Virtually everything has been considered in this thread.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/the-new-mac-mini-is-almost-certainly-coming.1681773/
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.
2018 Mini Spec/Price Predictions/Hopes
- Thread starter krause734
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Virtually everything has been considered in this thread.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/the-new-mac-mini-is-almost-certainly-coming.1681773/The lower end of Redheeler's prediction list looks very unlikely - especially with a 500Gb Fusion Drive as Apple have never offered Fusion in that size of configuration - it costs $250 to go from 500Gb HD to 1Tb Fusion in the current base level Mini. I doubt that saving $10 using a 500Gb HD over a 1Tb HD will make much of a dent in that - and that's in the knowledge that the 2014 Mini is so old that Apple define a 1Tb Fusion Drive on that to include 128Gb of SSD rather than the much smaller amount (one tech note says 24Gb SSD in modern iMac Fusion drives) in the 1Tb Fusion Drive you'd get offered in the 2017 iMac. Obviously, if 24Gb of SSD isn't enough to store the running Mac image on a 32Gb RAM machine you know you're in trouble!
I'd forget about a 128Gb SSD portion in Redheeler's higher SKUs - that's only there because of historical quirk now - 1Tb Fusion is crippled with small SSD, you'll only get 128Gb with 2Tb Fusion as with the iMac after any new Mac Mini refresh.
A 50% increase in a CTO configuration to go to a fusion drive is just silly money.
At least with the MacBook Pro 15" there's a precedent for allowing 32Gb of DDR4 instead of keeping to 16Gb of LPDDR3 but the Mini is the kind of machine that Apple would limit to the LPDDR3 not least considering the that the Mini has always solidly been based on the 13" MacBook Pro lines which suggests
Talk of the Vega GPU in a NUC refers to the Hades Canyon - that's going to be north of $1k by the time RAM and SSD is added - that machine doesn't include room for HD storage at all and that doesn't include the 'Apple Tax' that would take a 'Mac Mini' version of that closer to $2k. Unless Apple decide that the 21.5" iMac is getting the Kaby Lake + G I can't see Apple using it solely in a Mini - even if they rebrand by calling it a base level Pro instead. The 'proper' modular Mac Pro is coming next year and it'd be silly to put out a Mini that was so capable ahead of the main event next year.
Im pretty pleased with my i7 2012 model. When upgrading to high sierra the install borked my drive and I ended up replacing it with a 1tb SSD, and I didnt have time machine set up properly but I was able to recover data off the drive so I lost very little... I also upgraded the ram back in 2014 to 16gb. I would only consider buying a new mini if it was affordable enough and would basically ensure that I'd have macOS support for a long time. I expect that the mac would not have upgradable storage or memory which would put a damper on my interests. If I were smarter I'd just go ahead and sell my i5 model (doing a dual boot with windows 10 and dont use it much).
There are regular NUCs with Intel integrated graphics (specs identical to what redheeler outlined here), I'd say these are the most popular NUCs. What you're talking about is the Hades Canyon NUC, which costs at least $850 without any memory or storage.
Oh ok. If Apple made a Hades NUC competitor, it would have the worst ‘proper’ GPU possible and cost £1500. I really am stunped on what to buy to replace my 2014 MBP. Apple are making it very hard.
I’m hoping that, for the Mini, Apple returns to a form factor that allows the user to freely add, upgrade, downgrade, or modify RAM, HDD, or other storage devices and hardware.
It would appear that Apple are targeting a more expensive design. I've put some more expansive thoughts in the news thread about this but it does point to Apple deciding to cater for 'power users' (for more profit). A sober assessment might be to simply go with 28w Iris Pro CPUs across the board with modernised storage options. This would raise the entry level cost while upper SKUs could conceivably come with increased standard spec.
DDR4 memory could be standard to allow 32Gb RAM and such a setup could be used in a base iMac SKU with a modern range of SSD/Fusion Drive options. If the data centre and home media centre users are to be believed then more powerful GPU options might be required with my idea of SKUs with dGPU paired with lower spec mobile CPUs potentially helping the more modern Mac users connect to a 4k or 5k monitor with fewer performance challenges.
DDR4 memory could be standard to allow 32Gb RAM and such a setup could be used in a base iMac SKU with a modern range of SSD/Fusion Drive options. If the data centre and home media centre users are to be believed then more powerful GPU options might be required with my idea of SKUs with dGPU paired with lower spec mobile CPUs potentially helping the more modern Mac users connect to a 4k or 5k monitor with fewer performance challenges.
That sounds so much better than I have dared hope. Targeting pro users? Maybe we’re getting a real Mac again after a these years!
And Bloomberg is the favored outlet for official Apple leaks these days. Same as Mossberg at the WSJ used to be. This is great news.
I posted this over in the long "new iMac" thread, where todays Mini rumor had poked its head in, but I think it might be useful here too...
Who knows... We haven't seen anything like a "pro-focused Mini" in a LONG time. There has never been an Intel Mac without at least one of the following:
1.) Mobile CPU and Intel integrated graphics (Mac Mini)
2.) A Xeon (or two) (Mac Pro)
3.) A screen (everything else)
The Mini has historically shared a lot of parts with the 13" laptop line, hardly "pro-focused" in a desktop, although the few quad-core models shared CPUs with the 15" MacBook Pro (without discrete graphics). There were certain pro applications where the Mini made a lot of sense, especially when hooking up a box to a bunch of musical equipment - musicians wanted something that would sit in a rack and have a fair bit of I/O, and they generally didn't care about graphics (and the mobile CPU was fine unless they were running a ton of tracks). Minis also made handy little NAS boxes using external disks, and found their way into a lot of photo studios and the like (as well as in software development) that way. The third "pro application" Minis turned up in was in labs (scientists love them for equipment control - tuck it on a shelf and forget it).
Outside of music, the Mini never made any sense as a "pro desktop". iMacs were (and still are) great office desktops - why go screenless in that application? The iMac screen is higher quality than almost anything you'd find in a typical office, and Apple's always given a good deal on the screen in an iMac. Creative applications outside of music generally need graphics in some capacity, and the Mini has always had dog-slow Intel integrated graphics, and has never (yet) accepted an eGPU. The same scientists who use a Mini to control the mass spectrometer generally like an iMac on their desk (or a PC). Software developers probably don't enjoy compiling things on a mobile CPU (although I don't really know a lot of developers, and I've seen how the Mini is used in both art and science from experience).
Apple could go a wide range of ways with a "pro-focused" Mini. Here are 3 possibilities
1.) At the lower end, it could have a relatively decent mobile CPU (either a higher-end quad core or one of the 6-cores) with a bunch of Thunderbolt 3 and USB ports and maybe 10G Ethernet, which would be really useful in a machine that is often a server. Musicians would love it, as would scientists and the "build a NAS" community. Even some graphics sensitive users could find a use for one, with an external GPU. It might well have soldered RAM, and is very likely to have a soldered SSD (remember how much history the Mini shares with the MacBook Pro). This is essentially a modern version of the much-loved previous Mini, although with less internal upgradeability and more connectivity.
2.) If they go to the middle of the range, it might have a 95W desktop CPU, although that is the Mac Apple has always resisted building - it might have Intel graphics only, or it might have a mobile Radeon like the iMac. The last time we saw a "mid-range desktop" Mac without a built-in screen was in the early 2000s, and it wasn't Intel based. I have to admit to being befuddled by this possibility, because Apple has resisted exactly this machine for so long.
It would almost by definition be less Mini than previous Minis (it could have as small a footprint, if it was double height) to cool the CPU. That could attract a lot of pro users, including graphics sensitive users who might use an external GPU. Photographers and video pros who don't find the iMac screen accurate enough and use Eizo or NEC monitors might very well prefer not to pay for the screen. I can almost guarantee that any such machine would be priced to be less attractive than the iMac unless you really didn't want the screen (maybe $500 less than a 27" iMac with the same specs).
If this comes out, they'd almost have to update the 27" iMac at the same time. Otherwise, they'd have a "Mini" that could outrun any other Mac except the iMac Pro. This would be a darned useful machine - almost too useful, because it could hurt sales of three Macs (27" iMac, iMac Pro and the forthcoming modular Mac Pro). Expect next to no internal expansion potential to keep it from hurting other Macs - if we're lucky, we'll get a RAM door.
3.) The third possibility is iMac Pro-type innards in a relatively non-expandable case (probably RAM upgrade only). If this comes, it's a sign that they're aiming REALLY high with the modular Mac Pro. They aren't going to build three Macs with closely related insides at the high end, so a "screenless iMac Pro" would mean that the modular Mac Pro is aimed significantly above it , featuring an Xeon SP or successor for sure , maybe always dual processor. A "super-Mini" might or might not feature the internal Vega from the iMac Pro, because they might assume that musicians and many developers, among others don't care about the graphics, and the graphic arts/photo/video community will always use an eGPU. I could actually even see them using the Radeon 560 from the MacBook Pro 15" (the Xeons don't have onboard graphics, so it can't have Intel graphics) - it doesn't use a lot of power so it's easy to cool, it'll drive a 5K display if you're running Logic or XCode, and it'll encourage eGPU use among graphics types.
If I had to guess, we'll see option 1, with some nice, but mobile (or maybe power-optimized desktop if it's cheaper) innards. If there is a 6-core option, we'll probably see a 27" iMac refresh the same day. Yes, this is a pro machine, especially if it has plenty of Thunderbolt and 10G Ethernet - it's just not a pro video machine.
Who knows... We haven't seen anything like a "pro-focused Mini" in a LONG time. There has never been an Intel Mac without at least one of the following:
1.) Mobile CPU and Intel integrated graphics (Mac Mini)
2.) A Xeon (or two) (Mac Pro)
3.) A screen (everything else)
The Mini has historically shared a lot of parts with the 13" laptop line, hardly "pro-focused" in a desktop, although the few quad-core models shared CPUs with the 15" MacBook Pro (without discrete graphics). There were certain pro applications where the Mini made a lot of sense, especially when hooking up a box to a bunch of musical equipment - musicians wanted something that would sit in a rack and have a fair bit of I/O, and they generally didn't care about graphics (and the mobile CPU was fine unless they were running a ton of tracks). Minis also made handy little NAS boxes using external disks, and found their way into a lot of photo studios and the like (as well as in software development) that way. The third "pro application" Minis turned up in was in labs (scientists love them for equipment control - tuck it on a shelf and forget it).
Outside of music, the Mini never made any sense as a "pro desktop". iMacs were (and still are) great office desktops - why go screenless in that application? The iMac screen is higher quality than almost anything you'd find in a typical office, and Apple's always given a good deal on the screen in an iMac. Creative applications outside of music generally need graphics in some capacity, and the Mini has always had dog-slow Intel integrated graphics, and has never (yet) accepted an eGPU. The same scientists who use a Mini to control the mass spectrometer generally like an iMac on their desk (or a PC). Software developers probably don't enjoy compiling things on a mobile CPU (although I don't really know a lot of developers, and I've seen how the Mini is used in both art and science from experience).
Apple could go a wide range of ways with a "pro-focused" Mini. Here are 3 possibilities
1.) At the lower end, it could have a relatively decent mobile CPU (either a higher-end quad core or one of the 6-cores) with a bunch of Thunderbolt 3 and USB ports and maybe 10G Ethernet, which would be really useful in a machine that is often a server. Musicians would love it, as would scientists and the "build a NAS" community. Even some graphics sensitive users could find a use for one, with an external GPU. It might well have soldered RAM, and is very likely to have a soldered SSD (remember how much history the Mini shares with the MacBook Pro). This is essentially a modern version of the much-loved previous Mini, although with less internal upgradeability and more connectivity.
2.) If they go to the middle of the range, it might have a 95W desktop CPU, although that is the Mac Apple has always resisted building - it might have Intel graphics only, or it might have a mobile Radeon like the iMac. The last time we saw a "mid-range desktop" Mac without a built-in screen was in the early 2000s, and it wasn't Intel based. I have to admit to being befuddled by this possibility, because Apple has resisted exactly this machine for so long.
It would almost by definition be less Mini than previous Minis (it could have as small a footprint, if it was double height) to cool the CPU. That could attract a lot of pro users, including graphics sensitive users who might use an external GPU. Photographers and video pros who don't find the iMac screen accurate enough and use Eizo or NEC monitors might very well prefer not to pay for the screen. I can almost guarantee that any such machine would be priced to be less attractive than the iMac unless you really didn't want the screen (maybe $500 less than a 27" iMac with the same specs).
If this comes out, they'd almost have to update the 27" iMac at the same time. Otherwise, they'd have a "Mini" that could outrun any other Mac except the iMac Pro. This would be a darned useful machine - almost too useful, because it could hurt sales of three Macs (27" iMac, iMac Pro and the forthcoming modular Mac Pro). Expect next to no internal expansion potential to keep it from hurting other Macs - if we're lucky, we'll get a RAM door.
3.) The third possibility is iMac Pro-type innards in a relatively non-expandable case (probably RAM upgrade only). If this comes, it's a sign that they're aiming REALLY high with the modular Mac Pro. They aren't going to build three Macs with closely related insides at the high end, so a "screenless iMac Pro" would mean that the modular Mac Pro is aimed significantly above it , featuring an Xeon SP or successor for sure , maybe always dual processor. A "super-Mini" might or might not feature the internal Vega from the iMac Pro, because they might assume that musicians and many developers, among others don't care about the graphics, and the graphic arts/photo/video community will always use an eGPU. I could actually even see them using the Radeon 560 from the MacBook Pro 15" (the Xeons don't have onboard graphics, so it can't have Intel graphics) - it doesn't use a lot of power so it's easy to cool, it'll drive a 5K display if you're running Logic or XCode, and it'll encourage eGPU use among graphics types.
If I had to guess, we'll see option 1, with some nice, but mobile (or maybe power-optimized desktop if it's cheaper) innards. If there is a 6-core option, we'll probably see a 27" iMac refresh the same day. Yes, this is a pro machine, especially if it has plenty of Thunderbolt and 10G Ethernet - it's just not a pro video machine.
You had me until there. A soldered in SSD would be a deal breaker for me.
I would love a six-core Mac Mini, with 16Gb of DDR4 RAM and a dGPU. I don't think it will include the all of these despite the rumour. Hopefully it'll be announced in October.
desktops needs e-net not e-net as an $29.99 dongal
[doublepost=1534862801][/doublepost]
as desktop class https://ark.intel.com/products/1304...RX-Vega-M-GH-graphics-8M-Cache-up-to-4_20-GHz
and with the left over X8 goes to 2 TB buses.
or with an intel cpu with intel video and full X16. X8 to 2 TB buses + X4 to T2 + X4 to XXX(10-gig-e?) (TB bus 3?) (add in GPU?) or add in GPU at X16 and all other io on the pch?
I second that.....
That would be ideal for me as a render ‘node’, also if it was half the price of the nMp.
I strongly suspect no dGPU (or minimal dGPU if the processor has either no iGPU, or an iGPU that won't support a 5K display). Apple won't make a machine that doesn't support 5K, but it may well support it primarily for applications like Logic and XCode, with the assumption that people who want serious graphics will use an eGPU.
I wouldn't call it "pro-focused" if it didn't have a 32 GB RAM option.
I wouldn't call it "pro-focused" if it didn't have a 32 GB RAM option.
I have seen that proposal appear on quite a few threads, but I can assure you the mini and Pro are seperate machines.If those where the options I would be happy.
Am looking for some render nodes for my MacPro, and a 4 or 6 core at that price would be great (especially if i7, so multithreaded).
Has anyone even considered the mini and pro could be the same. i.e. base unit is the mini, then the additional modules upgrade it to a ‘pro’? Just a crazy thought....
Although having said that, many people are still pessimistic about the mini, and it will be better than they expect, which has been touched upon a couple of times, most recently in the Bloomberg article.
My prediction is that many are going to be very disappointed if they think this upgrade is going to priced close to $500. The clue is in the "Pro", Apple does not do cheap when it comes to "Pro" even if the spec is undeserving.
I actually suspect the current mac mini will still feature in the line up with a minor update at the lower price point of around $500 then it will ramp up significantly for this "new" Mac Mini Pro.
I actually suspect the current mac mini will still feature in the line up with a minor update at the lower price point of around $500 then it will ramp up significantly for this "new" Mac Mini Pro.
Last edited:
In my opinion, a computer can't be pro unless it has a dGPU. If it has 32Gb of DDR4 as an option, yet no dGPU, i will be astonished. I'm also praying for a six core option, but I think that's optimistic.
[doublepost=1534889292][/doublepost]
For once, I am happy an Apple product may be significantly more expensive that the previous version. I just want a mid-high end MBP without the screen or battery.
Apple should go back to including a 128 GB SSD with the 1 TB Fusion drive for both the Mac mini and 21.5" iMac, and my lineup is not a prediction, but rather what Apple should do (to provide a Mac mini with models suitable for consumer, prosumer, and certain kinds of professionals to use, while the modular Mac Pro is primarily focused on professionals).
Also, Apple currently doesn't offer a 2 TB Fusion drive for the 21.5" iMac, so it's not any more likely we'll see that as an option for the Mac mini. 500 GB Fusion drive is actually more likely as Apple could continue using the same drives as found in the 2014 models.
Last edited:
If the rumor's correct and Apple introduces MacBook at $999 base price, I think it would alleviate some of the criticisms of "pro" Mac mini.
Although many here would disagree, I consider $699 Mac mini custom configured with $200 256 GB SSD option to be an ideal base configuration.
So if Apple can deliver new Mac mini (bumped with newest CPUs and components) at $799 starting price, I consider that a net gain in value. My only wish is that it can be configured with iMac components for increased power.
If I get anything with a dGPU I will be happy with whatever other specs I have the option of as they will be of sufficient power. If I don't get a dGPU then I will take at least a 4/8 processor.
In reality and having thought about it, I will take at least a 4/8 processor, 16gb Ram, and 512gb SSD. With my 2018 13" MBP an eGPU would give me wider options.
In reality and having thought about it, I will take at least a 4/8 processor, 16gb Ram, and 512gb SSD. With my 2018 13" MBP an eGPU would give me wider options.
I'm constantly wary that on my iMacs, if the screen goes, I'm without a machine. I want something that is as beefy as my 5Ks but headless, so I am free to add my own screens. I'm still of the mind that there should be cheaper variants and am curious as to what this 'mid-range-pro' machine might offer.
Welcome to my world. 2011 imac with applecare. After applecare expired the video card died. Which is a known issue. Apple extended the warranty for the video card but I was outside of that as well. Got a replacement card and installed it myself and had a working imac for a few more months and then it died again. Now it's a paperweight.
That said, i've never lost a monitor. Even the imacs monitor still works. It's just the video card that's dead. Same thing could happen on a mini. Though it's cheaper.