2014 Mini is 1k days old!

[Boyd01]

Thus: there's been "little incentive" to update it? Other than spec sheet e-peen comparison.

The top 2012 mini is 50% faster than the top 2014 mini.... but there has been "little incentive" to revise it? Guess it depends on your priorities, I have a 2012 2.6 quad that I use for video and audio editing, the additional cores make a huge difference in render times.

But I suppose there is "little incentive" to upgrade from Apple's point of view, because they would rather have me buy an iMac.

 

[ActionableMango]

So it isn't completely beyond Apple's logic to throw out the bricky part from the mini to make it even smaller.

True, and the portables still use bricks too.

However, that was 11 years ago. I prefer to think that getting rid of the cumbersome brick is a permanent design improvement for the Mini. Just like dropping the 1-button mouse--I don't think they'll go back.

 

[CWallace]

The top 2012 mini is 50% faster than the top 2014 mini.... but there has been "little incentive" to revise it?

In multi-core, not single-core (where the 2014 model is ahead).

 

[Boyd01]

In multi-core, not single-core

Like I said, I am interested in video rendering times where there's a huge difference. What would be an example of software that would outperform on the 2014? Games maybe? I imagine the 2014 graphics card would also help there.

But games don't interest me.

 

[tibas92013]

Thing is though in your case you could have bought a 2012 Mini with 8 GB and SSD in it back in 2012 (resulting in performance almost identical to what you have now). .

As I recall When I purchased my Refurbished MM(Late 2012) from the Apple On-Line Store there were no Refurbished MM's available with an SSD. My options at that time were only Fusion or a Hard drive.

 

[Cheffy Dave]

https://www.macobserver.com/news/mac-mini-turns-1000-days-old-today

Maybe Apple will sneak out a new Mini while we're not looking!

They can say what they want, it is a full fledge Apple on the cheap, APPLE CAN'T HAVE THAT!

 

[Count Blah]

Like I said, I am interested in video rendering times where there's a huge difference. What would be an example of software that would outperform on the 2014? Games maybe? I imagine the 2014 graphics card would also help there.

But games don't interest me.

Which is why a mini, sans dedicated graphics card, is better served by a more powerful CPU - something Apple doesn't want to do 'cus it cuts into MBP/iMac sales.
[doublepost=1501032241][/doublepost]

As I recall When I purchased my Refurbished MM(Late 2012) from the Apple On-Line Store there were no Refurbished MM's available with an SSD. My options at that time were only Fusion or a Hard drive.

Good thing the 2012 MM is easy to upgrade, unlike the purposely gimped 2014.

 

[EdwardC]

I use a 2012 Mini I5 with 16gigs of RAM, 5400 RPM HD for my main work computer and I'm still so very pleased with it even at 5 years old it's a great device.

 

[CWallace]

Which is why a mini, sans dedicated graphics card, is better served by a more powerful CPU - something Apple doesn't want to do 'cus it cuts into MBP/iMac sales.

I doubt many folks are cross-shopping a Mac Mini and a MacBook Pro.

As for the iMac, now that all Retina models ship with dedicated GPUs, that only leaves the base model with an integrated GPU so no competition there, really. Heck, they'd actually compliment each other - iMac if you need a display, Mac Mini if you do not.

 

[throAU]

As I recall When I purchased my Refurbished MM(Late 2012) from the Apple On-Line Store there were no Refurbished MM's available with an SSD. My options at that time were only Fusion or a Hard drive.

I wasn't talking about your specific case specifically.

More that the hardware did exist and was on the market, in the 2012 model line up.

People comparing CPU performance across mini models are kinda missing apple's intended audience with it. I'm speaking from Apple's perspective as a company intending to put out a product lineup to make money with.

It is an entry level device. There has been no revolution in hardware outside of thunderbolt 3/USB-C.
The average intended mini customer would not know or care about the performance difference between a 2012 or a 2014 machine, as most people are IO bound or RAM bound for most of the time they spend using the device. Most end user desktop machines spend the majority of their life 80%-90% idle on CPU, waiting for the user.

Connectivity via USB-C/TB3 is a highly visible compatibility-with-new-standards issue to be resolved.

For the "typical" entry level computer user, you could stick a core2 duo 1.8 in the machine and given sufficient ram and fast storage it would be quick enough.

The huge number of users on this forum still using pre-2010 macbooks quite happily will attest to that. If you're doing stuff like video editing you aren't the "typical" mini user. You're an anomaly. There's nothing wrong with that, but just be aware that Apple is not aiming the Mini at people such as yourself.

 

[Count Blah]

I doubt many folks are cross-shopping a Mac Mini and a MacBook Pro.

As for the iMac, now that all Retina models ship with dedicated GPUs, that only leaves the base model with an integrated GPU so no competition there, really. Heck, they'd actually compliment each other - iMac if you need a display, Mac Mini if you do not.

An old, outdated, and underpowered Mac mini isn't really a compelling option.

Just google "Mac mini rack" for the real reason you don't see a powerful Mac mini anymore. Apple doesn't want to produce a compelling Mac mini, plain and simple.

 

[CWallace]

Just google "Mac mini rack" for the real reason you don't see a powerful Mac mini anymore. Apple doesn't want to produce a compelling Mac mini, plain and simple.

MacMiniColo and MacMiniVault offer the 2014 model so they are still being stuck into racks in server farms.

An old, outdated, and underpowered Mac mini isn't really a compelling option.

If 4 cores really were the majority of Mac Mini sales, I would imagine Apple would have updated the thing with a quad-core CPU option once Intel shipped it. All Retina iMacs are quad-core CPUs so they're not going to compete with each other so there was no competitive reason to keep the Mac Mini at two cores, which leaves economic reasons (not enough unit sales within the total product mix to support the offering).

 

[AZhappyjack]

If 4 cores really were the majority of Mac Mini sales, I would imagine Apple would have updated the thing with a quad-core CPU option once Intel shipped it. All Retina iMacs are quad-core CPUs so they're not going to compete with each other so there was no competitive reason to keep the Mac Mini at two cores, which leaves economic reasons (not enough unit sales within the total product mix to support the offering).

It's a chicken and egg thing, IMO. IF Apple improved the specs, who's to say that it would not sell significantly better. There are many people who would welcome a better spec'ed headless Mac.

I'm not too sure about whatever they're putting in the water supply in Cupertino …

 

[Count Blah]

If 4 cores really were the majority of Mac Mini sales, I would imagine Apple would have updated the thing with a quad-core CPU option once Intel shipped it. All Retina iMacs are quad-core CPUs so they're not going to compete with each other so there was no competitive reason to keep the Mac Mini at two cores, which leaves economic reasons (not enough unit sales within the total product mix to support the offering).

It's one of the reasons the 2012 MM is worth its weight in gold, that and it can be upgraded. Not MAJOR s long points Apple purposely took away. Your position seems to be at odds with reality.

Who in their right mind is going to rack mount dual core MMs, when it is such a downgrade over prior iterations? The ultimate utility of the 2012, dwarfs the 2014 in this regard.