Mac mini shootout: 2012 Quad-Core i7 versus 2014 Dual-Core i5 and i7

[Occamsrazr]

I'd still like to see the low end 2012 compared to the low end 2014....

Nobody here wants to see that because it would make the 2012 look so bad

 

[Count Blah]

I'd still like to see the low end 2012 compared to the low end 2014....

Nobody here wants to see that because it would make the 2012 look so bad

Most people I see clamoring for the 2012 model are interested in the quad core, post purchase RAM upgrades, post purchase storage upgrades, and the ability to have two drives.

If you are not interested in ANY of those, then I am sure you will be happy with your overpriced and underperforming 2014 purchase - congrats

People thought the apple tax was high before,it is absolutely insanely right now with the Tim Cook business model.

 

[Occamsrazr]

Again, how is it underperforming?? It blows away the 2012 if the correct comparison is made.

 

[xraydoc]

I've thought about this for a while now, and I think -- for me -- the 2014 mini is better than the 2012.

Nothing I will be doing on the mini will really benefit from a quad-core architecture, but will benefit from faster single-core performance, which the upper-end 2014 machines do have. For me, it'll be an office machine, not a rendering/video encoding machine, so the benefit of four cores is low. I suspect I'll settle on the 3.0GHz i7, which is faster in single-core threads than the 2012 i7 2.3's or 2.6's.

I'll be maxing out the RAM anyway upon purchase, so upgradability after the time of purchase is moot. Yes, cheaper to do it myself but over the expected life of the machine, the difference is at most $40 per year.

SSD upgradability is possibly a true concern, but a 256GB internal SSD I believe will be sufficient for the anticipated life of the machine (for me, about 3 years). As long as it's enough to hold the OS and apps, data can be on an external device. And TB2 provides ample speed for a fast external if it proves necessary in time.

Two mDP displays up to 2560x1440 thanks to two TB/mDP ports - something the 2012 can't do (one TB/mDP port and one HDMI limited to 1920x1200).

I totally agree that for many things the '14 is inferior to the '12. But for me, I believe it'll actually be better.

 

[crazzapple]

Again, how is it underperforming?? It blows away the 2012 if the correct comparison is made.

For my needs, I would prefer the low end 2012, if only because it can be upgraded to 16GB of ram after purchase. The low end 2014 is 100% useless for me.

The 2014 low end would've been a really nice computer for people with minimal computing needs a couple years ago, but today I couldn't imagine using a computer with this low of specs (no SSD) even for really basic stuff.

 

[qcmacmini]

For my needs, I would prefer the low end 2012, if only because it can be upgraded to 16GB of ram after purchase. The low end 2014 is 100% useless for me.

The 2014 low end would've been a really nice computer for people with minimal computing needs a couple years ago, but today I couldn't imagine using a computer with this low of specs (no SSD) even for really basic stuff.

If it came with a PCIe SSD, I think the 2014 base would be a good deal. I'm hearing the 2012 data doubler kit works on the 2014 to add a SATA HDD/SSD.

 

[Rodster]

For my needs, I would prefer the low end 2012, if only because it can be upgraded to 16GB of ram after purchase. The low end 2014 is 100% useless for me.

The 2014 low end would've been a really nice computer for people with minimal computing needs a couple years ago, but today I couldn't imagine using a computer with this low of specs (no SSD) even for really basic stuff.

I own a base 2012 MM and I recently went to BB to check out the new Mini and it happened to be the base 2014 model. I used Safari, opened other apps and could not tell it wasn't my i5 2012 MM. It was zippy and responsive so I say for basic computing needs the base 2014 models is not a problem.

 

[paulrbeers]

For my needs, I would prefer the low end 2012, if only because it can be upgraded to 16GB of ram after purchase. The low end 2014 is 100% useless for me.

The 2014 low end would've been a really nice computer for people with minimal computing needs a couple years ago, but today I couldn't imagine using a computer with this low of specs (no SSD) even for really basic stuff.

You realize you can buy the T6 Security Screw driver for about $6 on Amazon, and a 120GB Samsung or Crucial 2.5" SSD will cost you about $70. Add to the fact that the base Mini can be had regularly for $450 means you can have a pretty decent little machine for all of $525. Many people buy base MBA's and that's pretty much what this little machine now is for less than the base price of the 2012. Iris Graphics, SSD, dual thunderbolt, etc. etc. Is the RAM going to be a problem? Maybe. My father-in-law still uses my 2011 MBA with only 4GB of RAM and does just fine. Basic photo editing, internet, music, etc...

I myself ended up ordering the Mid-Mini yesterday because I was able to get an open box one for less than $600. I'll rip out the hard drive, throw in an SSD (that I already have) and be done with it. My 2012 quad-cores will be solely be used for handbrake, VM's, and as a server. All of my day to day stuff will be done on my new 2014 since finally I can have a Mini that drives both of my 27" 1440P monitors (that's a huge win!).

 

[Occamsrazr]

I mean, honestly, who is really running handbrake 8 hours a day? Are you all pirating movies? What's going on? There's only so much *good* content creation that is possible and I know ALL of you guys aren't creating 8 hours of good content per day, so what gives?

 

[kaibob]

I am going to buy a new 2014 Mac mini for internet, email, bookeeping, and digital-photo browsing and very light editing. Right now I'm looking at a 2.8GHz Mini with 256GB SSD and either 8 or 16GB of RAM.

I read the Bare Feats article, and it was helpful, but overall I found an Ars Technica article somewhat more informative, especially as it relates to SSD storage speeds. Most importantly:

"The Iris 5100 further improves those numbers, beating the HD 4000 by 98 percent in the T-Rex test and about 45 percent in the Cinebench test.... Both our 2012 and 2014 Minis are equipped with 128GB SSDs from Samsung. The new Mini has 48 percent better write speeds and 62.2 percent better read speeds."

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/11/not-the-upgrade-we-were-hoping-for-the-2014-mac-mini-reviewed/

I don't know how these artificial banchmarks relate to day-to-day use, but I think the 2014 Mini is clearly the best choice for me. The faster 802.11ac Wi-Fi and additional Thunderbolt port in the 2014 Mini are also important to me.

 

[fuchsdh]

Well, yeah. I completely understand why people dislike the more-difficult to upgrade new design, but unless your overwhelming priority is a multithreaded CPU workflow of some sort, and you cannot afford the money to upgrade RAM at purchase, the new Mac minis are significant steps up with TB2, improved graphics, wireless, and storage.

 

[spatlese44]

DisplayPort* 1.2 / eDP*
H-Processors: 3840 x 2160 @ 60 Hz (Ultra-HD)
U-Processors: 3200 x 2000 @ 60 Hz, 3840 x 2160 @ 30 Hz
Y-Processors: 2560 x 1600 @ 60 Hz
HDMI*: 4096 x 2304, 3840 x 2160 @ 24 Hz / 24bpp
DVI: 1920 x 1200 @ 60 Hz

To me, this is the 2014 Mac Mini's biggest failing. Not that there was much to be done about it. I have a 2012 model and was looking to buy a second Mac Mini, but think I'll get a low end-ish (2010) interim iMac and wait for the next Mac Mini to come out. BTW, the 5300 Y-Processor notes indicate additional cooling is required for higher resolution. Next generation of processors should have it together, though I wonder if even then we won't be looking at dual display limitations that will have people unhappy.

 

[gugy]

What I am really curious to see is the 2012 i7 performance vs. the 2014 i5 2.6GHz middle of the pack model when it comes to Photoshop.
I am not sure if Photoshop takes a lot of advantage of the multi-core the 2012 i7 offers.
Anybody knows?

 

[dogslobber]

In all the comments here, you simply don't see enough of a clear differential between the 2014 and the 2012 machines. Usually it's a no brainer to get the latest. That so many pause for thought clearly shows the anguish 2014 Mini buyers appear to have.

That to me says either it's best to wait until the late 2016/early 2017 Mini, or grab a 2012 while they're still available.

Just my opinion.

 

[Count Blah]

I mean, honestly, who is really running handbrake 8 hours a day? Are you all pirating movies? What's going on? There's only so much *good* content creation that is possible and I know ALL of you guys aren't creating 8 hours of good content per day, so what gives?

Why get a motorcycle to zip around, you darn speed demons - better to get a moped instead. Who wants a 50+" tv to watch programs? You can see plenty on a 20" CRT one instead. Where do you think you are? A movie theater.

 

[Occamsrazr]

Well, that's really the point isn't it? The 2014 mini is more of a speedy bike, while the 4 core 2012 is a lumbering dump truck that can move whole lot of stuff - but which you only need once in a blue moon.

 

[psound]

Well, that's really the point isn't it? The 2014 mini is more of a speedy bike, while the 4 core 2012 is a lumbering dump truck that can move whole lot of stuff - but which you only need once in a blue moon.

It's okay Occam—there will always be someone out there with a bigger CPU.

Just let it go and be happy with what you have.

 

[Micky Do]

In all the comments here, you simply don't see enough of a clear differential between the 2014 and the 2012 machines. Usually it's a no brainer to get the latest. That so many pause for thought clearly shows the anguish 2014 Mini buyers appear to have.

For my needs, I would prefer the low end 2012, if only because it can be upgraded to 16GB of ram after purchase. The low end 2014 is 100% useless for me.

The 2014 low end would've been a really nice computer for people with minimal computing needs a couple years ago, but today I couldn't imagine using a computer with this low of specs (no SSD) even for really basic stuff.

Obviously then, Apple didn't create the 2014 Mac Mini to entice antsy 2012 Mini owners to replace what they have. Nor are they pandering to whinging wannabes who would be better served by a Mac Pro. For the average Joe, or Jill, there is a Mac Mini spec available to suit a range of needs, and budgets.

That to me says either it's best to wait until the late 2016/early 2017 Mini, or grab a 2012 while they're still available.

Just my opinion.

Don't worry, a new Mac Mini is almost certainly coming.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1681773/

 

[RoastingPig]

I bought a refurb 2012 i5 mini for my plex server ,on the fly transcoding, and network storage needs because a Similiar performing NAS is about 700 bucks. I no longer like running my 2010 12core 3.46ghz mac pro 24/7 to so i can preserve and prolong it for another 5 years.

My mini will be headless with a 12tb raid 5 connected just running 24/7 by my network switch.

 

[Dameatball]

http://www.barefeats.com/macmin14.html

I'm guessing 90% on the mac-mini sub knew this back when the 2014 MM's were released. Wasn't too hard to guess since the new batch didnt have the intel quads. both the 2011 and 2012 server models have higher benchmarks than the high end 2014 MM with the modified upgraded 3.0 chip.

That's why the i7 quads are nowhere to be found.

----------

I am sure for people who just do email, a bit of web browsing and such will be very happy with the 2014 offerings. For the rest of us, who do a bit more and have had previous models that were quad - well....lots of threads here and elsewhere just how disappointed (insert stronger words here) we were with the new anemic models that rubbed salt into the wound with their soldering in of RAM.

For 2015/16, I'll be moving to another computer and perhaps (sadly) another operating system. I would prefer to move to Linux but may end up with Win plus Linux virtual based on software needs.

I agree in that the 2014 releases, after 2.5 years were disappointing. Apple is aware too, as they've taken a lot of crap for it. My guess is there's a new batch around the corner, without the soldiered ram nonsense and a big boy processor. FYI, Actually the base mac mini for 499 isn't a bad deal if it suits your purposes I randomly bought a brand new 2011 quad over the summer from someone who never opened the box. Had no idea it would be a blessing in disguise).

 

[Dameatball]

I'd still like to see the low end 2012 compared to the low end 2014....

Nobody here wants to see that because it would make the 2012 look so bad

2012 base model Mac Mini (i5-3210M) benchmarks: 3795

2014 base mode Mac Mini (i5-4260U) benchmarks: 3645

So the 2012 base MM has a slightly faster processor. That said, the 2014 is $ 100 bucks cheaper

 

[scottsjack]

Apple is aware too, as they've taken a lot of crap for it. My guess is there's a new batch around the corner, without the soldiered ram nonsense and a big boy processor.

Oh come on Mr. Everhopeful. The mini is heading towards becoming an ARM powered little box about one-quarter the size of the current one. It will be sealed up except for a power plug, a couple of TB2 ports and a few USB3.1 type C ports. There is zero indication from Apple that they are interested at all in traditional computer construction.

 

[Dameatball]

everyone always compares the high end 2012 model with the low end 2014 model and then uses that as proof that the 2012 is better than the 2014.

how about comparing the low end 2012 with the low end 2014 and get back to me.

I dont think anyone was comparing the low vs high end. It is true unfortunately, I pasted the benchmarks for the 2012 and 2014 models

 

[cynics]

I mean, honestly, who is really running handbrake 8 hours a day? Are you all pirating movies? What's going on? There's only so much *good* content creation that is possible and I know ALL of you guys aren't creating 8 hours of good content per day, so what gives?

8 hours of handbrake on a 2014 MM can be 1 bluray (depending on your settings and quality). It isn't out of the question that even your average user that wants to put their blu ray collection into iTunes would be running Handbrake 8+ hours a day for weeks even months.

So if you had a CPU that ran handbrake 25% faster you are talking A LOT of time. Hours for each blu ray, and for collections days/weeks even months if the collection is big enough.

 

[marclondon]

I see the 2012 vs 2014 debate is still going...

I'd say it's quite simple. If you can get a cheap 2012 quad i7 then that's good. I got a refurb 2012 2.3GHz i7 in the UK for £399. If you can't don't pay silly money for a 2012 - get a 2014 model.

There - case solved.

M.