New Mac Minis, No Quad Core, No Server

[JackieInCo]

the base model comes with dual core but there is an option to upgrade to quad core cpu, that's is what I'm trying to say.

The upgradeable i7 is also dual core.

 

[jsolares]

the base model comes with dual core but there is an option to upgrade to quad core cpu, that's is what I'm trying to say.

There's no such option anymore, you can update to an i7 but that's also dual core.

 

[Tapdawg]

Ok, I guess you're right.
but why at intel website is written that my cpu is quad core and apple write that is dual core.

The i7 can come in a dual core or quad core configuration. The 2012 models let you choose between these options but the new 2014 models only allow the dual core. It's a step in the wrong direction.

 

[Yvan256]

Ok, I guess you're right.
but why at intel website is written that my cpu is quad core and apple write that is dual core.

The Mac mini used to have a quad-core i7 option at the high end. But not anymore.

 

[Cave Man]

Looks like Apple has set the stage for another surge in hackintoshes.

 

[jamesryanbell]

Don't just moan, TELL THEM!!!

https://www.apple.com/feedback/macmini.html

Leave feedback.

Feedback left as well.

 

[torquer]

Core i7 Model #

For the curious, the top end Core i7 is a Core i7-4578U:

http://ark.intel.com/products/83506/Intel-Core-i7-4578U-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_50-GHz

 

[jlanpheer]

I did the same.

Feedback left as well.

I'm sure they don't care, but expressing your opinion can't hurt in this case.

 

[Acorn]

no quad core. oh well on to something better.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

This is a comparison between the Ivy Bridge 2.6 GHz CPU (Mac mini 2012) and the Haswell 3.0 GHz CPU (Mac mini 2014):
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=895&cmp[]=2345

The new Mac mini 2014 CPU provides ≈ 37.5 % less CPU power than the Mac mini 2012 CPU.

 

[weaverra]

The Mac mini used to have a quad-core i7 option at the high end. But not anymore.

It probably has to do with the bottom line sales numbers. The quad may not be as popular as one might think.

----------

This is a comparison between the Ivy Bridge 2.6 GHz CPU (Mac mini 2012) and the Haswell 3.0 GHz CPU (Mac mini 2014):
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=895&cmp[]=2345

The new Mac mini 2014 CPU provides ≈ 37.5 % less CPU power than the Mac mini 2012 CPU.

Per core it provides more power. There are just not many apps that fully take advantage of four cores for the average consumer of the mac mini.

 

[Val-kyrie]

So does this mean Apple is going to drop OS X Server down the road?

I also sent feedback to Apple. I am now searching for a 2012 model.

 

[danny_w]

Very upset this is the way its gone. I use these many times as servers and this is very disappointing...

Also looks like you cannot upgrade the ram in the machine at all.

Not even an i7. Glad I bought the 2012 model earlier this year.

 

[garbage-barge]

This makes me feel so much better and vindicated about my late July purchase of my mini.

haha, me too.

Specifically bought the 2.6 i7 to do audio production. I don't play games much, so video isn't a huge concern. maxed out the ram, added an SSD all for around $1000. These screen shots showing new BTO options pushing up over twice that amount are just ridiculous.

 

[tzchang]

I guess the reason of abandoning quad-cores Mini is because Intel does not have any quad-core i7 that comes with Iris Graphics. Currently, the most powerful graphics in Intel i7 quad-core is HD4600, it is even worse then the entry level $499 Mac Mini.

 

[Yvan256]

This is a comparison between the Ivy Bridge 2.6 GHz CPU (Mac mini 2012) and the Haswell 3.0 GHz CPU (Mac mini 2014):
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=895&cmp[]=2345

The new Mac mini 2014 CPU provides ≈ 37.5 % less CPU power than the Mac mini 2012 CPU.

If anyone is curious, I used the same site to compare the CPUs of the Mid 2010, 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo Mac mini with the newly released 1.4GHz dual-core i5 Mac mini.

I'm not sure if the numbers are calculated in "Turbo mode" for the 1.4GHz i5 though.

----------

I guess the reason of abandoning quad-cores Mini is because Intel does not have any quad-core i7 that comes with Iris Graphics. Currently, the most powerful graphics in Intel i7 quad-core is HD4600, it is even worse then the entry level $499 Mac Mini.

I guess this means we're better off waiting for a Broadwell or even Skylake refesh at this point. At least the Mac mini isn't dead (yet), we should be happy about that.

I was glad when they mentioned the Mac mini upgrade and talked about "standard SSD" or something, but it turns out it wasn't the case, it's not even a BTO on the low-end model.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

I guess the reason of abandoning quad-cores Mini is because Intel does not have any quad-core i7 that comes with Iris Graphics. Currently, the most powerful graphics in Intel i7 quad-core is HD4600, it is even worse then the entry level $499 Mac Mini.

That's wrong! See also:
http://ark.intel.com/products/family/75023/4th-Generation-Intel-Core-i7-Processors#@Mobile

I count 9 different Quad Core, i7, 4th generation CPUs with Intel® Iris™ Pro Graphics 5200. The TDP (47 W) is comparable with the TDP (45 W) of the 2.6 GHz, Ivy Bridge, Quad Core I7-3720QM.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I don't see why they wouldn't.

Is there any (!) other product (be it from Apple or someone else) using "LPDDR" RAM that is actually user-upgradeable?

 

[rrl]

I guess the reason of abandoning quad-cores Mini is because Intel does not have any quad-core i7 that comes with Iris Graphics. Currently, the most powerful graphics in Intel i7 quad-core is HD4600, it is even worse then the entry level $499 Mac Mini.

Not true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haswell_(microarchitecture)

 

[Donka]

Do you think the base model will be able to act as media center with Plex? And then i am mainly concerned about on the fly transcoding.

Yes, it will be fine unless you are planning on transcoding try to multiple clients at the same time.

 

[Acorn]

all the 2012 owners that got **** for buying a mini when a new one was immanent are laughing now. Its karma for making the 2012 owners feel bad about their purchase.

BAM> have a 1.4 ghz mini and no quad core

 

[grandM]

Mad MacRumors member called to Apple: Now you've really done it! No quad core CPU in the mac mini. I am NEVER buying a mac mini again. From this moment on I will buy the Mac Pro. That will serve you right.

Apple representative: ehm OK

 

[Exponent]

Don't just moan, TELL THEM!!!

https://www.apple.com/feedback/macmini.html

Leave feedback.

Thanks. I just did just that.

 

[montom]

Hey maybe there's a reason for this. If Apple is bringing back the Macintosh, then Mini gets the dual core, Macintosh the quads. That could then be a headless iMac with quad core and everything.

The thermal limitations of the Mini are holding it back, hence why a new design that can accommodate better graphics and CPU in the $800-$1600 range would make sense eventually.

 

[grandM]

Hey maybe there's a reason for this. If Apple is bringing back the Macintosh, then Mini gets the dual core, Macintosh the quads. That could then be a headless iMac with quad core and everything.

The thermal limitations of the Mini are holding it back, hence why a new design that can accommodate better graphics and CPU in the $800-$1600 range would make sense eventually.

lol I'd sooner assume Apple advises you buying an iMac ...
Apple just wants to sell all in ones. This way they can sell you a new screen with every new computer... More profit if their customers don't switch.