Tell me more about how the stacking works. If I push a job from Xcode to them, does it split the load between all of them, or does one take over one task, the next takes over the next task in a queue, etc?
I'd imagine even TB3 bandwidth isn't enough for wanting to do main memory accesses across a such stack.
Tell me more about how the stacking works. If I push a job from Xcode to them, does it split the load between all of them, or does one take over one task, the next takes over the next task in a queue, etc?
I'd imagine even TB3 bandwidth isn't enough for wanting to do main memory accesses across a such stack.
No.
Apple demonstrated distributing an embarrassingly parallel rendering job across 10gig ethernet with a compatible app. There is no fancy interlink, there is no auto-load sharing or Grand Central extension. This is all in software, and not for all tasks.
Seriously! A fully configured Mac Mini without keyboard, mouse and monitor is over $4299!
for what? I7 6 core, with 64gb ram and a 1.5tb SSD. That’s a $1800 PC. Come on apple. Get real.
Who’s forcing you to order the maxed-out top-tier machine? Are you OK? Do you need help?
Oh, you’re just whining about price. Would it make you feel better if Apple didn’t offer that top-tier? If everyone of all income-levels had to buy the same exact lower-tier machine? Would that make it better?
Even the lower spec'd machines are ridiculously overpriced. I guess some people don't mind paying for "awesome engineering as a feature". Count me out. The value proposition just isn't there. And don't give me that crap about Apple using more awesomer components than every other computer manufacturer. They source the same parts as every other manufacturer. They don't get better Intel I3 chips. They don't get better RAM. They don't get better hard drives.
Core i7 comparison
$1849 - 21.5" 4K iMac 3.6GHz Quad Core i7 w/ 16GB RAM and 256GB SSD, Radeon Pro 555 2GB DDR5 $1774 - 28" 4K Samsung UHD monitor ($295) Mac mini 3.2GHz Hexa Core i7 ($1229) w/16GB RAM (Amazon $150), logitech keyboard/mouse ($100) and 256GB SSD, Intel UHD Graphics 630
$1049 21.5" iMac 2.3GHz Dual Core i5, 8GB RAM, 1TB HDD, 1920x1080 Display, Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640 $1100 24" Mac mini 3.6 Ghz Quad Core i3, 8GB RAM, 128GB SSD, ViewSonic 2560x1440 IPS Display ($221), Logitiech Keyboard & Mouse $100, Intel UHD Graphics 630 The Mac Mini is priced very reasonably.
If you think the Mac mini is "ridiculously overpriced" then Macs simply aren't for you. I would suggest this forum is more your speed: https://www.dell.com/community/
All of this price whining is just stupid. The Mac mini sits between the two iMacs in both price and performance. If Apple releases the mini on a regular basis then it becomes a much better deal than the iMac since you get to reuse the monitor, keyboard and mouse.
Tell me more about how the stacking works. If I push a job from Xcode to them, does it split the load between all of them, or does one take over one task, the next takes over the next task in a queue, etc?
I'd imagine even TB3 bandwidth isn't enough for wanting to do main memory accesses across a such stack.
No.
Apple demonstrated distributing an embarrassingly parallel rendering job across 10gig ethernet with a compatible app. There is no fancy interlink, there is no auto-load sharing or Grand Central extension. This is all in software, and not for all tasks.
I wasn't thinking anything was automagic as most software doesn't target such a setup, but specifically, if Xcode would be running integrations parallel across all the Minis, or one programmers would run just on one, the next batched job would run on the next, etc.
I agree with everyone who says this is horribly overpriced. I cursed for a good few hours, but ultimately caved and ordered the $1,100 i5 6-core config, 256GB. I had to reming myself that I am not paying for specs. I am paying to have Mac OS and not Windows. That is worth the markup.
highest specced out Mac mini, once you also get a display, keyboard etc is into iMac Pro price territory, all because of the disgusting price Apple charges for RAM and storage upgrades. And that isn’t for a 5K display. This would not be makiing me so disappointed if Apple had made the SSD to be user upgradable like the RAM.
Yeah, if you want an all-in-one, the 5k iMac is a great deal. I just don't want an all-in-one.
This is pretty much the machine I was hoping it would be. Good job, Apple!
Price is definitely high. Anyone knows if audio out port on this new Mini is also digital out?
It's a little high, but Apple stuff usually is. Also, would (similar) cheaper PC systems actually be equivalent?
But, here's the thing.... if this works for me, it saves me from having to buy an iMac Pro or a old, but still expensive, Mac Pro. There really wasn't any other option. Now there is. This is as good or better than a MacBook Pro 15", but it's just the computer part so I don't need the screen, TouchBar, crumby keyboard, etc. (The other option I was considering is a 2018 MBP 13" with eGPU, but this is faster, better, cheaper.)
So, unless I find out some bad surprise once people start actually testing them, I'm pretty happy with this.
Mid-2010 $699 Mid-2011 $599 Late 2012 $599 Late 2014 $499 Late 2018 $799
Perhaps Apple should have called it a Pro...
I expected it to be more expensive with higher end processors and SSD, though I guess there is a good point there about the base model (with i3). But, i think the i5/i7 models are priced fairly well considering what we get.
I'm not sure why everybody complains about Mac RAM prices as if it's the first time they see that Apple RAM prices are high. They've only been pricing RAM this way for 30 years. At least they gave us an option this time of Bring-Your-Own-DRAM this time. Try to feel fortunate for that.
Yes, it's not the $500 machine it used to be but neither is the perceived customer base. Originally this was a machine for switchers who got to keep their monitor, keyboard and mouse. This machine is for power users (including the SOHO and home theater crowd), creatives who need something other than a laptop, developers and server farm companies. That's what Apple is marketing this machine to. Apple is going to sell 20 times more MacBook Airs than this machine in the first three months. A general purpose machine is not why it exists.
No kidding, and great points. Except, I actually be they will sell quite a few of them. I have no frame of reference for comparison to MacBook Air, but I think they will become a pretty good selling model in their lineup now.
Tell me more about how the stacking works. If I push a job from Xcode to them, does it split the load between all of them, or does one take over one task, the next takes over the next task in a queue, etc?
I'd imagine even TB3 bandwidth isn't enough for wanting to do main memory accesses across a such stack.
I can't speak to Xcode, but when I was doing 3D animation/rendering, the app I used had a render-farm app that took jobs from the main app and managed the distribution to any number of machines available on the network. Generally, this would be done over Ethernet, but I suppose it depends on what is being distributed. It probably works differently for other kinds of distributed apps... or maybe it was as simple as each one running a different pro app while one of them was fully available to the user.
I suppose for some users, having a little stack of these with screen-sharing or some kind of KVM switching would be better than having some 18 core monster machine.
I agree with everyone who says this is horribly overpriced. I cursed for a good few hours, but ultimately caved and ordered the $1,100 i5 6-core config, 256GB. I had to reming myself that I am not paying for specs. I am paying to have Mac OS and not Windows. That is worth the markup.
Maybe I'm just out of touch with the PC market, but where do people find the deals on 6-core i5/i7 PCs in a really good design/case with super-fast SSD for cheap prices?
As one of the posts above showed, an example seemed to come in at like $850 or something like that, with lower specs. I'll gladly pay an extra $hundred or two for an Apple with macOS, as you say. But, the way people are talking... it's like Apple is charging double or something.
I'm a tad confused. The T2 chip is supposed to enable things like Touch ID and camera control. But these devices don't exist on a Mac Mini. Can someone provide a list of all the things this T2 chip won't be doing in the Mini? Is it more like a T1.5 chip since it only does certain functions?
Mac Mini Base Price at Launch Late 2018 $799 Perhaps Apple should have called it a Pro...
Using the Feds CPI numbers, the original Mac mini with a G4 PPC processor and slow small HD that cost $499 would be $644.99 in 2018 money. The base Mini is in every way a better machine and $799 is not that big a deal unless you are used to buying throwaways from the bottom of the market. My only question would concern the use of an i3 CPU instead of an i5.
For me the base price is also a little steep (€899 in Holland, including taxes). Primarily because, aside from the CPU, I don't see where all that money could have gone to. The ram still starts at a measily 8GB for example. And even though it's PCI-E storage, it's only 128GB compared to a previously 1TB HDD... pricewise that won't make a really big difference. And since the base model "only" has a quadcore CPU, that won't cost the difference either I believe.
But what bugs me the most is that they sell the Intel UHD 630 as having up to 60% more power... well that would be the bare minimum what I would expect for a computer that hasn't been upgraded in 4 years. And given the higher price, why not build in a tiny cheap dedicated GPU? Apple has done that before and it was a miniature beast compared to the integrated GPU options at the time, ánd it costed about the same as the base Mini of today.
Still, thanks to the user replaceable RAM and possibly SSD, and the very powerful CPU options, I find the new Mini very attractive as a work machine for Photoshop and Illustrator: it's small, quiet, and it won't cost as much as a MacBook Pro which I primarily use as a desktop with a bigger monitor (so i never use it's keyboard, monitor or touchbar).
Oh my gosh!! The PC crap is cheap for a reason and its not that Dell or HP or Lenovo are thinking of the customer. They have no choice but to sell it for a small profit because the market is flooded with $99 to $200 junk that people are willing to take a chance on. This only forces prices even further down. Its a complete race to the bottom by making it up in volume. I can't tell you how many $1000 Dell towers I have purchased with power supplies that fail after just a year. I can't figure out how they make money sending techs to replace power supplies on site. HP is worse for quality.
I'm a tad confused. The T2 chip is supposed to enable things like Touch ID and camera control. But these devices don't exist on a Mac Mini. Can someone provide a list of all the things this T2 chip won't be doing in the Mini? Is it more like a T1.5 chip since it only does certain functions?
Yeah, I'm not sure I know all the things it does, but the main stuff here would be things like the storage encryption, secure vault, and stuff like HEVC encoding.
davgreg said: My only question would concern the use of an i3 CPU instead of an i5.
Yeah, I thought that was a bit odd too. Though, I'm guessing a 4-core i3 is probably better than a 2-core i5 in the previous model?
For me the base price is also a little steep (€899 in Holland, including taxes). Primarily because, aside from the CPU, I don't see where all that money could have gone to. The ram still starts at a measily 8GB for example. And even though it's PCI-E storage, it's only 128GB compared to a previously 1TB HDD... pricewise that won't make a really big difference. And since the base model "only" has a quadcore CPU, that won't cost the difference either I believe.
But what bugs me the most is that they sell the Intel UHD 630 as having up to 60% more power... well that would be the bare minimum what I would expect for a computer that hasn't been upgraded in 4 years. And given the higher price, why not build in a tiny cheap dedicated GPU? Apple has done that before and it was a miniature beast compared to the integrated GPU options at the time, ánd it costed about the same as the base Mini of today.
Still, thanks to the user replaceable RAM and possibly SSD, and the very powerful CPU options, I find the new Mini very attractive as a work machine for Photoshop and Illustrator: it's small, quiet, and it won't cost as much as a MacBook Pro which I primarily use as a desktop with a bigger monitor (so i never use it's keyboard, monitor or touchbar).
Not sure on raw parts costs, but it will make a HUGE performance difference!
re: GPU - I think this reflects more the 'pro' target market of the machine. The pros using it in server farms or application-crunching farms won't care much about what GPU it has, while more creative pro-types will just add an eGPU. It just isn't much aimed at the home gamer, but then the mini never really was.
re: laptop replacement - that's an interesting point. I wonder how many of the MBP buyers actually need a laptop, as the machine sits plugged in at their desks 99% of the time anyway. It might be convenient to take from work to home, I suppose... but these might sell to a lot of those people more than we realize. There wasn't really a machine for them previously, except for a MBP. They had no other choice... now they do.
Exactly. I still have 3 years to go before my current MBP is written off financially, and was thinking of buying an iMac and lugigng that around. Less convenient to carry, but at least I'm using all of the machine I'm paying for. With the MBP I'm using it as a closed desktop about 99% of the time, completely ignoring the investment in the monitor, keyboard, touchpad and touchbar. Hence my pondering if the integrated UHD 630 would be sufficient for Illustrator/Photoshop work (packaging design mostly, so no bigger than 500MB) Saves serious money, is very easy to carry around, and I'm using all of what I pay for.
Seriously! A fully configured Mac Mini without keyboard, mouse and monitor is over $4299!
for what? I7 6 core, with 64gb ram and a 1.5tb SSD. That’s a $1800 PC. Come on apple. Get real.
Who’s forcing you to order the maxed-out top-tier machine? Are you OK? Do you need help?
Oh, you’re just whining about price. Would it make you feel better if Apple didn’t offer that top-tier? If everyone of all income-levels had to buy the same exact lower-tier machine? Would that make it better?
Even the lower spec'd machines are ridiculously overpriced. I guess some people don't mind paying for "awesome engineering as a feature". Count me out. The value proposition just isn't there. And don't give me that crap about Apple using more awesomer components than every other computer manufacturer. They source the same parts as every other manufacturer. They don't get better Intel I3 chips. They don't get better RAM. They don't get better hard drives.
Actually....
Apple is generally not making these machines from the commodity parts bins.
its not unusual for the CPUs used in Apple machines to be variants not publically offered by Intel. Caches , CPU speeds, and other details are often different from what you get in standard Intel part numbers. They do this both in lower end hardware - eg the original MacBook Air, and higher end products like iMac Pro.
SImilarly SSD - Apple has recently gone solely with PCIe SSD that are in the 3 Gbps range and are significantly higher performance than typical low priced SATA SSD. Some PC vendors do offer these as well.
RAM is a bit more mixed, but at least some of the time Apple has put extremely high performance RAM in some machines.
They aren’t gold plated toilet seats, but they also aren’t lowest cost commodity parts either.
hell I remember when the cheapest way to buy certain hard drives was to buy iPods at retail price, and rip the drives out , as even for qty 1000’s orders you could not get a better price from suppliers for the naked drive than the retail price of an iPod.
the above points are not ALWAYS the case, but are common in Macs
Seems a lazy attempt at a major update to a big product, upped the spec, and um. Nothing else. No new form factor and still no microphone (sigh). I hate to agree but it’s expensive. I have two monitors so I wanted a mini. Yes SSD is expensive and ram too but the very entry model is really bear bones. I don’t mind form factor is the same but lack of anything new other than faster and different ports makes me wonder why it’s taken sooooooo long to get a refresh. Disappointing but thankful it’s at least got released.
Mac Mini: Simply. Too. Expensive.
If you add a 4k monitor of any decent quality, a keyboard and a mouse, you land in the range of an iMac or a Mac Book/Mac Book Air.
I was planning to change my iMac (with broken HDD after only 2.5 years of moderate use), but no: I think I will stick with it until it dies (now using it in a hand-made Fusion drive couple the internal SSD with external Samsung SSD on Thunderbolt).
The original Mini was a lot more affordable and made more sense. At this price range, it loses its meaning vs iMac or other Mac products (if you want a macOS machine), and the options (RAM, SSD, Chip) are simply too expensive (200$ instead of 100$ as it was just a couple of years ago).
I take it from all the bib-dribbling and spoon-clanging that people expected a 2018 Mac mini at 2014 Mac mini prices.
I think you missed the trend line. In fairness though, Apple is moving its entire product line up market so we should have expected it.
The base configuration graph is meaningless. The mac mini of 2018 is not the same target audience. Effectively, it is a completely different computer by the same name and form factor. You either are in the target audience or you're not... if it is not for you, then you just have to pick something else. There are no more spinning rust models with 4GB of RAM just so they can hit a price point.
Comments
I'd imagine even TB3 bandwidth isn't enough for wanting to do main memory accesses across a such stack.
Apple demonstrated distributing an embarrassingly parallel rendering job across 10gig ethernet with a compatible app. There is no fancy interlink, there is no auto-load sharing or Grand Central extension. This is all in software, and not for all tasks.
$1849 - 21.5" 4K iMac 3.6GHz Quad Core i7 w/ 16GB RAM and 256GB SSD, Radeon Pro 555 2GB DDR5
$1774 - 28" 4K Samsung UHD monitor ($295) Mac mini 3.2GHz Hexa Core i7 ($1229) w/16GB RAM (Amazon $150), logitech keyboard/mouse ($100) and 256GB SSD, Intel UHD Graphics 630
$2224- 28" 4K Samsung UHD monitor ($295) Mac mini 3.2GHz Hexa Core i7 ($1229) w/16GB RAM (Amazon $150), logitech keyboard/mouse ($100) and 256GB SSD, Sonnet eGFX 550W ($270) + Radeon RX560 4GB DDR5 ($180)
$2599 - 27" 5K iMac 4.2GHz Quad Core i7 w/16GB RAM and 256GB SSD, Radeon Pro 575 4GB DDR5
Base iMac comparison
$1049 21.5" iMac 2.3GHz Dual Core i5, 8GB RAM, 1TB HDD, 1920x1080 Display, Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640
$1100 24" Mac mini 3.6 Ghz Quad Core i3, 8GB RAM, 128GB SSD, ViewSonic 2560x1440 IPS Display ($221), Logitiech Keyboard & Mouse $100, Intel UHD Graphics 630
The Mac Mini is priced very reasonably.
If you think the Mac mini is "ridiculously overpriced" then Macs simply aren't for you. I would suggest this forum is more your speed: https://www.dell.com/community/
All of this price whining is just stupid. The Mac mini sits between the two iMacs in both price and performance. If Apple releases the mini on a regular basis then it becomes a much better deal than the iMac since you get to reuse the monitor, keyboard and mouse.
I wasn't thinking anything was automagic as most software doesn't target such a setup, but specifically, if Xcode would be running integrations parallel across all the Minis, or one programmers would run just on one, the next batched job would run on the next, etc.
This is pretty much the machine I was hoping it would be. Good job, Apple!
It's a little high, but Apple stuff usually is. Also, would (similar) cheaper PC systems actually be equivalent?
But, here's the thing.... if this works for me, it saves me from having to buy an iMac Pro or a old, but still expensive, Mac Pro. There really wasn't any other option. Now there is. This is as good or better than a MacBook Pro 15", but it's just the computer part so I don't need the screen, TouchBar, crumby keyboard, etc. (The other option I was considering is a 2018 MBP 13" with eGPU, but this is faster, better, cheaper.)
So, unless I find out some bad surprise once people start actually testing them, I'm pretty happy with this.
I expected it to be more expensive with higher end processors and SSD, though I guess there is a good point there about the base model (with i3). But, i think the i5/i7 models are priced fairly well considering what we get.
No kidding, and great points. Except, I actually be they will sell quite a few of them. I have no frame of reference for comparison to MacBook Air, but I think they will become a pretty good selling model in their lineup now.
I can't speak to Xcode, but when I was doing 3D animation/rendering, the app I used had a render-farm app that took jobs from the main app and managed the distribution to any number of machines available on the network. Generally, this would be done over Ethernet, but I suppose it depends on what is being distributed. It probably works differently for other kinds of distributed apps... or maybe it was as simple as each one running a different pro app while one of them was fully available to the user.
I suppose for some users, having a little stack of these with screen-sharing or some kind of KVM switching would be better than having some 18 core monster machine.
Maybe I'm just out of touch with the PC market, but where do people find the deals on 6-core i5/i7 PCs in a really good design/case with super-fast SSD for cheap prices?
As one of the posts above showed, an example seemed to come in at like $850 or something like that, with lower specs. I'll gladly pay an extra $hundred or two for an Apple with macOS, as you say. But, the way people are talking... it's like Apple is charging double or something.
My only question would concern the use of an i3 CPU instead of an i5.
But what bugs me the most is that they sell the Intel UHD 630 as having up to 60% more power... well that would be the bare minimum what I would expect for a computer that hasn't been upgraded in 4 years. And given the higher price, why not build in a tiny cheap dedicated GPU? Apple has done that before and it was a miniature beast compared to the integrated GPU options at the time, ánd it costed about the same as the base Mini of today.
Still, thanks to the user replaceable RAM and possibly SSD, and the very powerful CPU options, I find the new Mini very attractive as a work machine for Photoshop and Illustrator: it's small, quiet, and it won't cost as much as a MacBook Pro which I primarily use as a desktop with a bigger monitor (so i never use it's keyboard, monitor or touchbar).
Yeah, I thought that was a bit odd too. Though, I'm guessing a 4-core i3 is probably better than a 2-core i5 in the previous model?
Not sure on raw parts costs, but it will make a HUGE performance difference!
re: GPU - I think this reflects more the 'pro' target market of the machine. The pros using it in server farms or application-crunching farms won't care much about what GPU it has, while more creative pro-types will just add an eGPU. It just isn't much aimed at the home gamer, but then the mini never really was.
re: laptop replacement - that's an interesting point. I wonder how many of the MBP buyers actually need a laptop, as the machine sits plugged in at their desks 99% of the time anyway. It might be convenient to take from work to home, I suppose... but these might sell to a lot of those people more than we realize. There wasn't really a machine for them previously, except for a MBP. They had no other choice... now they do.
Apple is generally not making these machines from the commodity parts bins.
its not unusual for the CPUs used in Apple machines to be variants not publically offered by Intel. Caches , CPU speeds, and other details are often different from what you get in standard Intel part numbers. They do this both in lower end hardware - eg the original MacBook Air, and higher end products like iMac Pro.
SImilarly SSD - Apple has recently gone solely with PCIe SSD that are in the 3 Gbps range and are significantly higher performance than typical low priced SATA SSD. Some PC vendors do offer these as well.
RAM is a bit more mixed, but at least some of the time Apple has put extremely high performance RAM in some machines.
They aren’t gold plated toilet seats, but they also aren’t lowest cost commodity parts either.
hell I remember when the cheapest way to buy certain hard drives was to buy iPods at retail price, and rip the drives out , as even for qty 1000’s orders you could not get a better price from suppliers for the naked drive than the retail price of an iPod.
the above points are not ALWAYS the case, but are common in Macs