I would buy now. You never know when Apple will come up with the "courage" to remove more functionality. Right now you still have Ethernet, HDMI, USB3 and a headphone jack. As well as the "future" I/O USB-C. So EVERYTHING is covered. Next model could very well just be USB-C like the laptops (dongle city). And this model is slightly more upgradeable than the last one. With Apple, waiting for a new model can result in you being forced to buy something that is a step back (e.g. removing functional I/O like HP jack and USB3 and removing MagSafe from laptops). Buy now while Apple is still working up their "courage" to gut the mini.
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.
Macmini 2020: buy or wait?
- Thread starter hanske68
- Start date
-
- Tags
- macmini
- Sort by reaction score
I've been considering buying a Mini as I still find it most bang for buck in terms of getting the Mac Pro modularity at a (mostly) non-pro price. I'll start with 16GB RAM as it should be sufficient for a while - then will upgrade it myself.
I am getting close to the point where I have to buy a new computer - so the 'wait' option is becoming more and more unlikely. Overall the 'upgrade' to 512 GB base SSD storage did help sway me (I def needed more than 256) - so while it's not a true upgrade I found it a pleasant surprise.
Major question I have about the Mini as someone who never had to think too much about a GPU for mac before - I can't find any issues with eGPUs besides the fact they (can) look ugly and are like... a little bit slower than if they were internal?
Can anyone with a 2018/'2020' Mac Mini let me know if the performance hit using an eGPU is really noticeable?
Are there other issues regarding eGPU I'm not aware of?
How is heat dissipation on the Mini for the CPU intensive work?
And one weird question - is placing the eGPU 6 feet away and connecting it to everything via long cables going to cause significant performance issues? I've read that cable length causes some performance hits but from what I can tell this comes up in benchmarks but is otherwise practically negligible. (Main concern is fan noise)
My understanding of the Mac Mini was that Apple was like 'Of course the integrated graphics suck but we gave it 4 TB3 ports so get a damned eGPU - you don't even have to buy that from us!'.
It seems like if you are good with cable management you can hide away any of the ugliness of this relatively easily and thus with the GPU do really have a 'headless iMac'? I must be missing something?
I am needing the GPU primarily for 3D Game Dev, some basic GPGPU programming (no CUDA unfortunately but can still do some work with OpenCL) and some video editing. Of all the configurations the Mac Mini seems to be the one that allows me to spend the least right now (assuming eGPU isn't problematic) while allowing the most expandability later.
Hope someone can help thanks.
I am getting close to the point where I have to buy a new computer - so the 'wait' option is becoming more and more unlikely. Overall the 'upgrade' to 512 GB base SSD storage did help sway me (I def needed more than 256) - so while it's not a true upgrade I found it a pleasant surprise.
Major question I have about the Mini as someone who never had to think too much about a GPU for mac before - I can't find any issues with eGPUs besides the fact they (can) look ugly and are like... a little bit slower than if they were internal?
Can anyone with a 2018/'2020' Mac Mini let me know if the performance hit using an eGPU is really noticeable?
Are there other issues regarding eGPU I'm not aware of?
How is heat dissipation on the Mini for the CPU intensive work?
And one weird question - is placing the eGPU 6 feet away and connecting it to everything via long cables going to cause significant performance issues? I've read that cable length causes some performance hits but from what I can tell this comes up in benchmarks but is otherwise practically negligible. (Main concern is fan noise)
My understanding of the Mac Mini was that Apple was like 'Of course the integrated graphics suck but we gave it 4 TB3 ports so get a damned eGPU - you don't even have to buy that from us!'.
It seems like if you are good with cable management you can hide away any of the ugliness of this relatively easily and thus with the GPU do really have a 'headless iMac'? I must be missing something?
I am needing the GPU primarily for 3D Game Dev, some basic GPGPU programming (no CUDA unfortunately but can still do some work with OpenCL) and some video editing. Of all the configurations the Mac Mini seems to be the one that allows me to spend the least right now (assuming eGPU isn't problematic) while allowing the most expandability later.
Hope someone can help thanks.
Actually the eGPU is a no-brainer.
You just do not want to pay for it and prefer to be stuck complaining.
I 100% cannot understand how you are a business user, who needs to have 3x 4k displays simultaneously, and complain about a small expansion box costing a few hundred to tie it together.
Should I need an eGPU, I would just have it. Plain and simple.
If productivity demands something, then get it. Done.
Being on the bleeding edge costs money.
Finding cheap solutions sometimes means you have to pay for an extra upgrade.
Save on this, spend it on something else.
I actually 100% did not need the Mac mini I bought this week. If it were not for the ONE stupid issue with the existing one: the stupid DisplayPort disconnect bug(s) on 2012 models, that I have been struggling with for years now, causing weekly frustrations, daily frustrations, and 2-5 minutes wasted every time I get behind the computer and it decides to act up. Computer and display set to no sleep, screensaver on, it still would get triggered. Hours and days of troubleshooting. Reset this. Reinstall. Upgrade to newer OS. Who knows what it did to my health ... can't have been good for the blood pressure. So I finally said enough is enough.
I would have rather bought a new iPad or a new UAS/drone or saved it for something else; but enough was enough.
If a personal user can do it, it should be a no-brainer for somebody using a computer for work, generating income on the system, to expense it.
The current Mac Mini is an excellent machine in my view. I bought the i7 with 1TB SSD last year and it's been great. I've put 32GB ram in myself. It replaced a 2012 i7 Mini, which had run out of steam.
If you need a heavyweight GPU this is not really the machine for you but obviously you can add one. If you want a machine that deals with multiple web browsers and lots of other open programs such as Adobe suite, Microsoft Office etc it handles things with ease, including virtual machines (which really test it - Windows 10 on Parallels is OK but doesn't fly).
I'm fortunate in being able to get about 30% off the price though.
If you need a heavyweight GPU this is not really the machine for you but obviously you can add one. If you want a machine that deals with multiple web browsers and lots of other open programs such as Adobe suite, Microsoft Office etc it handles things with ease, including virtual machines (which really test it - Windows 10 on Parallels is OK but doesn't fly).
I'm fortunate in being able to get about 30% off the price though.
For the fully decked out version, Apple charge €2995 ($3278) and on Apple.com its $2999 so they’re not super fair with the exchange rate.
Those moaning about the 2020 non-update update should at least be glad that Apple acknowledged its existence and won't totally ignore it for years like they did in the past.
But does that include tax? I thought it usually did in the EU. Here in the US, advertised prices do not include tax, because it's different depending on where you live. I have to pay NJ sales tax of about 7%, so a $3000 mini would cost me about $3200. In New York there are both State and City taxes, and that Mini would cost almost exactly what you pay.
There are, however, 5 US states with no sales tax.
I think their will be a Mac mini pro, that will give some PCI expansion, memory and storage. Apple needs to get the Mac working better with bootcamp/windows 10 along with more support of game and VR/AR software developers to make the Mac a better platform for this market.
I use a 2018, 500GB, with RAM upgraded by me to 32GB. It wasn't very expensive, and it works well and quietly (which matters a lot to me.)
To answer your eGPU questions, at least partially, I have tried three different eGPU's - the HP, the Razer Core X Chroma, and the Blackmagic Design ogpu Pro. All of them worked just fine with my triple 4k monitor setup - although my graphics needs per monitor may not be as intensive as yours.
In the end, I used the Blackmagic Design egpu Pro. It was pricey, although not as pricey as it seems, since the gpu is built in rather than being an extra purchase. However, the selling points for me were the extra ports and the fact that it is almost completely silent unless I ramp up the graphics a lot.
The Mac Mini doesn't use laptop CPU packages. The mini shifted over to using desktop lineup CPU dies with the 2018 model. It is a BGA package but if a chip configured for much closer to a desktop usage profile. There are no Ice Lake desktop CPU products now. THere aren't going to be any going forward either. The desktop line up is going to be "Comet Lake" for the '10th' generation. That basically is rewarmed over 14nm microarchitecture utilized in the Mac Mini now. To a substantive extent "Comet Lake" is previous generation run "harder" ( up clocked , run hotter , and minor tweaks to the CPU packages to make them do incrementally being run "harder". ).
The Mac Mini really doesn't have a lots of thermal buffer zone to leverage a "run it harder" CPU package in. The other major complaint can see re-occuring in this thread is the GPU. Nothing substantive done there either.
Intel has released both 14nm and 10nm parts in the "10th" generation. It isn't a 100% uniform move forward across the board. Apple skipped moving the MBP 13" two port forward to a "10th" gen 14nm part. what the mini has done is mainly aligned the same way. All the substantively improved graphics have been held to the 10nm parts so far. So if want better graphics there is nothing there with 10th gen Desktop options.
There are no substantively improved in the desktop CPU space at all for most of the 2020. ( Both Intel and for most part also AMD ). Late 2020 Intel will have "Rocket Lake" which should pick up a substantively new design. The iGPU on those may or may not be compromised on those ( either for bigger x86 cores (because backporting a 10nm design and larger AVX512 units ) and/or to keep core count high. )
I'd expect an Mini update much more in that time frame. Skip Intel "Comet Lake" deskttop "10th" gen all together and either pick what presumably will be called 11th gen ( still on 14nm but cleaned up and new microarchitecture ) or perhaps shift to AMD. [ E
Probably not. Again, technically there won't be any TigerLake desktop versions either. ( just like Ice Lake). So unless Apple is going to put the Mini back on the mobile processor path again , it probably will not be Tiger Lake.
There seems to be indications that Tiger Lake and Rocket Lake may share some x86 cores and higher probability they will have the same baseline for the integrated graphics.
WiFi 6 is present in Ice Lake associated PCH (I/O ) chips. Why Apple didn't implement it appears much more about some hang up that Apple has versus what Intel is giving them . If Apple punts again later in 2020 on WiFi it is probably again more so on what Apple is doing versus parts they could have .
Probably less that 12 months from Rocket Lake (or Tiger Lake ) . But perhaps arrive too late in 2020 for Apple to do much with it. If Apple does nothing until late into April or early May in 2021 it is because they have put minimal effort into doing something.
If Apple were willing to let the Mini get incrementally bigger they could stuff a dGPU onto the logic board and goes with something new. More likley though they will let the current dimensions of the enclosure be a constraint. that is what is going to add more time versus what is available over next 2-6 months.
Held to the current constraints the Mini can get better. both Intels and AMD ingrated graphics should be much better late 2020 (maybe very early 2021 due to software/driver slide on the new graphics. )
[automerge]1589157310[/automerge]
Mac Mini will always be a cheap machine that lags behind in terms of CPU grunt and graphics... while the RAM and HD are nothing more than price gouging. You can wait as long as you like but IMO the best time to buy is either 'right after a solid new release' (unlikely) or 'a refurbished model at a good price'.
After tax last year I used part of my return to purchase a refurbished i5 Mini quite cheaply (with a decent monitor and keyboard). I then upgraded the RAM myself and purchased an eGPU (Core X with a Vega 64). It's a solid unit and I doubt you'll see that kinda GPU as standard in a Mini. Overall my kit was significantly cheaper than an iMac with the same sized monitor and roughly comparable GPU performance (noting the eGPU isn't as fast as an internal GPU).
My machine isn't amazing. But...
- It's the cheapest Mac I could find that can do all my work/web stuff AND play modern games (including emulators for systems like the Wii, Dreamcast and Saturn).
- Thunderbolt 3 might be outdated by the time we see a new Mac Mini (a risk I've taken). However, I'm willing to bet that in ~2021-22 I'm gonna be able to either switch out my Mac Mini for a faster one (maybe upgrade the GPU while I'm at it) or simply upgrade to GPU in my eGPU case to something twice as fast as the Vega 64 (as tech evolves...etc).
- If Thunderbolt 4 is backwards compatible, I might still be able to use my same case... albeit slower... with a faster Mini. IMO in the medium-term my eGPU (with the option of GPU upgrades) will continue o add more value to a mini that a CPU upgrade. CPUs are (IMO) faster than they need to be for most things and have hit a bit of a practical plateau.
The Mac mini with 8th generation intel is not 'bleeding edge'. Re-read the analysis of the cost of graphics capability on the Mac mini. A 1-PCI slot case, TB3 chip and PSU is crazy expenditure at £300+ in order to enable use of a £150 graphics card in a large box next to a much smaller desktop computer. In that context 'no-brainer' seems to be very appropriate.
Last edited by a moderator:
My late 2012 Mac mini was a true bargain when I bought it in 2013 - with RAM and an SSD upgrade an incredible machine. The current Mac mini is completely overpriced (especially with upgrades), compared to the Macbook 13'' or the iMac.
A clear "Do not buy" from me. For someone who has enough with 256GB SSD the base model might be fine though.
A clear "Do not buy" from me. For someone who has enough with 256GB SSD the base model might be fine though.
You're so right!
Why I don't want the Mini anymore in the first place is the Cinema Display problem, which Apple pretends doesn't exist.
Here I'm very angry with Apple.
The application advisors are often no longer with the customers. And somehow it seems that little feedback from the Apple Store staff is being incorporated into further developments design.
In the past I was delighted to see that Apple created exactly the products I had hoped for come along.
Last edited:
macmini is only £799 on ebay. lowes price so far
[automerge]1589151148[/automerge]
APPLE Mac Mini (2020) - 256 GB SSD - Currys | eBay
Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for APPLE Mac Mini (2020) - 256 GB SSD - Currys at the best online prices at eBay! Free delivery for many products!rover.ebay.com
hi
macmini is £799 on ebay. lowest price so far.
APPLE Mac Mini (2020) - 256 GB SSD - Currys | eBay
Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for APPLE Mac Mini (2020) - 256 GB SSD - Currys at the best online prices at eBay! Free delivery for many products!rover.ebay.com
That is the same price as from Apple.
It seems the 10th generation will also be using the Intel UHD630.... https://www.anandtech.com/show/15758/intels-10th-gen-comet-lake-desktop
I want a Mini, and yes more office work though on two 4k screens, that UHD630 is just crap, it has nothing to do with marketing position just a crap product from Intel.
Maybe Apple wil use the new AMD Ryzen 4000 laptop cpu's in the new Mini, that would be great as the IGP Radeon graphics are great! There are some references found in the latest beta's of MacOS so hopefully they surprise us at the WDDC.
I want a Mini, and yes more office work though on two 4k screens, that UHD630 is just crap, it has nothing to do with marketing position just a crap product from Intel.
Maybe Apple wil use the new AMD Ryzen 4000 laptop cpu's in the new Mini, that would be great as the IGP Radeon graphics are great! There are some references found in the latest beta's of MacOS so hopefully they surprise us at the WDDC.
Last edited:
Basically the point as to why Apple probably will skip it. UHD630 is exactly the GPU they have in the current 2018 models. Intel Gen 9 . So a 2018 GPU isn't going to make many of the folks who don't like GPU performance now buy a "10th" generation update. (because the GPU is really Gen 9 on the GPU dimension.).
Ice Lake variants of "10th Gen" CPU packages have Gen 11 GPU tech. But non of that is coming to the desktop versions of Intel. Partially, this is because most of AMD's desktop CPU packages Intel is competing with have no integrated GPU at all ( there are a few "APU" units that will trickle out at the end of their desktop upgrade cycle , but AMD is putting most of their weight behind desktops that have no iGPU. That is a big disconnect with Apple's objectives with the Mac Mini. )
Rocket Lake ( presumably "11th Gen" ) will have an upgraded GPU to graphics Gen 12.
Exclusive: Intel Rocket Lake-S features PCI-Express 4.0, Xe Graphics - VideoCardz.com
Intel Rocket Lake-S might provide the biggest upgrade to the mainstream desktop platform in years. Intel Rocket Lake-S gets PCIe 4.0 The platform codenamed Rocket Lake-S is currently expected in late 2020. The rumors about the RLK-S platform have been floating around the web for a while now, but...
So the desktop processor will jump from Gen 9 to Gen 12 on the next iteration. If Apple plans to stick with Intel for the next mini you can see why there is a good chance they would just skip this comet lake ( "10th") stuff. If switch to AMD Desktop APU with highly optimized Vega graphics would be at least as far as a big jump in capability for the Mini.
The only question with Rocket Lake is just how "small" the Gen 12 graphics will be. Or perhaps if Intel will use an in-package GPU that is 10nm ( cores on one die and GPU on another die and use some internal package connection to hook them together. ) Willow Cove microarchitecture was aimed at 10nm. So if backport it 14nm the die size will grow bigger. ( Comet Lake has a base 10 core die. So Intel will get some broad experience at putting a bigger die in the new socket package they are using. However, when get to the backport the cores will just get bigger so the max core count will probably drop back to at least 8 cores. Might be better chance at 8 cores (because expansion of x86 core size) if prune off the major GPU section of the die and do that at the intended 10nm.
Coffee Lake pretty much has he same layout and proportiionaly as Comet Lake. Here is the Coffee Lakes die layout:
https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/microarchitectures/coffee_lake#Configurability
The GPU is in the ballpart of a 1/4 of the die. If make that 1/4 smaller while the cores grow bigger you can get a trade-off in space used. Or Rocket Lake will have GT1 like graphics attached ( make the GPU "smaller" by giving it less cores (EU). ). That latter move would be very bad for the Mac Mini.
AMD has a desktop APU coming.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-renoir-desktop-apu-8-cores
However, as a "engineering sample" it probably isn't coming near term (not next quarter or so). I doubt that is coming in time for WWDC. ( Nor is WWDC probably being targeted as a hardware release show. If Apple has something ready and the manufacturing is ready, then they should ship it. )
Last edited:
I doubt anybody truly likes that there are no GPU options on the Mini. However, one of its draws is its flexibility.
Sure you’re buying a box and everything to put a GPU in, but you upgrade it later.
You seem to be harping on your needs and how they aren’t met, but needs change. A “Pro” such as yourself surely would prefer such flexibility. Or is that you’d just a new Mac Mini for the latest GPU? Is that foolish as well?
Last edited by a moderator:
In EU electronics are listed retail and sold VAT included to the tune of 20-25% on electronics.
In the US goods are listed retail VAT excluded (as it varies by town, county and state) and it is computed upon checkout. This typically is 6% to 9.5% on top of the item price.
So a 2999 USD Mac mini becomes 3179 - 3284 out the door.
And a 2999 EU TAX inclusive sale, means the unit was 2500 and you paid 20% VAT behind the scenes, to support all health & government services.
Easy to decide which is the better deal.
‘there’s nothing on a single display that isn’t being supported by Metal, which in turn is running on GPU. There are also a lot of non-display technologies that use Metal underneat, like AI. It’s waaay oversimplifting to say that better GPU is only about more displays.
[automerge]1589208168[/automerge]
the integrated graphics on the MacBook Air —- even the base model — support a 6K display are full rresolution at 60Hz.
Last edited:
I think we all could agree that 99.9% of computer are connected to one or two displays.
Probably >90% single screen and up to 9.9% dual displays? Give or take.
Three displays is not common at all, yet, and probably never will be.
The fact that you want to run 3 displays, and not just three regular ones, no, it has to be THREE 4K DISPLAYS ... means you are on the bleeding edge. Plain and simple.
300 pounds or 500 pounds to enable that is not some " crazy " expenditure ...
After all that you should have paid for such a setup in the past few years - and it depends on which displays you buy ... for some reason I can't imagine you paid a lot - 500 extra for a triple screen setup is peanuts. YES. PEANUTS.
I'd be looking at 2500-3000 just for three screens. An extra 500 doesn't matter at that point.
Of course if you want a $799 Mac mini to run 3x $250 4k displays ... oh boy, we're up to $1550 here ... can't go near $2k for this triple 4k screen setup.
Whatever ... you are too cheap to pay for what you want.
Expecting the max on a shoestring budget.
And, you can't be real, a business user unable to expense 500 pounds.
In the time you have complained about this, it should have paid for itself already ... if you really do something important that absolutely requires a TRIPLE 4k setup.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a perfectly capable Mac Pro with NVME storage driving these displays using a WX4100. A Mac mini plus eGPU for £2k+ does not bring enough performance increase to justify the added expenditure. An iMac or iMac Pro is paying for a screen I neither want nor need. As I wrote in an earlier thread, the 'problem' that I and many CMP users have is that our CMPs are just too capable and there is a gap in Apple's line up.
Unbelievable how sensitive people are at any criticism of Apple's line up, positioning, etc.
"Cheap" is very different from looking for value and not being wasteful.
Last edited by a moderator: