Macmini 2020: buy or wait?

[calderone]

This forum/thread really exemplifies the Apple fanboy stereotype.

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.

We don’t want to waste our time. Does the lineup suck? Yes. But I’ve been disappointed enough to know that complaining isn’t going to get me anything.

If I like MacOS enough to deal with it, then I need to make it work. That is my choice.

If OS doesn’t matter. Well the world is wide open to build or buy whatever I want.

Presumably you’re a “fanboy” as well. Otherwise I assume you’d have moved on from Apple rather than sitting in a Apple forum.

Control what you can. I can’t control Apple but I can make the best decisions possible for myself based on what is available. Like it or not, that is the reality. No amount of “criticism” is going to change it.

——————————

To add my opinion, I’m planning to buy a Mac Mini next month.

i7
Base RAM, upgrading to 32 or 64 myself.
1TB SSD

Bought the 3 year warranty version of the LG 5K for a good price.

Will make a call on eGPU later, but I’ll keep an eye out for good deals on the Blackmagic used.

Replacing a 2014 15” MacBook Pro.

Primary Uses: development (tools, web and mobile), photography (24-30 MP RAW).

 

[icerabbit]

This forum/thread really exemplifies the Apple fanboy stereotype.

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.

I don't think there's a need to pick on me regarding value ... or fanboy-ism.

I am very much in the value camp and have wished for a " Mac mini Pro " ever since the line went from PowerCube G4 days to Mac mini and Mac Pro. I was " forced " to get a well spec'd powermac G5 and then waited waited ... ultimately getting a Mac mini.

I'm not disagreeing that there is a gap between the mini and pro.

What I am disagreeing with is a couple people barging in, calling a Mac mini trash, obsolete, dead ... etc because it doesn't have a dedicated graphics card and can't run 3x 4k screens without spending a few hundred extra.

The Mac mini is very capable and it running two hi res screens.

I could argue and agree that the value of the Mac mini has decreased since it doesn't start at $599 any more, instead we're at $799 ... and we could pat each other on the back that most Apple products may carry too high a price for the tech that's actually inside of it ... but that is what it is. Apple is never going to charge bargain prices.

 

[Wahlstrm]

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.

It’s €2995 + VAT.
(It’s pointless to include VAT when comparing prices to Apple.com)

 

[Azrael9]

I don't think there's a need to pick on me regarding value ... or fanboy-ism.

I am very much in the value camp and have wished for a " Mac mini Pro " ever since the line went from PowerCube G4 days to Mac mini and Mac Pro. I was " forced " to get a well spec'd powermac G5 and then waited waited ... ultimately getting a Mac mini.

I'm not disagreeing that there is a gap between the mini and pro.

What I am disagreeing with is a couple people barging in, calling a Mac mini trash, obsolete, dead ... etc because it doesn't have a dedicated graphics card and can't run 3x 4k screens without spending a few hundred extra.

The Mac mini is very capable and it running two hi res screens.

I could argue and agree that the value of the Mac mini has decreased since it doesn't start at $599 any more, instead we're at $799 ... and we could pat each other on the back that most Apple products may carry too high a price for the tech that's actually inside of it ... but that is what it is. Apple is never going to charge bargain prices.

Don't have to be 'bargain' prices. But 'fair' prices of the Jobs era for both iMac and Mini are long gone. Same with towers.

I wouldn't say the Mac Mini is 'trash' but the iG is embarrassing.

When you pay £799 (no screen, no kb, no mouse, no dGPU...) C'mon, Apple. You used to sell a decent iMac for that price back in the day.

Maybe Apple customers don't complain enough. There's plenty of room to put a Macbook Pro style dGPU in there?

Then I'd soften my stance on it. To me, it's not as good a value as the old Cube. At least you had a decent gpu in there and a superior design. If they made it more mid-tower Cube/Mac Trash Can and had a £799-£1700 price point with 8-10 core and a dGPU? I'd have zero complaints.

The 'can' and the cube. They've had the designs to do this 'mid-tower' right.

They could flat out put an i9 and 5700XT in a 'Mac Pro' and democratise it to £1700-£3000.

The Mini could be kick az. It's poor value by the time you eGPU it. Expensive for us to add....but it would be much cheaper for Apple to option something in there and give the customer better value.

The iG is crap.

Azrael.

 

[Wahlstrm]

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.

It’s €2995 + VAT.
Apple show prices inc VAT but underneath the price it also says “Including €xxx in VAT”.

So this was mostly a response to the claim that it’s a lot more expensive here. It’s a little bit but when comparing apples to apples is usually never more than 10% and sometimes the exchange rate work in our favour as well..

 

[icerabbit]

...

When you pay £799 (no screen, no kb, no mouse, no dGPU...) C'mon, Apple. You used to sell a decent iMac for that price back in the day.

Maybe Apple customers don't complain enough. There's plenty of room to put a Macbook Pro style dGPU in there?

Then I'd soften my stance on it. To me, it's not as good a value as the old Cube. At least you had a decent gpu in there and a superior design.

...

The iG is crap.

A PowerMac G4 Cube started at $1799 and jumped to $2499 the next step up. It was never a " value " system.

I'm very curious in what way you'd consider the internal graphics crap.

It can now run two 4k displays ... that's 16 MegaPixels ... already.

And ... actually ... the specs say up to three displays:

• Two displays with 4096-by-2304 resolution at 60Hz connected via Thunderbolt 3 plus one display with 4096-by-2160 resolution at 60Hz connected via HDMI 2.0
  

So, what's not to like about that ...

Plus makes me wonder why there were complaints that it can't handle three monitors without a breakout box costing 5 bills.

 

[Azrael9]

A PowerMac G4 Cube started at $1799 and jumped to $2499 the next step up. It was never a " value " system.

I'm very curious in what way you'd consider the internal graphics crap.

It can now run two 4k displays ... that's 16 MegaPixels ... already.

And ... actually ... the specs say up to three displays:

• Two displays with 4096-by-2304 resolution at 60Hz connected via Thunderbolt 3 plus one display with 4096-by-2160 resolution at 60Hz connected via HDMI 2.0

So, what's not to like about that ...

Plus makes me wonder why there were complaints that it can't handle three monitors without a breakout box costing 5 bills.

The Cube wasn't a 'value' system.

Funnily enough, it was a headless machine at $1799 with dGPU. Something Apple doesn't offer at all short of £6k. Makes the Cube seem reasonable by comparison.

But it had decent enough specs, a sound design and a dGPU. It was over priced in a boutique kind of way. Better off getting the Power Mac at the time. Only in 'the end' did it's 'clear out' pricing make it the 'mid-tower' inbetween option many wanted. The pricing it should have started at.

There is a market there as we witness with the Mini. But, ironically, this 'mid' or 'mini-tower' doesn't come with decent dGPU. Or at all. At any price point. And by the time you add it to the eg. £1099 model, you're at about £1650-£2000 depending on what eGPU you add...

The Mac Mini. AKA. 'Son of Cube.' It doesn't have decent dGPU at any price. No matter how you configure it. Which is kind of outrageous. It's a desktop. But to add desktop class graphics to it...as Apple says...they point you to an over priced caddy with mainstream gpu.

So the Mini stopped being a 'value' system a couple of years ago.

It is somewhat flawed. Pluses are it's compact size and options for 6 core i7s. But for the price, what it doesn't come with...is designed that way to upsell one to iMacs perhaps.

2 screens at 4k. *shrugs. Any modern machine should be able to. 4k has been a thing for a very long time now.

Does the Mini's iG even offer a single Tflop?

'What a heap of junk...' Luke.
'Yeah, kid, but she'll do the kessel run in under a Tflop...' Han.

What about preview windows of creative apps whilst running those two monitors? What about the fps on any mainstream game? What about the GL time on Cinebench?

It's crap. But maybe if someone is running Logic and doesn't need a dGPU or decent graphics performance that might be fine for them.

iG up to £799 companies maybe able to get away with that but beyond that should be offering increasingly more able dGPU. Instead of passing the cost of adding dGPU to the customer to the tune of around £550+ and more for the Black Magic. Something that would add very little to the cost of the Mac Mini for Apple to add something appropriate. I say that as a potential Mini customer. There's something quite likeable about it. But if they made it double height and put a proper dGPU in it. I'd buy. At the least, put the Macbook Pro dGPU in it. Then it's more than a lick of 'space grey' pro. A decent dGPU would sit far better alongside a 6 core i7.

I remember when you could get Macs with dGPU for under £1k.

iG would make sense for graphics if it has compelling performance. iG will get there one day. But it's definitely not there with the Mac Mini.

Azrael.

 

[Paradoxally]

Maybe Apple customers don't complain enough. There's plenty of room to put a Macbook Pro style dGPU in there?

It's not about the room, it's about the heat. There just isn't enough in the way of heat dissipation.

I run a 5K display and a 1080p, with Xcode + a video stream open it already runs at around 72C for light tasks, up to 95C if compiling. The Mini is a very fast machine, but it's not meant for powerful graphics work unless you invest in an eGPU.

You put a dGPU in a Mini, and it will throttle hard for anything intensive defeating its purpose.

 

[Azrael9]

It's not about the room, it's about the heat. There just isn't enough in the way of heat dissipation.

I run a 5K display and a 1080p, with Xcode + a video stream open it already runs at around 72C for light tasks, up to 95C if compiling. The Mini is a very fast machine, but it's not meant for powerful graphics work unless you invest in an eGPU.

You put a dGPU in a Mini, and it will throttle hard for anything intensive defeating its purpose.

Then Apple needs to design it better to be a proper mac headless desktop with dGPU and proper cooling. The size it currently isn't immutable. If it needs to be 'a bit' bigger then make it bigger.

The Macbook Pro 16 inch. How does that do for throttling and cooling?

I'm not surprised the Mini runs hot -ish for light tasks. It's very compact. Perhaps too compact for its own good. Even my iMac ran hot for 'light tasks.' It proved to be the final nail in my iMac's gpu coffin.

Apple needs to improve the thermal design of their mainstream Macs.

Azrael.

 

[icymountain]

Many informative posts in this thread, which has become helpful for me to set up my project purchase. Decision is not final yet, but I would go with the i5/512Gb SSD/8Gb RAM, upgrade the RAM myself to 32Gb or maybe even 64Gb, and look for some sort of 4K display. Main uses are dev (partly under Linux VM) and photo processing (20MP RAW files). Does it sound reasonable to assume that I would not need a GPU ?

(if I would need one, I should investigate the display choice and compare to iMac prices before buying anything, though I like the concept less ---if only because I would like to be able to just plug my laptops to the display as well).

 

[BornAgainMac]

Wait until the 11th generation Intel chips for the second half of this year will be worth it. I am expecting the Macbook Pro 16/14, iMac, and Mac Mini to be updated with the 11th generation CPUs. I have a feeling the regular iMac will just replace the iMac Pro since it looks like Apple has abandoned it. I am hoping for the Mac Mini to have 4 TB option.

 

[icerabbit]

The mobile devices? Sure, we’re approaching wwdc. The mac mini? Highly doubtful for this year.

 

[Paradoxally]

Decision is not final yet, but I would go with the i5/512Gb SSD/8Gb RAM, upgrade the RAM myself to 32Gb or maybe even 64Gb, and look for some sort of 4K display. Main uses are dev (partly under Linux VM) and photo processing (20MP RAW files). Does it sound reasonable to assume that I would not need a GPU ?

For dev, you'll definitely be fine but you need more RAM, as you pointed out. I choose to run 32 GB for iOS dev, which is a bit overkill but Xcode + simulators + other programs I run love to eat RAM. It also keeps the system nice and fluid. I was running the stock 8 GB and it didn't cut it for heavier tasks.

For photo processing, I'm not sure because that is not part of my workflow, but I assume at that resolution you should be okay with the integrated graphics. Hopefully someone with more expertise here can help you.

 

[Azrael9]

Wait until the 11th generation Intel chips for the second half of this year will be worth it. I am expecting the Macbook Pro 16/14, iMac, and Mac Mini to be updated with the 11th generation CPUs. I have a feeling the regular iMac will just replace the iMac Pro since it looks like Apple has abandoned it. I am hoping for the Mac Mini to have 4 TB option.

There's no doubt that the back end of this year is the next tipping point tech' wise.

Big Navi and Ampere and the next CPUs from AMD/Intel. Finally. Competition.

That has implications for Apple hardware. But with Apple's leisurely update schedule we could be waiting until May next year to get that 'turn of the year' crest of a wave.

iMac Pro replaces the iMac 27 inch? 8 core. £2000 and 10 core. £3000. Two models. They both kick az.

Azrael.

 

[icymountain]

For dev, you'll definitely be fine but you need more RAM, as you pointed out. I choose to run 32 GB for iOS dev, which is a bit overkill but Xcode + simulators + other programs I run love to eat RAM. It also keeps the system nice and fluid. I was running the stock 8 GB and it didn't cut it for heavier tasks.

Makes sense.
One of the big advantages of the mini is the user-upgradeable RAM. Without this user-upgreadability, I would not even consider it. (for that same reason, when I looked at iMacs, I drew the conclusion that the 21" was not worth it; when taking RAM into account, the 27" is not more expensive anyway!).

 

[Azrael9]

Makes sense.
One of the big advantages of the mini is the user-upgradeable RAM. Without this user-upgreadability, I would not even consider it. (for that same reason, when I looked at iMacs, I drew the conclusion that the 21" was not worth it; when taking RAM into account, the 27" is not more expensive anyway!).

It's far beyond the original accessibility. It's more difficult now to the point of voiding warranty. It's worlds away from the iMac's latch door mechanism. The Mini used to have simple twist and turn circle to access the innards. The iMac used to be able to plant face down and simply take the back off as once demo'd by Steve. Cube. Simple to unhouse. Mac Pro. Simple to unhouse.

The 'programming' now is that people don't need to do all that or buy a PC. Be nice if Apple had their own box that 'did all that' that didn't cost two kidneys.

The Mini could be the box that people add their own ram, hd, gpu etc. If it was more in keeping with the old Blue and white towers.

Make it a vanilla black next cube of a reasonable mini-tower size that you could add your own stuff to and it would sell well. Well. I'd be one of their customers.

The Mini, to me, is half baked.

Azrael.

 

[Azrael9]

Wait until the 11th generation Intel chips for the second half of this year will be worth it. I am expecting the Macbook Pro 16/14, iMac, and Mac Mini to be updated with the 11th generation CPUs. I have a feeling the regular iMac will just replace the iMac Pro since it looks like Apple has abandoned it. I am hoping for the Mac Mini to have 4 TB option.

I think you're right. If you price cut the iMac pro to £3k. It's about where the HP AiO is in terms of specs give or take monitor size. That's where the modern AiO currently is. HP. Because both of Apples are 3 and 1 year out. of. date.

They can certainly bring the capability of a 3 year old machine to the mainstream iMac by now.

Ergo: the rumored 'substantial' update. That doesn't necessarily kill the iMac Pro.

But the gpu, cooling, 8 -10 core, more memory and ssd are all things (and the space grey) that can be given to the iMac without any re-design (bar the interior cooling.) And still be classed as substantial.

Azrael.

 

[Neodym]

The big disappointment for me is the graphics.

Maybe somebody else can explain this, because I just don't understand. Why doesn't Apple make the Mini like an iMac without a screen? Is there a problem with putting a dedicated GPU in the same size case as a Mini? They can do it with a laptop. Even if they needed to make the Mini larger, that wouldn't bother me at all.

Apple has been burnt with several attempts to have dedicated graphics in (Apple-style-)compact machines, especially notebooks. With the new mini now using desktop components, there’s much more heat in that small compartment - Apple did not update the cooling system without reason. I assume that they wouldn’t be able to properly cool such a beast with desktop CPU, dedicated GPU and integrated PSU (different from the usually mentioned NUC’s) within the given form factor.

And by now they would also have a harder time to change the mini’s form factor, as 3rd parties (data centers etc) have arranged themselves with the form factor. Think of the outcry when Apple changed e.g. from 30pin connector to Lightning.

New form factor would also mean additional cost for redesign, re-tooling, etc., all with the new mini already being significantly more expensive than its predecessor(s).

And last, but not least, they wouldn’t have been able to find a proper compromise for a dedicated GPU: Gamers would complain about lack of oomph, companies would complain on cost and privateers would complain about cost and noise (and longevity worries, even if only perceived). Splitting it up into even more SKU’s to provide integrated and dedicated graphics in the same product would be problematic in its own, multiple ways.

So with TB3 available, the eGPU is the much more comfortable way for Apple to go.

 

[binaryduke]

Apple has been burnt with several attempts to have dedicated graphics in (Apple-style-)compact machines, especially notebooks. With the new mini now using desktop components, there’s much more heat in that small compartment - Apple did not update the cooling system without reason. I assume that they wouldn’t be able to properly cool such a beast with desktop CPU, dedicated GPU and integrated PSU (different from the usually mentioned NUC’s) within the given form factor.

And by now they would also have a harder time to change the mini’s form factor, as 3rd parties (data centers etc) have arranged themselves with the form factor. Think of the outcry when Apple changed e.g. from 30pin connector to Lightning.

New form factor would also mean additional cost for redesign, re-tooling, etc., all with the new mini already being significantly more expensive than its predecessor(s).

And last, but not least, they wouldn’t have been able to find a proper compromise for a dedicated GPU: Gamers would complain about lack of oomph, companies would complain on cost and privateers would complain about cost and noise (and longevity worries, even if only perceived). Splitting it up into even more SKU’s to provide integrated and dedicated graphics in the same product would be problematic in its own, multiple ways.

So with TB3 available, the eGPU is the much more comfortable way for Apple to go.

You think Apple care one bit about what third parties have done around the form factor? Mac Mini colo is incredibly niche.

Likewise... tooling cost? Apple will tool whatever they want. They’re not some 2 bit Kickstarter venture that’s intimidated by tooling cost.

 

[Partron22]

I'm waiting. Apple hasn't shown much dedication to Macs since 2015. If they don't turn around, I can always rebrand myself.

 

[jazz1]

I've been tempted by the Mac-mini for a long time. I know the older ones allowed for the end user to open them up and upgrade internals. I wouldn't care if it looked like a high tech. toaster!

That is long gone, right? I just wish they would allow for user RAM and HD upgrades. I miss my //+

 

[Micky Do]

It's far beyond the original accessibility. It's more difficult now to the point of voiding warranty. It's worlds away from the iMac's latch door mechanism. The Mini used to have simple twist and turn circle to access the innards. The iMac used to be able to plant face down and simply take the back off as once demo'd by Steve. Cube. Simple to unhouse. Mac Pro. Simple to unhouse.

The 'programming' now is that people don't need to do all that or buy a PC. Be nice if Apple had their own box that 'did all that' that didn't cost two kidneys.

The Mini could be the box that people add their own ram, hd, gpu etc. If it was more in keeping with the old Blue and white towers.

Make it a vanilla black next cube of a reasonable mini-tower size that you could add your own stuff to and it would sell well. Well. I'd be one of their customers.

The Mini, to me, is half baked.

Azrael.

Sounds like you should be a customer for a Mac Pro.

 

[retta283]

Steve Jobs’ vision of the mini, a machine that increased Mac mindshare among hobbyists, is dead. Today’s mini is a product that Apple intentionally crippled in terms of graphics performance and other dumb design choices preclude most user upgrades. Out in the real world Raspberry Pis are the “minis” for a new generation of hobbyists.

Why does Tim Cook continue this farce?

You must not remember the Intel Mac minis from the Jobs era. They came with absolutely dreadful Intel GMA 950 integrated graphics, from 2006-2009. And even then, they still had integrated graphics. Not to mention that the original Mac mini design was never meant to be user serviced, you had to pry it apart to even replace the RAM.

To say that the current Mac mini is any worse in this regard than that of the Jobs era is being dishonest.

 

[Neodym]

You think Apple care one bit about what third parties have done around the form factor? Mac Mini colo is incredibly niche.

I don’t know how many minis are sold to Datacenters and other form-factor-dependent projects. Do you? Apple knows for sure.

Likewise... tooling cost? Apple will tool whatever they want. They’re not some 2 bit Kickstarter venture that’s intimidated by tooling cost.

Exactly because they are not “some 2 bit Kickstarter venture”, they will NOT tool whatever they want. Not Tim Cook’s Apple at least. Apple is a big company and in a big company you need to present a business case for any bigger spending and have it approved. And as I mentioned, it’s not only tooling, but also redesign, testing, SKU complexity, design-to-cost, market analysis, supplier certification and so much more, which all had impact on the business case around the mini update.

Even the late Steve Jobs would not approve any given project with CapEx on an unknown or even negative business case. Only Apple knows the exact numbers, but I know a bit how big companies behave and which processes apply on even seemingly small changes to existing product portfolios. And I’m sure I didn’t even list half of what had been considered and calculated within Apple, before the 2018 mini project got a green light.

 

[Partron22]

Those 2018 mini meetings must have been deadly dull!