Sidebar Sidebar
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

mabaker said:
Where were you when Steve nixed the whole line of PPC Macs just like that? Or when he decided that 128 MB RAM is enough for the second generation iPhone? Please, get real. Tim is just continuing steves vision.
Click to expand...

While I agree with your point, going from PPC to intel is one of the best moves Apple ever made.
 
barkmonster said:
USB 2.0 is garbage. It's slow to the point of barely catching up with Firewire 400, it has CPU overhead and it lacks the simultaneous read/write I/O of every competing connection standard including USB 3.0.

Sweet water did extensive testing with USB 3.0 for use with Pro Tools systems and it was as rock solid as any internal SATA drive regardless of if it was via onboard or PCIe controller cards.

Thunderbolt enclosures are nothing but criminally expensive multi-channel PCIe SATA 6Gb/s adapters in an case with mounting brackets and power. They're also obsessed with pre-configured systems too so buying anything other than a dual drive enclosure at most means having to pay through the nose for their choice of internal drives.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. One cannot use a USB3.0 drive as an external OS drive, but one can use a Thunderbolt as an external OS drive. It is simply because the USB3.0 protocol allows asynchronous behavior which wreaks havoc on an OS loading a critical element of itself.
 
Altis said:
You know, I was pretty bummed about the CPU performance being worse than the previous two year old model.

Then I saw my desktop Intel Q6600 Quad core (mind you, 7 years old) 105w...

2987 :(
Click to expand...

Good to know I'm not the only person still running a Q6600. :D
I did have an E6700 but bought the Q6600 off Ebay.

But, yeah, I'm bummed, too. If it were a quad there's no doubt I would buy one. But with slower performance than last year I'm going to hold off.
 
So since I will be using mine as an itunes server is it worth just grabbing a 2012 i5 and adding ram?

My main concern with getting the older model is that Apple may cripple features in future versions of OS X or drop support for it altogether.
 
Towhead said:
You are wrong. One cannot use a USB3.0 drive as an external OS drive, but one can use a Thunderbolt as an external OS drive. It is simply because the USB3.0 protocol allows asynchronous behavior which wreaks havoc on an OS loading a critical element of itself.
Click to expand...

Did I say OS drive? No I didn't so who's wrong now?

It's obvious to anyone else that I was suggesting after you BOOT from whatever drive it comes with internally, USB 3.0/Thunderbolt would provide adaquate thoughput and read/write speeds for the SECONDARY STORAGE used in addition to it for media or recording. Here's the segment in the Sweetwater video explaining how USB 3.0 works just fine for that purpose:

http://youtu.be/UYybe7QpAaQ?t=3m7s
 
Can anyone clarify if the iphone6 or ipad Air2 benchmarks are comparable to the mac mini benchmarks via Geekbench or to put it another way can they be treated as raw CPU Vs CPU benchmark figures?
 
dazed said:
So since I will be using mine as an itunes server is it worth just grabbing a 2012 i5 and adding ram?

My main concern with getting the older model is that Apple may cripple features in future versions of OS X or drop support for it altogether.
Click to expand...

Unlikely they'll do so before it would be considered unreasonable to buy a new one.

----------
Omega Mac said:
Can anyone clarify if the iphone6 or ipad Air2 benchmarks are comparable to the mac mini benchmarks via Geekbench or to put it another way can they be treated as raw CPU Vs CPU benchmark figures?
Click to expand...

They're not directly comparable. IMO Geekbench is a poor way to evaluate the capabilities of a system. It's a place to start, an easy way for us to hold discussions, but in the end how things perform is a lot more complex than Geekbench.
 
DCLB4X4 said:
Good to know I'm not the only person still running a Q6600. :D
I did have an E6700 but bought the Q6600 off Ebay.

But, yeah, I'm bummed, too. If it were a quad there's no doubt I would buy one. But with slower performance than last year I'm going to hold off.
Click to expand...

If you Google Newegg Q6600, you'll see people are still writing reviews for it despite it being discontinued in 2008. It truly is a workhorse!

One of the reasons it was so good is that it was a solid quad-core performer. I'm not sure why I would buy a dual-core today when I got a quad in 2007. I wouldn't expect it to have the same kind of shelf life I've gotten thus far from my 7 year old rig.
 
Cape Dave said:
NO NO NO! Apple hates ME! That is why they did this crappy update! They have it in for ME! They had thousands of meetings to determine how they could make ME unhappy!

Apple hates us all! But mostly ME!
Click to expand...

This is the best reply I have read in a long time . . . and yes, Apple hates you. We hate you too.



J/K
 
BTW, I purchased a 2014 Mac Mini i7, but was not happy with the graphics capability so I'm returning it.

As soon as I get a refund, I'll probably buy a MacPro. I might wait a little while hopping for Apple to upgrade before I buy it.

I didn't see any problem with the processor, I just couldn't deal with integrated video. I compared it with my Mid 2011 Mac Mini and it blew it out of the water.
 
2014 mini's graphics

Buckaroo said:
BTW, I purchased a 2014 Mac Mini i7, but was not happy with the graphics capability so I'm returning it.

As soon as I get a refund, I'll probably buy a MacPro. I might wait a little while hopping for Apple to upgrade before I buy it.

I didn't see any problem with the processor, I just couldn't deal with integrated video. I compared it with my Mid 2011 Mac Mini and it blew it out of the water.
Click to expand...

I'm also looking at the mini, trying to decide between a 2012 quad and the 2014 dual. If the graphics on the 2014 aren't adequate for you, the 2012's would be abysmal. What was it about the 2014 graphics that you're not happy with? Thanks!
 
tjktony said:
I'm also looking at the mini, trying to decide between a 2012 quad and the 2014 dual. If the graphics on the 2014 aren't adequate for you, the 2012's would be abysmal. What was it about the 2014 graphics that you're not happy with? Thanks!
Click to expand...

Certain videos that played fine on my Mac Mini 2011 and my iMac 2009 were very choppy. The inspector said it was playing at 29.xx fps, but you could easily see that it was not showing up on the screen correctly.
 
Buckaroo said:
Certain videos that played fine on my Mac Mini 2011 and my iMac 2009 were very choppy. The inspector said it was playing at 29.xx fps, but you could easily see that it was not showing up on the screen correctly.
Click to expand...

Hello I am a first time poster here and after getting the 2014 11in air which i like quite a bit i was interested in getting a mini. And while I am quite disappointed no quad core option exists i guess i don't understand how anyone could tolerate the intel 4000 series from the 2012 model. I have that in my first gen surface pro and it SUCKS. The hd 5000 on my air running windows 8.1 in vmware performs better than the 4000 on my surface running native at times (looking at you rayman origins). Are the iris problems driver related? I see no reason the video plays slower on iris vs a 4000. Sorry just looking for answers. Slow video bugs the hell out of me.

On a side note nice to meet you all :) and
I do like my air but if i had it to do over again i would have got 8GB RAM if i buy a mini its getting 16GB our of the gate and the 256MB SSD....and if i can talk my self into it the i7......May have to wait a month or 2 just did an x99 (5930K) build.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back