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.
List of ways the 2014 is better than the 2012
- Thread starter giggles
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hence the reason a lot of people are upset with the direction Apple took the Mac Pro.
Remember the Mustang II? Probably not. That thing couldn't make it up certain hills if my mom had too many of us in the car.
1) Cooler, quieter, less power consumption
Can't imagine that it's that much cooler, quieter or thrifty. I think that's pushing it a little to far.
2) Wifi AC
AC would be nice. I use both of my minis hardwired virtually all of the time. That's even better than wireless AC.
3) PCIE 4x 1TB flash option with Apple firmware optimization and Apple TRIM
True that but $800 is a little stiff. Also adding an additional drive if you don't order Fusion may be difficult.
4) new UEFI+GPT bootcamp of PCIE ssd Macs (useful for some stuff like plug and play external GPUs in Windows)
Minor concern.
5) Two thunderbolt ports for a grand total of 12 TB devices (think of the possibilities, one port could be completely dedicated to eGPU)
Two TB ports would be really great. Also I have quite of few FW800 boxes so the FW loss is important to me.
6) Thunderbolt2 instead of Thunderbolt1 (20Gbps vs 10Gbps), again useful for eGPU
I use an OWC ThunderBay 4 with individual 4TB drives. Since I don't have any wants or needs for TB Raid TB1 is just fine.
Because I would never spend $2100 for a dual-core mini my 2012 2.6 just arrived. At $939 for the mini, ~$140 for my existing 16GB of Crucial RAM and ~$450 for my existing 960GB M500 SSD I'm sitting pretty good.
The SSD used to be installed in my other 2012 mini. That mini got another M500 that had been installed in my dearly departed 2010 Mac Pro. The other mini also had the 16GB RAM in it. It now is a Windows only machine to use for Quicken and fiddling so it has its original 4GB Apple RAM back in it.
User replaceable RAM and Hard Drives rule at my house.
I get it - I really do. You used to be able to get a poor man's Mac Pro for pretty cheap (at least in context of it being Apple). Apple had set an expectation and now they've changed it. They'll still sell a boatload of em. They WANT to push folks into buying iMacs and Mac Pros. Whether you agree with it or not, the 2014 mini actually better fits what Apple designed it to do originally.
The only thing I take issue with folks saying on these forums is outright misinformation about hardware or acting like somehow they were personally robbed or Apple is out to screw them over. At least for now, Apple has the midas touch and can afford to piss off a few users while lining their pockets.
For those of you who want a small PC that can be quad core, Gigabyte would like to sell you a BRIX. Zotac would like to sell you something, so would Intel. If you are married to OSX though, welcome to Dualcoreville, population: you.
For anyone who does not currently have a quad core 2012 mac mini, the 2014 is undoubtedly a better machine all around on a pure hardware performance basis.
Can tell you're a newbie with that tedious fan boy nonsense.
I don't want to replace a 2009 model with something barely twice the performance for barely less than the retail price of my current one. Being told a PC is an option is rediculous. I have a Mac, I want another Mac that meets my needs and now it's a 2012 Mac Mini off eBay or nothing.
I also don't see how you get your "better machine all around on a pure hardware performance basis" nonsense from. A faster boot drive (as a non-standard option), faster GPU (that does nothing to compensate the vast performance difference between a 2.6Ghz quad-core IvyBridge VS a 3Ghz dual-core Haswell) and faster Thunderbolt (which is a very niche connection standard) change nothing to compensate for the fact they have drastically lower multi-core CPU power.
The 2012 quad-core mini was the *mid tier* model. It was the equivalent of today's $699 mini. Of course the 2012 was an i7 and today's mid tier is an i5. As for the single thread performance being better on the 2014, I would hope so, it's a 2 year newer product!
----------
If you need quad-core (you do real work, design work, VMs, encoding, etc) the 2 year old mini will SPANK the 2014. No amount of apple ifanboy/apologists can change that fact.
Apple's own specs say that the noise levels are the same on i5 versions. The difference is there is no i7 quad, which was noisy. Maybe cooler but the fan noise level is the same, comparing like for like.
I dont know of any quiet thunderbolt external drive enclosures, so I cant see that it gets anything except noisier when you use this "benefit".
I dont know of any quiet thunderbolt external drive enclosures, so I cant see that it gets anything except noisier when you use this "benefit".
Now that I think about it one could even frankenstein a Mini (or a Mini motherboard) + TB2 peripherals (including eGPU) inside an old MacPro/Powermac case, strategically place a couple of Noctua fans and have back a fully upgradeable (well except RAM) desktop Mac.
Another french website published their first tests on new Mini compared to 2012 i5 dual and i7 quad (geekbench and cinebench)
This is like the "List of Reasons iPhone 6 Is Better Than iPhone 6 Plus" all over again...
I keep reading comments about how the Intel i7 quad core's only advantage is multi-threading. That's not true. The 2012 Mini's quad core CPUs also have 6MB L3 on board cache which significantly improves their single threaded performance over dual core i5 and i7 CPUs running at approximately the same clock speed that only have 3MB or 4MB L3 cache.
Last edited:
I've read some pretty stupid things in my life but the first post has to be one of the dumbest things that I've ever read. You start off talking about how energy efficient the new Mini is and then go on to describe a scenario where someone could have up to 12 thunderbolt devices connected along with a GTX 970. A scenario like this would nullify any power savings that the Mac Mini brings.
Also, nobody in their right mind is going to purchase a Mac Mini with the intention of adding eGPU. More and more games are becoming CPU dependent so even if you added a Titan, you'd be held back by that dual core. For the price of that Vidock, you can purchase quite few parts to build a PC that will run circles around the Mini.
If you want a Frankenstein computer with 1000 wires going across your desk then go for it. If you have to create a scenario like this just to justify getting a 2014 over a 2012, then that just proves that the 2014 has little to no value over the older 2012 model. The target audience for new Mini has obviously changed so you guys just need to accept that.
Also, nobody in their right mind is going to purchase a Mac Mini with the intention of adding eGPU. More and more games are becoming CPU dependent so even if you added a Titan, you'd be held back by that dual core. For the price of that Vidock, you can purchase quite few parts to build a PC that will run circles around the Mini.
If you want a Frankenstein computer with 1000 wires going across your desk then go for it. If you have to create a scenario like this just to justify getting a 2014 over a 2012, then that just proves that the 2014 has little to no value over the older 2012 model. The target audience for new Mini has obviously changed so you guys just need to accept that.
Once you setup the thunderbolt external apparatus it's not about this particular Mini anymore, 2 years from now you throw it in the trash like you trash a 829$ ipad. (somebody should explain why it's ok to trash an HIGH MARGIN ipad every 2-3years and not ok to trash a LOW MARGIN Mac with the same frequency, if anything Apple should be blamed more for thw former)
And with all the thunderbolt contraption you still saved 2000$ compared to the other headless Mac (nMP). There's no way around it. Windows PCs are not an option for many people here, or we wouldn't even be in this room.
And with all the thunderbolt contraption you still saved 2000$ compared to the other headless Mac (nMP). There's no way around it. Windows PCs are not an option for many people here, or we wouldn't even be in this room.
The target audience hasnt changed - it has expanded. Note that with the PC market, the only segment that is actually growing is ultra mini PC's like these, the NUC and the Brix.
What's actually changing is that apparently Apple deciding to really milk the customers in the segment to take advantage of the growth.
What's actually changing is that apparently Apple deciding to really milk the customers in the segment to take advantage of the growth.
pointless.
I would have simply written a series alternating exclamation points (!) and question marks (?) to reflect how pointless all of those arguments here are but i figured that the Mod's would give me crap for it.
So instead here is my completely pointless contribution to a completely pointless discussion.
Step 1) establish personal needs.
Step 2) purchase products that meet those.
Step 3) you've gone too far!
I would have simply written a series alternating exclamation points (!) and question marks (?) to reflect how pointless all of those arguments here are but i figured that the Mod's would give me crap for it.
So instead here is my completely pointless contribution to a completely pointless discussion.
Step 1) establish personal needs.
Step 2) purchase products that meet those.
Step 3) you've gone too far!
Joke's on whoever resolve to "just build a Windows PC" as an answer.
"Bioshock Infinite" is on the Mac App Store, deal with it.
Video players that leverage GPU acceleration are a thing, deal with it.
Dual booting OSX/Windows on a single machine is a thing, deal with it.
There's demand for a not_so_great_CPU + superb PCIE 4x flash boot drive (not on 2012 mini) + decent GPU headless desktop mac, deal with it.
1) Maxed out 1TB pcie4x 16GB i7 3Ghz 2014 Mini: 2200$
Vidock 3 Overdrive (250mm compact model): 200$
Sonnet Echo ExpressCard Pro: 200$
EVGA GeForce GTX 750Ti (02G-P4-3753-KR): 140$ (compact low power 60W beast of performance-per-Watt a card, with HDMI DP and DVI-DL)
Total: 2740$
Idle power (Mini + external 750ti): 20W (being super conservative here, based on 13" rMBP idle stats, probably more towards 10W) + 6W = 26W idle
Full Load power: 40W (again, super conservative) + 60W = 100W full load
GPU upgrade path: every year get the latest cool&quiet 140$ pcie-bus-powered nVidia card (or whatever architecture OSX is supporting), in short <250mm format just to keep stuff on the desk tidier
2) Base nMP with 1TB pcie4x 16GB: 3900$ (D300), 4300$ (D500), 4900$ (D700)
Idle power: ~50W
Full load power: ~200W
GPU upgrade path: screw you
Plain and simple.
I was under the impression that only noise i7 Mac Mini was the 2011 server model because the CPU generation it used was far less power efficient than the IvyBridge CPUs in the 2012 models.
Actually that's more "utterly one-sided and flat out wrong"
Any Thunderbolt NON-solution for the GPU in the Mac Mini is also a Thunderbolt NON-solution for the GPU in the nMP. The slightest of research will explain how a 16x PCIe GPU on a 20Mbit connection is choking on bandwidth. I doubt you even understand why.
Nothing can compensate for the slow dual-core CPUs when the previous 2.6Ghz quad i7s were about 23% less powerful than the quad Xeon in the nMP and now they're pitiful.
You're absolutely delusional.
As much as I appreciate being called a "newbie" because someone disagrees with me, I've been intimately involved in PC hardware as a profession and hobby since my first 386. I'd venture to say I know more about PC hardware than most and these days that's all a Mac is - PC hardware with a different OS (or not even that if you run Windows like I do).
You can be unhappy with Apple's hardware choices all you want, but trying to say hardware is or is not this or that when the facts don't agree with you is simply absurd. I realize Core i7 Quads have more cache, but you also have 2 more cores using that cache as it is shared. I also know that the dual core i7 has 4MB vs the i5's 3MB. Cache helps, to be sure, but its not enough to make the 2012 faster than the 2014 on an IPC and single threaded basis.
You don't have to take my word for it - go to PCPer, Toms Hardware, Anandtech, Tech Report, Notebookcheck, Bit-Tech, or whatever your favorite PC hardware review site is and look at the comparisons yourself. There have been a metric f-ton of reviews comparing IPC of Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, and Haswell. You can see for yourself theres between 8-10% difference in sheer IPC alone per generation. So, clock for clock in a non thread limited atmosphere Haswell is faster than Ivy Bridge. It cannot be denied.
I don't get you guys. You can make a perfectly fine case for the 2012 Quad which is a great machine on its own and especially in multithreaded apps. You don't need to go denying reality or making crap up to justify your feeling. Just come out and say "hey, I need/want a quad core and it sucks that I can't have one in the new model." I certainly wouldn't hold it against you - that's a totally fair and accurate statement.
Whats crap is when you start making these weird extra claims that suggest you're either paranoid about Apple trying to screw you, or have such a tenuous grasp of hardware performance that you start claiming the new one is clock for clock slower, PCI-E SSDs are somehow worse, and the iGPU isn't much better.
Stick with the facts - there are use cases for each model where it makes sense. Neither is "all bad for everyone."
You can be unhappy with Apple's hardware choices all you want, but trying to say hardware is or is not this or that when the facts don't agree with you is simply absurd. I realize Core i7 Quads have more cache, but you also have 2 more cores using that cache as it is shared. I also know that the dual core i7 has 4MB vs the i5's 3MB. Cache helps, to be sure, but its not enough to make the 2012 faster than the 2014 on an IPC and single threaded basis.
You don't have to take my word for it - go to PCPer, Toms Hardware, Anandtech, Tech Report, Notebookcheck, Bit-Tech, or whatever your favorite PC hardware review site is and look at the comparisons yourself. There have been a metric f-ton of reviews comparing IPC of Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, and Haswell. You can see for yourself theres between 8-10% difference in sheer IPC alone per generation. So, clock for clock in a non thread limited atmosphere Haswell is faster than Ivy Bridge. It cannot be denied.
I don't get you guys. You can make a perfectly fine case for the 2012 Quad which is a great machine on its own and especially in multithreaded apps. You don't need to go denying reality or making crap up to justify your feeling. Just come out and say "hey, I need/want a quad core and it sucks that I can't have one in the new model." I certainly wouldn't hold it against you - that's a totally fair and accurate statement.
Whats crap is when you start making these weird extra claims that suggest you're either paranoid about Apple trying to screw you, or have such a tenuous grasp of hardware performance that you start claiming the new one is clock for clock slower, PCI-E SSDs are somehow worse, and the iGPU isn't much better.
Stick with the facts - there are use cases for each model where it makes sense. Neither is "all bad for everyone."
I'll take a decent dGPU even capped at 4Gbps over intel integrated.
There are benchmarks about how much of a difference being on a 4x, 8x or 16x pcie3.0 interface makes (keeping in mind that expresscard 4Gbps = pcie2.0 1x for reference; and there are direct TB2 pcie2.0 4x 16Gbps eGPU enclosures, just pricier or messier), you can look them up, the difference is not night and day, completely bearable at 1080p. Besides there's a whole eGPU underground movement based around 4Gbps and 16Gbps interfaces, I'm not making this up on my own.
Not sure what your point is about the 1000-2000$ pricier nMP.
Yes it could be used with a eGPU as well, but I don't need that CPU power (or I don't think
it's worth 1k-2k$ in my use case), I prefer idle 26W to idle 56W (pc on 24/7), wanna force me at gunpoint to spend 1000-2000$ more?
Last edited:
I'm not really sure what your point is, but I have an upgraded 2012 i7 Mac Mini, this PC, and a KVM. My setup is versatile and convenient. The KVM even takes care of my audio switching. I'm not sacrificing much of anything and since both sleep nicely, I never have to reboot a machine to use it.
The 2014 Mac Mini is an easy refresh to avoid and plenty of us are skipping it.