Mac Mini late 2012 with LG 34UC98 at 3440x1440

[th0masp]

Pretty sure storage refers to the SSD, not the RAM and I don't think the former can be upgraded on the 2018 mini. The 2018 also comes with the dreaded T2 chip which appears to bring another bunch of potential issues along with it.

While I only have the 2012 i5 mini here I've heard a good deal about the i7 running quite hot and with rather audible fans when pushed even just a little. I imagine that effect is amplified when used with screens that it can only support borderline considering how many apps try to make use of GPU acceleration. At any rate glad I got the quieter machine. The few times however I had it spin up the fans it was far from pleasant.

2014 version sounds like the best option then if you can find a model with maxed out RAM and it's not a total nightmare to get into the machine. I do recall that model drew a lot of flak when it was released though.

 

[timidpimpin]

That's upradeable RAM... not storage. I want to be able to upgrade the hard drive.

I think the 2012 Mini is the best choice overall, as it has quad-core chips, and you can easily upgrade both the RAM and storage.

Also... I don't rely on the GPU much in the first place. All I play are a couple low-requirement Steam games. All I really ask of a GPU is the ability to use high res monitors.

 

[Neodym]

Sorry, my mistake with mixing up Ram and storage! At least you can kind of upgrade storage on the 2018 via external TB3-/USB-C connection. That also mitigates potential problems with that dreaded T2 chip.

The 2012 i7 mini (2.3GHz) does not get particularly hot by merely running the UW and a second FullHD display. Can easily do tasks like surfing the net, office work or even watching TV in EyeTV without the fans revving up.

Oh - one more thing: Even the best internal SSD in the 2012 mini is limited to Sata speeds of max. 600MB/s. Not sure it’s relevant to you, but maybe a factor to keep in mind when comparing with the 2018 mini.

 

[th0masp]

Do people perceive SATA SSD speeds as slow though? I have those in all my computers except in my Trashcan which has an NVMe drive installed that tops out at 1500 or so (computer limitation, drive could reach 3000+ with a more modern bus). I fail to see the difference in drive speeds really. It's all just fast - but not instant - to me, including the SSD in the mini.

 

[Neodym]

The responsiveness of my rMBP (late 2013) is sometimes notably better than that of the mini. Sure, it is depending on use case and personal attention to such details. But imho it is a definitive ‘Pro’ for the 2018 mini, so it should be considered in the comparison.

Especially as macOS seems to increasingly rely on fast storage. One of the main criticism of the 2014 mini was targeting the hard drive variants, which were described as sluggish. The jump from a SATA SSD to NVMe is probably less obvious yet, but over time it’s probably increasingly notable.

 

[timidpimpin]

The responsiveness of my rMBP (late 2013) is sometimes notably better than that of the mini. Sure, it is depending on use case and personal attention to such details. But imho it is a definitive ‘Pro’ for the 2018 mini, so it should be considered in the comparison.

Especially as macOS seems to increasingly rely on fast storage. One of the main criticism of the 2014 mini was targeting the hard drive variants, which were described as sluggish. The jump from a SATA SSD to NVMe is probably less obvious yet, but over time it’s probably increasingly notable.

The 2014 mini's all came with spinners by default. Which are going to make any computer seem slow. These spinners, even if a WD Black, are going to top out around 120MB/sec. An SSD on the same SATA 3 bus will perform at 500-750MB/sec.

Much like when the first mini (G4), which ran at 1.25 - 1.42GHz, seemed about the speed of a PowerMac G4 500MHz because of the mini's 4200rpm HD.

 

[Neodym]

The 2014 mini's all came with spinners by default. Which are going to make any computer seem slow. These spinners, even if a WD Black, are going to top out around 120MB/sec.

There have been times where 120MB/s would have been blazingly fast (actually the 6TB WD Black has transfer speeds up to 218MB/s). As OS‘s have evolved, they‘ve also grown in their hardware demands.

Nowadays a SATA SSD may seem sufficient, but over time it will look similarly slow as 120MB/s spinners do these days. When 1.500Mb/s is the new norm (NVMe SSD‘s already go up to 3.400MB/s), macOS will adjust and be designed for these speeds. Anything slower will seem sluggish then.

An SSD on the same SATA 3 bus will perform at 500-750MB/sec.

SATA-III tops out at 600MB/s. On average, SATA SSD‘s usually offer up to 500-550MB/s. That’s merely a bit more than twice the speed of a good spinner (see above). Comparison is a bit skewed, though, as SSD’s naturally shine in seek times, which make ‘em feel significantly faster than spinners with a modern OS’s.

And even then these 500-550MB/s are theoretical numbers for very specific use cases. In reality, with many small files, speeds can come down to two-digit numbers. And modern OS‘s consist of lots and lots of these „small files“.

I would agree that a SATA-SSD is probably sufficient for the next 2-3 years, provided there’ll be no disruptive developments. But after that period I’d expect SATA SSD’s to start showing their age ... (one could argue it already is noticeable for people being sensitive with these things).

 

[timidpimpin]

Apple is using spinners in the low-end 2019 iMac. I think it will be quite a bit longer than 2-3 more years before SATA seems outdated. More like 8-10 IMHO.

And that 6TB WD would be a 3.5", which the mini cannot take internally. The spinner speed limitations I was referring to are for 2.5" spinners.

Also... regarding top speed of SATA 3 - their math is off. 1/8 of 6Gbit is 750MB. So why would they often call it 6GBit?

 

[geko01]

I also use the Mac Mini i5(2,5Ghz dual core) with 4GB ram and dynamic Vram set to aprox 1500MB.
I connect it via miniDP to DP Port cable(I tried 2 different cables) to my Samsung S34J550 monitor (max resolution of Monitor is 3440x1440)

Unfortunately I just get the max of 2560x1440 @60Hz. Even SwitchResX did not help.
Is it because of the i5 version of the Mac mini? Is there a way to force higher resolution out of the HD4000?
Please help, thanks!

 

[drolson]

2012 mac mini, Dell S2817Q monitor, cable, DP to Mini DP, 3840X2160, perfect!, could not be better, should work with any monitor with a DP connection

Case Closed For Me

 

[chrfr]

2012 mac mini, Dell S2817Q monitor, cable, DP to Mini DP, 3840X2160, perfect!, could not be better, should work with any monitor with a DP connection

Case Closed For Me

The 2012 Mini will only run 4k displays at 30Hz, which many users won't find acceptable because of the slow response and flickering. It's good that it works for you.

 

[timidpimpin]

50Hz is about the minimum most can tolerate.

 

[Neodym]

Unfortunately I just get the max of 2560x1440 @60Hz. Even SwitchResX did not help.
Is it because of the i5 version of the Mac mini? Is there a way to force higher resolution out of the HD4000?
Please help, thanks!

Which macOS do you use? Iirc, for me it took High Sierra or Mojave for the mini to recognize full resolution on UW (3440x1440).