Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2014 Mac Mini CPU performance specs
- Thread starter hipnetic
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
mini 3.0GHz dual core i7, lris, 16GB 1600MHz RAM, 1TB Fusion drive: $1399
iMac 21.5" 2.7GHz quad core i7, lris Pro, same RAM/storage: $1699
$300 for a superior CPU, a superior GPU, a half-decent-if-disgustingly-glossy display in a presumably more expensive to produce casing, a wireless keyboard and mouse (worth $138).
Which of those two has the better margin?
Good comparison! Thats really close, I bet theres a configurable Macbook Pro not that far off.
The mac mini likely makes them more money there because the consumer is paying through the nose for the processor and RAM upgrades.
But you're right, the iMac definitely becomes the better value there and the mac mini likely provides more business revenue
And at the end of the day...Lets consider this...
I have a 2012 mac mini 2.6ghz - they retailed for $899 I think
$150 for 16gb of ram
$150 for SSD + dual drive bracket $30
Monitor was $175 and substandard to the iMac display in size and pixel count
Keyboard $79
Mouse $25
~$1500
At the end of the day, you likely don't save much with the mac mini unless you already own equipment.
Last edited:
It's against forum policy to copy-and-paste a comment, especially one that is wrong on so many levels.
My gripe with soldered on RAM / iMacs with almost impossible to upgrade hard drives is one cannot walk into a retail store, Apple or otherwise, and get anything but the standard config. If I want a new Mini with 16GB of RAM my only choice is to order it directly from Apple.
They used the same components as the 13‑inch Retina MacBook Pro. They should have used the components from the 15‑inch Retina MacBook Pro and everyone would have been happy. Moves like these and offering 16GB storage for iPhones and iPads makes me start to hate Apple. Just give your customers what they want... bastards...
Hyper-threading uses only the AVAILABLE execution resources of a processor core. That means Hyper-threading does not improve the performance of a single core (i.e. the performance stays the same).
Regarding the screenshot: The four other cores do nearly nothing because they are virtual cores and the real cores have still enough execution resources. Handbrake (x264 CoDec) can use all 8 cores.
Then your post was off-topic. This is a thread about the new Mac Mini. You posted a one-liner about it taking Apple too long to provide USB3 ports. Either you were misinformed about the new Mini being the first Mini to have USB3, or you were making a useless off-topic comment.
FWIW, I suspect that the AirPort Extreme lacks USB3 not because Apple is behind the times as far as technology, but because they're making a conscious decision to limit its abilities. They only want you to use that USB port to hook up a printer. If you want disk storage attached to your router, they want to sell you a Time Capsule.
I was definitely in the "Yesssss!!!" camp as soon as mini appeared in the keynote, and posted as such in the thread. When the full specs were revealed though, it's really hard to argue that this is about a weak of a "refresh" as you can get and it's completely valid for enthusiasts to gripe about it.
Yes, for some people the new specs may indeed be "good enough" for many typical computing tasks, however that doesn't mean Apple should be immune from criticism (especially on a tech forum) when they finally refresh a product after 2 years and in some cases it's actually a downgrade and less of a value proposition than it was previously, which considering the timeframe is pretty disappointing, to say the least.
The particular argument that "Hey, Apple is a business as they want to make money!" is truly bizarre in the context of this site and heck, as an argument in of itself regardless of the forum. Well of course, every private company exists for the purpose of making a profit, so by that definition no critique of any company's products are valid, which is of course ridiculous.
And what is the title of this thread specifically> It's not "Apple has just killed their stock by releasing the new mini!" - it's about comparing the most recent model to the 2-year old model it replaces and discussing its inherent (lack of) value proposition. That is a primary reason why tech forums exist - to get feedback and examine products in more detail than what they may offer to uses other than the parent corporations bottom line.
You want to make those arguments in a thread where someone is arguing that Apple is putting their future profit earnings in jeopardy by not capitalizing more fully on MS's Win8 fiasco and sacrificing some margin in the sake of market share, fine - but it really doesn't make sense here when people are legitimately ticked about an incredibly weak 'update' of a product line they've been waiting a long time for.
Yes, for some people the new specs may indeed be "good enough" for many typical computing tasks, however that doesn't mean Apple should be immune from criticism (especially on a tech forum) when they finally refresh a product after 2 years and in some cases it's actually a downgrade and less of a value proposition than it was previously, which considering the timeframe is pretty disappointing, to say the least.
The particular argument that "Hey, Apple is a business as they want to make money!" is truly bizarre in the context of this site and heck, as an argument in of itself regardless of the forum. Well of course, every private company exists for the purpose of making a profit, so by that definition no critique of any company's products are valid, which is of course ridiculous.
And what is the title of this thread specifically> It's not "Apple has just killed their stock by releasing the new mini!" - it's about comparing the most recent model to the 2-year old model it replaces and discussing its inherent (lack of) value proposition. That is a primary reason why tech forums exist - to get feedback and examine products in more detail than what they may offer to uses other than the parent corporations bottom line.
You want to make those arguments in a thread where someone is arguing that Apple is putting their future profit earnings in jeopardy by not capitalizing more fully on MS's Win8 fiasco and sacrificing some margin in the sake of market share, fine - but it really doesn't make sense here when people are legitimately ticked about an incredibly weak 'update' of a product line they've been waiting a long time for.
Very true. But that iMac isn't going to be a great option for:
1) Someone wanting to put something in a rack space (or closet) to use as a server.
2) Someone wanting an HTPC which fits discretely under their television.
3) Old folks who don't like laptops (for whatever reason) and are thinking about getting a new PC, but who are looking to save a few bucks by leveraging the monitor, keyboard, and mouse that they already own.
The new base model Mini can still be a good fit for #2 and #3, and now it's $100 cheaper. It's not even bad as a file server or iTunes server. If you need a more powerful Plex server, it's lacking. Another group that the new models don't work for, where the older models did were:
4) Power users who want to upgrade the hard drive themselves, upgrade the memory themselves to save money, and/or want a high-powered PC for video production, or developers who want to compile their code faster. What does everyone in this use case have in common? Their people who are going to crack open the case and mess with things (thus complicating Apple's warranty/repair process) and who want to save money rather than hand that money over to Apple for upgrades. Sad, but not surprising, that Apple doesn't mind tossing this group to the curb.
I feel your pain. See my comments above as to why Apple management probably doesn't care. It's unfortunate, but Apple doesn't care about tinkerers and people who like to upgrade things themselves. They'll offer some of that upgradability to folks shelling out the big bucks up front on a Mac Pro, but even that box is limited in what and how you can upgrade it. I would have loved to see them take the Mac Mini and move it a little *more* in the direction of upgradability (e.g., making it a bit easier to upgrade the hard disk and having an easy port and space for a 2nd internal drive where you didn't need to partially disassemble it).
Same here. Having a 2012 i7 all I wanted was the same case with a speed bump; Haswell 2.6-2.8 i7 quad, TB2 and Iris or (better yet) Iris Pro. I was ready to order during lunch right after the event was finished. Soldered RAM would have ticked me off but I would have ordered 16GB (while muttering nasty words).
All I got was slapped in the face.
I wasn't in the market, but if I had been, it would have been a slap to the face, a kick to the groin, a douse with gasoline, and then a lit match.
Questions on comparison chart
Excellent comparison chart, thanks for digging that up!
I have some questions, if you don't mind answering them.
1. I do mostly email, MS Office, browsing and streaming (mostly youtube videos) with all open at once. It seems controversial whether or not the 2012 Ivy Bridge 2.3GHz quad core i-7's 2 extra cores would be helpful at all, if even a little bit. I'm looking for your opinion on this.
2. Also, I see in your chart that the single thread rating of the 2012 quad core 2.3 is 1612, while even the lowest 2014 dual core 1.4 is 1564, just a little bit lower, and the 2014 2.6 is 1823, over 200 points higher than the 2012 quad 2.3. How important is the single thread rating for usage like mine? Is the higher clock speed and Haswell CPU more important than the 2012's 4 cores in this situation?
3. I see the CPU Mark scores in red. The 2012 quad scores are clearly better in this area. Is the CPU Mark score a total of all cores maxed out? Or what does the CPU Mark score mean and how important is it in my situation?
4. Is the 2012 quad core more likely to "future proof" my mini against higher and higher CPU intensive apps/tasks in the future?
I ordered a new 2012 quad core i-7 today before they were all gone, and it should arrive next week. I'd like to know more about the speed differences before I open the 2012 Mac Mini box, so if I decide not to keep it and buy a 2014 2.6 instead, I can sell the 2012 as a new unopened box product. After reading a LOT about the differences between the 2012 and 2014, I'm pretty familiar with all the differences except for the above questions and how much faster the Iris graphics are than the 4000's (I'm just using a 1440x900 19" monitor). If you have any info on that, I'd appreciate that too.
Any help you can offer is appreciated. Thank you!
Excellent comparison chart, thanks for digging that up!
I have some questions, if you don't mind answering them.
1. I do mostly email, MS Office, browsing and streaming (mostly youtube videos) with all open at once. It seems controversial whether or not the 2012 Ivy Bridge 2.3GHz quad core i-7's 2 extra cores would be helpful at all, if even a little bit. I'm looking for your opinion on this.
2. Also, I see in your chart that the single thread rating of the 2012 quad core 2.3 is 1612, while even the lowest 2014 dual core 1.4 is 1564, just a little bit lower, and the 2014 2.6 is 1823, over 200 points higher than the 2012 quad 2.3. How important is the single thread rating for usage like mine? Is the higher clock speed and Haswell CPU more important than the 2012's 4 cores in this situation?
3. I see the CPU Mark scores in red. The 2012 quad scores are clearly better in this area. Is the CPU Mark score a total of all cores maxed out? Or what does the CPU Mark score mean and how important is it in my situation?
4. Is the 2012 quad core more likely to "future proof" my mini against higher and higher CPU intensive apps/tasks in the future?
I ordered a new 2012 quad core i-7 today before they were all gone, and it should arrive next week. I'd like to know more about the speed differences before I open the 2012 Mac Mini box, so if I decide not to keep it and buy a 2014 2.6 instead, I can sell the 2012 as a new unopened box product. After reading a LOT about the differences between the 2012 and 2014, I'm pretty familiar with all the differences except for the above questions and how much faster the Iris graphics are than the 4000's (I'm just using a 1440x900 19" monitor). If you have any info on that, I'd appreciate that too.
Any help you can offer is appreciated. Thank you!
Last edited:
Important discussion here about quad vs not, but I find the low numbers interesting too. At face value, the 1.4 should be dragging behind the 2s but it's not. Proportionally, the 1.4 is behaving like a 2.0. It was obviously designed to operate inside the heat constrained Air, but in a mini can it run close to 2.0 much of the time without breaking a sweat? Is the 1.4 a better value than it appears?
No offense, but that doesn't really prove anything. A 1Ghz quad core would look the same and would be slower 
No offense, but that doesn't really prove anything. A 1Ghz quad core would look the same and would be slower
No offense, but I'm not sure you're grasping the concept of resource utilization. And your hyperbole doesn't even apply in any practical sense if we're comparing a 2012 2.6 GHz i7 Mac Mini to any 2014 Mac Mini configuration.
I understand exactly how it works. I'm just saying that because your usage looks like that, it doesn't automatically mean it's faster, or will feel faster to the user (depending on the task of course)
Last edited:
estimating mac mini 2014 performance
http://www.primatelabs.com/blog/201...ign=Feed:+primatelabsblog+(Primate+Labs+Blog)
for me
http://www.primatelabs.com/blog/201...ign=Feed:+primatelabsblog+(Primate+Labs+Blog)
for me
Okay, how about this. I'm guessing you noticed how simultaneously busy the cores were in the three common-usage graphs I posted. Now look again at the CPU Mark numbers from the image below. Under the common circumstances I presented, I think a simple, logical conclusion that a quad core 2012 is faster than any dual core 2014 isn't that far fetched.
I'm not disagreeing, but perhaps I'm not coming across as I'm expecting.
I've got an i3 Haswell and i7 Ivy desktop with the same SSD. I can't tell any real performance difference doing basic tasks like email/Internet/office. In sure the i7 slaughters the i3 in benchmarks, but doesn't feel all that different unless you're rendering video/gaming
If one feels the 2012 quad is a better fit, great! If you're happy with the 2014 dual, great! The 2014 isn't going to feel like going from a SSD back to a 5400RPM HDD
I've got an i3 Haswell and i7 Ivy desktop with the same SSD. I can't tell any real performance difference doing basic tasks like email/Internet/office. In sure the i7 slaughters the i3 in benchmarks, but doesn't feel all that different unless you're rendering video/gaming
If one feels the 2012 quad is a better fit, great! If you're happy with the 2014 dual, great! The 2014 isn't going to feel like going from a SSD back to a 5400RPM HDD
I bought a like-new open box 2012 i7 Mini yesterday for $620 at Best Buy. Yes I know for $620 I can build a kicka$$ PC, which I have (my main box is a i7 3770K OC'ed to 4.5, been using it for two years now), but I still want a powerful and small Mac that can house an SSD and HDD, as I'm doing more and more of my stuff on the Mac. I tried a hackintosh a while ago and it's not something I want to do again.
For the first time I ever in my 25yrs of computer experience, I gladly bought "outdated" 2yr old hardware over a newly released model, and not at a bargain basement price either. I'll be busy today transferring the drives over from my 2012 i5 Mini.
For the first time I ever in my 25yrs of computer experience, I gladly bought "outdated" 2yr old hardware over a newly released model, and not at a bargain basement price either. I'll be busy today transferring the drives over from my 2012 i5 Mini.
I'm not disagreeing, but perhaps I'm not coming across as I'm expecting.
I've got an i3 Haswell and i7 Ivy desktop with the same SSD. I can't tell any real performance difference doing basic tasks like email/Internet/office. In sure the i7 slaughters the i3 in benchmarks, but doesn't feel all that different unless you're rendering video/gaming
If one feels the 2012 quad is a better fit, great! If you're happy with the 2014 dual, great! The 2014 isn't going to feel like going from a SSD back to a 5400RPM HDD
Are you talking about Windows or are you talking about OS X? Because anyone that has beach balled when switching from one app to another in a different space could easily have suffered from lack of cores.