Intel is to blame

[philfry]

I blame Intel for the lack of quad core on the 2014 mini. I saw something similar happen with dell this year. They updated the latitude e6430 and went from offering a quad core mobile cpu which they offered for 3 years to only offering dual core i7.

I expect that next year maybe the quad core option will be back possibly.

 

[rrl]

Wrong. The three quad core i7s that are used in the 15" MacBook Pros were viable options for the 2014 Mac Mini. Nice try though.

 

[thetruth1985]

I blame Lebron.

 

[Bubba Satori]

Yeah, that's the ticket.

 

[philfry]

Wrong. The three quad core i7s that are used in the 15" MacBook Pros were viable options for the 2014 Mac Mini. Nice try though.

They would have needed to do 2 logic boards because the socket isn't the same. They could have made the quad core the base model but the price wouldn't have been near $499.

 

[rrl]

They would have needed to do 2 logic boards because the socket isn't the same. They could have made the quad core the base model but the price wouldn't have been near $499.

$315 i5-4260U Base Model 2014 Mac Mini
$434 i7-4770HQ Base Model 2014 15" MacBook Pro

 

[lilB]

$315 i5-4260U Base Model 2014 Mac Mini
$434 i7-4770HQ Base Model 2014 15" MacBook Pro

Apple pays a bulk price. They probably get a much better price on the dual core chips because of the smaller size. Larger chips are harder to manufacture so they probably don't get a good price. The old i7 quads in the mini were fairly cheap and much smaller.

----------

They would have needed to do 2 logic boards because the socket isn't the same. They could have made the quad core the base model but the price wouldn't have been near $499.

The socket is bigger as well and it needs more power and cooling. They would have to redesign the whole thing.

 

[rrl]

Here's a 2014 13" MacBook Pro with a maxed out CPU:



Here's a similarly configured 2014 15" entry level MacBook Pro:



That's only a $100 for 2 more cores, extra pixels, and a better GPU. It would only cost a $100 more to go to the 2.5 GHz quad core. Do you see where this is going in relation to the Mac Mini?

 

[cfedu]

Here's a 2014 13" MacBook Pro with a maxed out CPU:

View attachment 507124

Here's a similarly configured 2014 15" entry level MacBook Pro:

View attachment 507125

That's only a $100 for 2 more cores, extra pixels, and a better GPU. It would only cost a $100 more to go to the 2.5 GHz quad core. Do you see where this is going in relation to the Mac Mini?

It has 2 more cores but the cpu is slower, we all know the only thing matters is single core benchmarks and apps.

So whats wrong will saving 100$ and getting a much faster computer! Anyone who buys quad cores and up are just spec whores

 

[magbarn]

It has 2 more cores but the cpu is slower, we all know the only thing matters is single core benchmarks and apps.

So whats wrong will saving 100$ and getting a much faster computer! Anyone who buys quad cores and up are just spec whores

Both the 13 & 15 rMBP are using Haswell chips, pay attention to the boost clock in the fine print. (It's 3.5Ghz max boost for the dual and 3.4ghz for the quad) The 2.2ghz speed rating is only a limit if all 4 cores are maxed out . The 15's quad core is going to be running at boost 3.4ghz much more frequently if you're only using 2 cores as there's much more heat dissipating capacity vs the much smaller heat sink on the rMBP 13. In other words both chips are going to be pretty close in performance when running 1-2 threads - with a slight edge to the dual, of course when core 3&4 come on-line it's over for the dual core.

EDIT
Sorry sarcasm meter broken....

 

[torquer]

Its really simple what has happened here. For a long time the Mac Mini was advertised as an "entry level mac" but could be made realistically into a poor man's mac pro. Everyone was happy. Life was good.

However Apple realized that they can make more money by streamlining the bill of materials on the Mac Mini, "reset" it to their interpretation of "entry level," and hopefully force more people to buy iMacs and Mac Pros which they actually make even more money on.

From a purely cynical business perspective, its a win-win. In the grand scheme, those unhappy with a non upgradeable and non quad core mac mini are a minority. A very vocal one, but a minority nonetheless. Apple will continue making a ton of mac minis and making a ton of money regardless of how upset a portion of the population is.

I agree it is sad, but people need to stop thinking Apple is trying to get OSX into the hands of more users. That was the goal in the 90s - stealing market share from Windows. Today they realize the core of their profits come from expensive high end machines, and mostly their mobile devices.

When you realize what Apple is doing and why, it makes a lot of business sense even if you don't like it.

 

[rrl]

Its really simple what has happened here. For a long time the Mac Mini was advertised as an "entry level mac" but could be made realistically into a poor man's mac pro. Everyone was happy. Life was good.

However Apple realized that they can make more money by streamlining the bill of materials on the Mac Mini, "reset" it to their interpretation of "entry level," and hopefully force more people to buy iMacs and Mac Pros which they actually make even more money on.

From a purely cynical business perspective, its a win-win. In the grand scheme, those unhappy with a non upgradeable and non quad core mac mini are a minority. A very vocal one, but a minority nonetheless. Apple will continue making a ton of mac minis and making a ton of money regardless of how upset a portion of the population is.

I agree it is sad, but people need to stop thinking Apple is trying to get OSX into the hands of more users. That was the goal in the 90s - stealing market share from Windows. Today they realize the core of their profits come from expensive high end machines, and mostly their mobile devices.

When you realize what Apple is doing and why, it makes a lot of business sense even if you don't like it.

All I hear you saying is that Apple thinks its customers are really stupid. I'm not sure that needed to be said.

 

[cfedu]

Both the 13 & 15 rMBP are using Haswell chips, pay attention to the boost clock in the fine print. (It's 3.5Ghz max boost for the dual and 3.4ghz for the quad) The 2.2ghz speed rating is only a limit if all 4 cores are maxed out . The 15's quad core is going to be running at boost 3.4ghz much more frequently if you're only using 2 cores as there's much more heat dissipating capacity vs the much smaller heat sink on the rMBP 13. In other words both chips are going to be pretty close in performance when running 1-2 threads - with a slight edge to the dual, of course when core 3&4 come on-line it's over for the dual core.

EDIT
Sorry sarcasm meter broken....

I will make it easier for you to understand, I made graphs for you>

See how much more important single core performance is!!!

 

[magbarn]

I will make it easier for you to understand, I made graphs for you>

See how much more important single core performance is!!!

You put those graphs on mac mini boxes, you couldn't give away the quads for free lol.

 

[wlossw]

The question is: what is the server friendly mac to buy now?

 

[auhagen]

I blame Intel for the lack of quad core on the 2014 mini. I saw something similar happen with dell this year. They updated the latitude e6430 and went from offering a quad core mobile cpu which they offered for 3 years to only offering dual core i7.

I expect that next year maybe the quad core option will be back possibly.

How can you say it's another companys fault?!
Intel has a lot of great quad options, it's clearly apple's fault.

It's also Intel's fault that apple chose to solder the ram chips to the board, and remote a sata port, just to keep the same footprint I guess?

It has 2 more cores but the cpu is slower, we all know the only thing matters is single core benchmarks and apps.

So whats wrong will saving 100$ and getting a much faster computer! Anyone who buys quad cores and up are just spec whores

You clearly dont know anything..

Nothing is wrong in saving 100$, but I was looking forward to upgrade my aging 2010 server, and the new one IS a great boost compared, but I was looking for a quad vs. dual core this time, because for what I use my server for, a quad is far better.

 

[yukyuklee]

Theres no more in between with Apple either you pay for cheap or you pay an arm and leg for power that you might not use all of...

The question is: what is the server friendly mac to buy now?

a 2012 model

 

[auhagen]

a 2012 model

Yeah and people knows that, so now the old 2012 model goes for as much as a new model :/

 

[yukyuklee]

Yeah and people knows that, so now the old 2012 model goes for as much as a new model :/

yeah I'll just stick to my mid 2011 model with the data doubler

 

[s15119]

Come on. Everyone knows it's Obama's fault.

sigh

 

[fathergll]

Its really simple what has happened here. For a long time the Mac Mini was advertised as an "entry level mac" but could be made realistically into a poor man's mac pro. Everyone was happy. Life was good.

However Apple realized that they can make more money by streamlining the bill of materials on the Mac Mini, "reset" it to their interpretation of "entry level," and hopefully force more people to buy iMacs and Mac Pros which they actually make even more money on.
.

Bingo. The lack of quad core and soldered ram sealed the deal. By sodering the ram Apple kills off a lot of the aftermarket purchases since people buying used Mini's 2-4 years from now are probably going to want 16GB of memory.

 

[reco2011]

I will make it easier for you to understand, I made graphs for you>

See how much more important single core performance is!!!

What application was benchmarked?

 

[cfedu]

What application was benchmarked?

single and multi core geekbench

 

[torquer]

All I hear you saying is that Apple thinks its customers are really stupid. I'm not sure that needed to be said.

Apple really doesn't make bad products. They aren't always the best, but they aren't bad. I could have bought a NUC or a Brix or a Steam machine to do what I needed, but at least I can count on Apple (usually) to have great build quality and good resale value.

Apple can think I'm stupid all they want, but until PC makers can make equivalent gear that isn't cheap, flimsy, and crappy I'll likely keep buying from Apple and running Windows on it. I am pretty sure Tim Cook has no idea who I am, and even if he did I don't give a damn what he thinks about me. If the product is good, I'll use it.

 

[lilB]

Both the 13 & 15 rMBP are using Haswell chips, pay attention to the boost clock in the fine print. (It's 3.5Ghz max boost for the dual and 3.4ghz for the quad) The 2.2ghz speed rating is only a limit if all 4 cores are maxed out . The 15's quad core is going to be running at boost 3.4ghz much more frequently if you're only using 2 cores as there's much more heat dissipating capacity vs the much smaller heat sink on the rMBP 13. In other words both chips are going to be pretty close in performance when running 1-2 threads - with a slight edge to the dual, of course when core 3&4 come on-line it's over for the dual core.

EDIT
Sorry sarcasm meter broken....

And I can tell you thats actually not true. Single threads running on my quad mac mini are slower that these new Haswell chips and I have it running very cool. My Mini actually stays in turbo boost mode indefinitely when I'm running it hard regardless of how many cores I'm using.