I'd actually be happier with slower and cheaper.
I really don't understand Apple's approach to this issue, as it's inconsistent with other parts of their machines. They don't use top-of-the-line CPUs, the mini and Air both use integrated graphics rather than dedicated chipsets, and even in the days of hard drives we had to pay extra just to get a 7200 rpm drive instead of 5400. Why are they now driving up the price of Macs by using only bleeding edge storage? Why single out this one aspect of overall performance when "good vanilla" is acceptable for other parts of the machine?
I think the SSD is a great step, myself. I’ve owned two minis, one 2009 and now a 2011 model. In both cases I upgraded the hard drive to an SSD right off the bat. If I can’t get a mini for $499 now, at least I don’t have to install my own SSD. The 5400 rpm drive that used to be stock in the minis were dogs. I just don’t have enough time to sit and wait for a physical hard drive these days. So, no, slower doesn’t work for everyone. That said, I do wish the drive was upgradable.
What you have is what I mean by slower. Obviously not a hard drive -- those days are long since over -- but do we really need the fastest, and therefore most expensive, storage on the planet in a mini, or would chips that are still plenty fast but cost 1/3 as much, like the ones in your SSD, be good enough?
I would say yes, it is necessary (especially the way they are pivoting who the machine is aimed for). The SSD was the biggest improvement in performance and a fast SSD on the main drive is what is best for the machine. If it is "expensive" then get the smallest one and have a USB/Thunderbolt storage option for people that want more space and don't mind slower performance.
Any thoughts on the assumed provision of only 1 TB3 controller with respect I/O bandwidth constraints? - Will 2x 4K displays leave enough b/w to run 2x raid arrays at full performance?
Any thoughts about countering the awful iGPU performance? - Can 1x eGPU like the Blackmagic accelerate 2x 4K displays (I don’t see how, as it only has 1 downstream port and a display device terminates a TB chain). - If not, can 2x Blackmagic eGPUs be connected in parallel to the mini? I imagine that they each get the equivalent of 1 display port feed from the 2 that a TB controller can provide. As 1 display port feed can support a single 4K display, this theoretically would allow 2x 4K displays to be accelerated. - Same question concerning 5K displays, but I’m pretty sure that the single TB3 controller will exclude this possibility (a single TB controller can only provide 2 display port “feeds”, and both are needed to establish a single 5K display). So, regardless of eGPUs, the mini simply cannot support 2x 5K displays (if I understand correctly).
Such a shame that Apple didn’t include 2x TB3 controllers like on the MBP. This would have given the mini huge expansion potential. The use of only 1x TB3 controller limits usage scenarios/performance for the more demanding users that Apple appears to be targeting with their inclusion of a 6 core CPU BTO option.
What do you all think? Can the mini be a real alternative to a top end iMac (non pro version) or will I need to wait for a “modular” Mac Pro, which will surely be Xeon CPU an ECC memory based (overkill for my particular needs)?
Any thoughts on the assumed provision of only 1 TB3 controller with respect I/O bandwidth constraints? - Will 2x 4K displays leave enough b/w to run 2x raid arrays at full performance?
Any thoughts about countering the awful iGPU performance? - Can 1x eGPU like the Blackmagic accelerate 2x 4K displays (I don’t see how, as it only has 1 downstream port and a display device terminates a TB chain). - If not, can 2x Blackmagic eGPUs be connected in parallel to the mini? I imagine that they each get the equivalent of 1 display port feed from the 2 that a TB controller can provide. As 1 display port feed can support a single 4K display, this theoretically would allow 2x 4K displays to be accelerated. - Same question concerning 5K displays, but I’m pretty sure that the single TB3 controller will exclude this possibility (a single TB controller can only provide 2 display port “feeds”, and both are needed to establish a single 5K display). So, regardless of eGPUs, the mini simply cannot support 2x 5K displays (if I understand correctly).
Such a shame that Apple didn’t include 2x TB3 controllers like on the MBP. This would have given the mini huge expansion potential. The use of only 1x TB3 controller limits usage scenarios/performance for the more demanding users that Apple appears to be targeting with their inclusion of a 6 core CPU BTO option.
What do you all think? Can the mini be a real alternative to a top end iMac (non pro version) or will I need to wait for a “modular” Mac Pro, which will surely be Xeon CPU an ECC memory based (overkill for my particular needs)?
In practice, 4K isn't saturating the data stream, so we're not sure how much actual effect it'll have with the single controller.
One eGPU like the Blackmagic can do two 4K displays -- one on HDMI and one on the downstream Thunderbolt 3 port with a USB-C to DisplayPort or HDMI cable. 5k is a little iffier. The Blackmagic can do the LG Ultrafine 5K downstream, but we haven't tried it in conjunction with a 4K on the HDMI port.
On my Vega 64 I've got in a Razer case, I've had 4x 4K HDMI and DisplayPort displays off the one card, and the one Thunderbolt port on a MacBook Pro. I don't think I'd want to run a game off of them in this configuration, but they were all 4K60 workspaces.
Any thoughts on the assumed provision of only 1 TB3 controller with respect I/O bandwidth constraints? - Will 2x 4K displays leave enough b/w to run 2x raid arrays at full performance?
Any thoughts about countering the awful iGPU performance? - Can 1x eGPU like the Blackmagic accelerate 2x 4K displays (I don’t see how, as it only has 1 downstream port and a display device terminates a TB chain). - If not, can 2x Blackmagic eGPUs be connected in parallel to the mini? I imagine that they each get the equivalent of 1 display port feed from the 2 that a TB controller can provide. As 1 display port feed can support a single 4K display, this theoretically would allow 2x 4K displays to be accelerated. - Same question concerning 5K displays, but I’m pretty sure that the single TB3 controller will exclude this possibility (a single TB controller can only provide 2 display port “feeds”, and both are needed to establish a single 5K display). So, regardless of eGPUs, the mini simply cannot support 2x 5K displays (if I understand correctly).
Such a shame that Apple didn’t include 2x TB3 controllers like on the MBP. This would have given the mini huge expansion potential. The use of only 1x TB3 controller limits usage scenarios/performance for the more demanding users that Apple appears to be targeting with their inclusion of a 6 core CPU BTO option.
What do you all think? Can the mini be a real alternative to a top end iMac (non pro version) or will I need to wait for a “modular” Mac Pro, which will surely be Xeon CPU an ECC memory based (overkill for my particular needs)?
In practice, 4K isn't saturating the data stream, so we're not sure how much actual effect it'll have with the single controller.
One eGPU like the Blackmagic can do two 4K displays -- one on HDMI and one on the downstream Thunderbolt 3 port with a USB-C to DisplayPort or HDMI cable. 5k is a little iffier. The Blackmagic can do the LG Ultrafine 5K downstream, but we haven't tried it in conjunction with a 4K on the HDMI port.
On my Vega 64 I've got in a Razer case, I've had 4x 4K HDMI and DisplayPort displays off the one card, and the one Thunderbolt port on a MacBook Pro. I don't think I'd want to run a game off of them in this configuration, but they were all 4K60 workspaces.
Many thanks for this reply! So one TB3 port (2 DisplayPort streams) on you MBP to your Vega 64 eGPU allows 4x 4K screens! Ok, now I’m impressed ... and a little confused about how this works (surely there’s not enough DisplayPort streams going to the eGPU to allow this?). Separately, in terms of mixing screens and data (raid drives for example), from what I read, one 4K screen or one 5K screen leaves plenty of bandwidth on the TB3 controller, but two 4K screens leaves significantly reduced headroom for data. Check out figure 7 on this pdf: https://thunderbolttechnology.net/sites/default/files/Thunderbolt3_TechBrief_FINAL.pdf Having said that, I get the impression that you are not seeing constraints in real life. That’s fantastic and removes a big concern for me about the new mini.
Any thoughts on the assumed provision of only 1 TB3 controller with respect I/O bandwidth constraints? - Will 2x 4K displays leave enough b/w to run 2x raid arrays at full performance?
Any thoughts about countering the awful iGPU performance? - Can 1x eGPU like the Blackmagic accelerate 2x 4K displays (I don’t see how, as it only has 1 downstream port and a display device terminates a TB chain). - If not, can 2x Blackmagic eGPUs be connected in parallel to the mini? I imagine that they each get the equivalent of 1 display port feed from the 2 that a TB controller can provide. As 1 display port feed can support a single 4K display, this theoretically would allow 2x 4K displays to be accelerated. - Same question concerning 5K displays, but I’m pretty sure that the single TB3 controller will exclude this possibility (a single TB controller can only provide 2 display port “feeds”, and both are needed to establish a single 5K display). So, regardless of eGPUs, the mini simply cannot support 2x 5K displays (if I understand correctly).
Such a shame that Apple didn’t include 2x TB3 controllers like on the MBP. This would have given the mini huge expansion potential. The use of only 1x TB3 controller limits usage scenarios/performance for the more demanding users that Apple appears to be targeting with their inclusion of a 6 core CPU BTO option.
What do you all think? Can the mini be a real alternative to a top end iMac (non pro version) or will I need to wait for a “modular” Mac Pro, which will surely be Xeon CPU an ECC memory based (overkill for my particular needs)?
In practice, 4K isn't saturating the data stream, so we're not sure how much actual effect it'll have with the single controller.
One eGPU like the Blackmagic can do two 4K displays -- one on HDMI and one on the downstream Thunderbolt 3 port with a USB-C to DisplayPort or HDMI cable. 5k is a little iffier. The Blackmagic can do the LG Ultrafine 5K downstream, but we haven't tried it in conjunction with a 4K on the HDMI port.
On my Vega 64 I've got in a Razer case, I've had 4x 4K HDMI and DisplayPort displays off the one card, and the one Thunderbolt port on a MacBook Pro. I don't think I'd want to run a game off of them in this configuration, but they were all 4K60 workspaces.
Many thanks for this reply! So one TB3 port (2 DisplayPort streams) on you MBP to your Vega 64 eGPU allows 4x 4K screens! Ok, now I’m impressed ... and a little confused about how this works (surely there’s not enough DisplayPort streams going to the eGPU to allow this?). Separately, in terms of mixing screens and data (raid drives for example), from what I read, one 4K screen or one 5K screen leaves plenty of bandwidth on the TB3 controller, but two 4K screens leaves significantly reduced headroom for data. Check out figure 7 on this pdf: https://thunderbolttechnology.net/sites/default/files/Thunderbolt3_TechBrief_FINAL.pdf Having said that, I get the impression that you are not seeing constraints in real life. That’s fantastic and removes a big concern for me about the new mini.
The eGPU isn't getting DisplayPort streams, it's generating them from the PCI-E data. The card is handling the data, and doing the heavy lifting. The tech brief here is talking about DisplayPort data in USB-C alt mode embedded in the data path.
There are constraints, but they aren't horrific and they have more to do with the fact that the PCI-E over Thunderbolt 3 connection is in essence a PCI-E 3.0 x4 slot -- the Vega 64 is performing at about 80% of the capacity of one in a PCI-E 3.0 x16 slot. My card out-performs the card integral to the iMac Pro by about 10 percent, depending on workload. Barefeats has similar data.
Any thoughts on the assumed provision of only 1 TB3 controller with respect I/O bandwidth constraints? - Will 2x 4K displays leave enough b/w to run 2x raid arrays at full performance?
Any thoughts about countering the awful iGPU performance? - Can 1x eGPU like the Blackmagic accelerate 2x 4K displays (I don’t see how, as it only has 1 downstream port and a display device terminates a TB chain). - If not, can 2x Blackmagic eGPUs be connected in parallel to the mini? I imagine that they each get the equivalent of 1 display port feed from the 2 that a TB controller can provide. As 1 display port feed can support a single 4K display, this theoretically would allow 2x 4K displays to be accelerated. - Same question concerning 5K displays, but I’m pretty sure that the single TB3 controller will exclude this possibility (a single TB controller can only provide 2 display port “feeds”, and both are needed to establish a single 5K display). So, regardless of eGPUs, the mini simply cannot support 2x 5K displays (if I understand correctly).
Such a shame that Apple didn’t include 2x TB3 controllers like on the MBP. This would have given the mini huge expansion potential. The use of only 1x TB3 controller limits usage scenarios/performance for the more demanding users that Apple appears to be targeting with their inclusion of a 6 core CPU BTO option.
What do you all think? Can the mini be a real alternative to a top end iMac (non pro version) or will I need to wait for a “modular” Mac Pro, which will surely be Xeon CPU an ECC memory based (overkill for my particular needs)?
In practice, 4K isn't saturating the data stream, so we're not sure how much actual effect it'll have with the single controller.
One eGPU like the Blackmagic can do two 4K displays -- one on HDMI and one on the downstream Thunderbolt 3 port with a USB-C to DisplayPort or HDMI cable. 5k is a little iffier. The Blackmagic can do the LG Ultrafine 5K downstream, but we haven't tried it in conjunction with a 4K on the HDMI port.
On my Vega 64 I've got in a Razer case, I've had 4x 4K HDMI and DisplayPort displays off the one card, and the one Thunderbolt port on a MacBook Pro. I don't think I'd want to run a game off of them in this configuration, but they were all 4K60 workspaces.
Many thanks for this reply! So one TB3 port (2 DisplayPort streams) on you MBP to your Vega 64 eGPU allows 4x 4K screens! Ok, now I’m impressed ... and a little confused about how this works (surely there’s not enough DisplayPort streams going to the eGPU to allow this?). Separately, in terms of mixing screens and data (raid drives for example), from what I read, one 4K screen or one 5K screen leaves plenty of bandwidth on the TB3 controller, but two 4K screens leaves significantly reduced headroom for data. Check out figure 7 on this pdf: https://thunderbolttechnology.net/sites/default/files/Thunderbolt3_TechBrief_FINAL.pdf Having said that, I get the impression that you are not seeing constraints in real life. That’s fantastic and removes a big concern for me about the new mini.
The eGPU isn't getting DisplayPort streams, it's generating them from the PCI-E data. The card is handling the data, and doing the heavy lifting. The tech brief here is talking about DisplayPort data in USB-C alt mode embedded in the data path.
There are constraints, but they aren't horrific and they have more to do with the fact that the PCI-E over Thunderbolt 3 connection is in essence a PCI-E 3.0 x4 slot -- the Vega 64 is performing at about 80% of the capacity of one in a PCI-E 3.0 x16 slot. My card out-performs the card integral to the iMac Pro by about 10 percent, depending on workload. Barefeats has similar data.
Ok, I understand. Thanks loads for this explanation.
bkkcanuck said: [...] If it is "expensive" then get the smallest one and have a USB/Thunderbolt storage option for people that want more space and don't mind slower performance.
My wife's MacBook Pro has a SATA SSD dropped in where the original hard drive used to be. It's roughly 500 mb/s. The PCIe storage in the trashcan Mac Pro is about double that. The storage in my 2016 MacBook Pro Touch Bar is 2.5 times faster than the trashcan. In actual use, you'd never notice the difference between the three without a direct, side-by-side comparison. Even with the large files we work on -- typically in the 3-5 GB range -- none of them has read or write times slow enough to make us feel like we're waiting for the machine.
The mini has definitely moved up the spectrum in terms of performance, but it's still not a "top-of-the-line" device. It's a great machine and I like it, but it's not what you'd call "high end." The CPUs are good middle class and it only offers integrated graphics. Why does a machine that uses consumer grade components for every other part of its design need the absolutely fastest, most expensive storage in the world? It's like putting nitrous injection in an Altima -- it adds cost without much benefit to the overall performance.
My question is really more academic than practical, as what you suggest makes sense and is exactly what I'll do. I wish there were a similarly invisible workaround for laptops.
You mentioned that it's not a slotted m.2 drive. Does this mean proprietary NVME slot or soldered? OWC usually makes drives or other company adapters to use fast nvme drives with macs. I am using one right now that increased my base MBA.
You mentioned that it's not a slotted m.2 drive. Does this mean proprietary NVME slot or soldered? OWC usually makes drives or other company adapters to use fast nvme drives with macs. I am using one right now that increased my base MBA.
If there are only two memory sockets available, won't each memory DIMM be 32 GB (if maxing to 64 GB)? Is there actually an aftermarket 32 GB stick (having 260-Pin DDR4 SO-DIMM DDR4 2666)?
lorin schultz said: My wife's MacBook Pro has a SATA SSD dropped in where the original hard drive used to be. It's roughly 500 mb/s. The PCIe storage in the trashcan Mac Pro is about double that. The storage in my 2016 MacBook Pro Touch Bar is 2.5 times faster than the trashcan. In actual use, you'd never notice the difference between the three without a direct, side-by-side comparison. Even with the large files we work on -- typically in the 3-5 GB range -- none of them has read or write times slow enough to make us feel like we're waiting for the machine.
The mini has definitely moved up the spectrum in terms of performance, but it's still not a "top-of-the-line" device. It's a great machine and I like it, but it's not what you'd call "high end." The CPUs are good middle class and it only offers integrated graphics. Why does a machine that uses consumer grade components for every other part of its design need the absolutely fastest, most expensive storage in the world? It's like putting nitrous injection in an Altima -- it adds cost without much benefit to the overall performance.
My question is really more academic than practical, as what you suggest makes sense and is exactly what I'll do. I wish there were a similarly invisible workaround for laptops.
Well said. Yeah, once you go from HD to SSD, it doesn't matter that much beyond that for every-day use. You'll only notice it when you get into more performance oriented stuff. That said, it's hard to say how much difference it ultimately makes in Apple's costs (i.e.: maybe they wouldn't be able to lower the price much anyway, and still maintain the margins they want).
I think my biggest criticism is that they didn't create a more 'budget' model, and don't seem to have it anymore for a basic laptop or desktop. I guess Apple always says they don't do budget stuff, but it was nice to have a couple computer models people w/o huge incomes could more easily afford/justify (for what, over a decade?).
I think Apple's answer would be, iDevice... but IMO, iDevices (as nice and fast as they are) aren't really up to the challenge of the average workflow yet (beyond the most basic stuff, for which a Chromebook would also be just fine). Unless it's just pure marketing BS, it seems Apple actually thinks their iDevices are a suitable replacement, just because they've achieved a high level of system performance. But, the problem is software/workflow, not lack of speed.
If there are only two memory sockets available, won't each memory DIMM be 32 GB (if maxing to 64 GB)? Is there actually an aftermarket 32 GB stick (having 260-Pin DDR4 SO-DIMM DDR4 2666)?
I think my biggest criticism is that they didn't create a more 'budget' model, and don't seem to have it anymore for a basic laptop or desktop. I guess Apple always says they don't do budget stuff, but it was nice to have a couple computer models people w/o huge incomes could more easily afford/justify (for what, over a decade?).
So a 4GB model like today? A hard drive model? Memory prices have not really co-operated... Maybe a lower power processor? They could have left maybe the old model up and called it their cheap model.. like they do with iPhones.
Comments
I give credit where it is due. Apple did good on this one. They could have done even a bit better by making it reach an even broader audience, but this is much better than what might have happened (i.e.: no more mini, or too redesigned of a mini).
This also shows that they've been actually listening to some of the feedback and criticisms (also, I'm hoping the TouchBar-less MBA indicates something too).
You probably already have them, or what to pick your own. If you want the best deal, then get the 5k iMac.
We need to know more about the cooling capabilities (and noise for those concerned about that), but also keep in mind that the true Pro machines use the error correcting RAM and even higher-end CPUs, etc. So, it still may not be as good, but maybe good enough for your particular situation.
I've read here (on Appleinsider) that APFS makes an external drive unsuitable for Time Machine, but nothing related to any other problems with using it for external drives. Have I missed something significant?
Even if we assume an external APFS drive may cause boot issues, it seems like an easily manageable problem. Either boot from the internal storage rather than the external, or format the external with HFS+ instead of APFS.
- Will 2x 4K displays leave enough b/w to run 2x raid arrays at full performance?
Any thoughts about countering the awful iGPU performance?
- Can 1x eGPU like the Blackmagic accelerate 2x 4K displays (I don’t see how, as it only has 1 downstream port and a display device terminates a TB chain).
- If not, can 2x Blackmagic eGPUs be connected in parallel to the mini? I imagine that they each get the equivalent of 1 display port feed from the 2 that a TB controller can provide. As 1 display port feed can support a single 4K display, this theoretically would allow 2x 4K displays to be accelerated.
- Same question concerning 5K displays, but I’m pretty sure that the single TB3 controller will exclude this possibility (a single TB controller can only provide 2 display port “feeds”, and both are needed to establish a single 5K display). So, regardless of eGPUs, the mini simply cannot support 2x 5K displays (if I understand correctly).
Such a shame that Apple didn’t include 2x TB3 controllers like on the MBP. This would have given the mini huge expansion potential. The use of only 1x TB3 controller limits usage scenarios/performance for the more demanding users that Apple appears to be targeting with their inclusion of a 6 core CPU BTO option.
What do you all think? Can the mini be a real alternative to a top end iMac (non pro version) or will I need to wait for a “modular” Mac Pro, which will surely be Xeon CPU an ECC memory based (overkill for my particular needs)?
So one TB3 port (2 DisplayPort streams) on you MBP to your Vega 64 eGPU allows 4x 4K screens! Ok, now I’m impressed ... and a little confused about how this works (surely there’s not enough DisplayPort streams going to the eGPU to allow this?).
Separately, in terms of mixing screens and data (raid drives for example), from what I read, one 4K screen or one 5K screen leaves plenty of bandwidth on the TB3 controller, but two 4K screens leaves significantly reduced headroom for data. Check out figure 7 on this pdf: https://thunderbolttechnology.net/sites/default/files/Thunderbolt3_TechBrief_FINAL.pdf
Having said that, I get the impression that you are not seeing constraints in real life. That’s fantastic and removes a big concern for me about the new mini.
The mini has definitely moved up the spectrum in terms of performance, but it's still not a "top-of-the-line" device. It's a great machine and I like it, but it's not what you'd call "high end." The CPUs are good middle class and it only offers integrated graphics. Why does a machine that uses consumer grade components for every other part of its design need the absolutely fastest, most expensive storage in the world? It's like putting nitrous injection in an Altima -- it adds cost without much benefit to the overall performance.
My question is really more academic than practical, as what you suggest makes sense and is exactly what I'll do. I wish there were a similarly invisible workaround for laptops.
I think my biggest criticism is that they didn't create a more 'budget' model, and don't seem to have it anymore for a basic laptop or desktop. I guess Apple always says they don't do budget stuff, but it was nice to have a couple computer models people w/o huge incomes could more easily afford/justify (for what, over a decade?).
I think Apple's answer would be, iDevice... but IMO, iDevices (as nice and fast as they are) aren't really up to the challenge of the average workflow yet (beyond the most basic stuff, for which a Chromebook would also be just fine). Unless it's just pure marketing BS, it seems Apple actually thinks their iDevices are a suitable replacement, just because they've achieved a high level of system performance. But, the problem is software/workflow, not lack of speed.
Yes
https://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/2666DDR4S64P/