What graphics do they use? The reason the Mini couldn't have the previous i series CPUs is about the fact that the Radeon Graphics were fitted in such a way that the LB couldn't be fitted in the chassis hence the C2D with the Nvidia graphics were used instead.
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.
Quad core Mac mini's likely in near future?
- Thread starter Woodcrest64
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What graphics do they use? The reason the Mini couldn't have the previous i series CPUs is about the fact that the Radeon Graphics were fitted in such a way that the LB couldn't be fitted in the chassis hence the C2D with the Nvidia graphics were used instead.
The IGP that comes with the SB processors. There's little reason to expect they'll do different for the Mini's. There's reason to hope for it, but that's something different.
SB runs much hotter than the C2D with Nvidia which makes me question if they will be able to achieve the cooling necessary. IB on the other hand it is rumored will have a much better TDP.
GeForce 320M appears to consume around 10-12W (can't find a solid source though) and the P8600 in the 2010 mini uses 25W, combines to 35W-37W.
Most mobile SB i5's plus the i3-2310M use 35W. There's a few i7's running on 25W. I see no problem. Processor TDP's taken from Wikipedia.
And besides, the 13" MBP uses SB chips, is that really that more efficient on cooling?
Edit: If you're talking about quad cores for a Mac Mini, then yes, SB's TDP is too high. 45-55W according to Wiki.
Most mobile SB i5's plus the i3-2310M use 35W. There's a few i7's running on 25W. I see no problem. Processor TDP's taken from Wikipedia.
And besides, the 13" MBP uses SB chips, is that really that more efficient on cooling?
Edit: If you're talking about quad cores for a Mac Mini, then yes, SB's TDP is too high. 45-55W according to Wiki.
Yes I was talking Quad's. It's all a bit of a mess really as the reason they didn't get the old i series chips was because there was no room for discrete graphics. Now Intel have the IG I'm not sure if that's covered or uncovered with the SB non quad.
MBP 13" - 2 core i5 SB - 5900 - 35W TDP
MBP 13" - 2 core i7 SB - 6796 - 35W TDP
MBP 15" - 4 core i5 SB - 8804 - 45W TDP
geekbench scores
The 2 core has hyperthreading, the 4 core doesn't. so the differences aren't that significant.
I think the i5 would be fine as a base machine (with a price drop please?), and I'd want an i7 dual core as a BTO or higher end model
MBP 13" - 2 core i7 SB - 6796 - 35W TDP
MBP 15" - 4 core i5 SB - 8804 - 45W TDP
geekbench scores
The 2 core has hyperthreading, the 4 core doesn't. so the differences aren't that significant.
I think the i5 would be fine as a base machine (with a price drop please?), and I'd want an i7 dual core as a BTO or higher end model
Are those figures with or without the discrete graphics as remember there is no room with the current chassis for discrete graphics. This will make a difference to the TDP figures.
Hehe took me some time to figure that out.. I'm quite sure that there's no need for discrete graphics for the Mini (though it would be nice) so a non-quad core SB would fit in just fine.
Back ontopic though, do you think Ivy Bridge mobile quads will make their way into Mini's? I'm not sure. I think it's reasonable to assume that IB mobile will have roughly the same distribution of duals/quads as the current desktop series has. So all i7's will have quads and the step 'back' to duals is somewhere in the i5 range. In such a scenario I can see Apple taking a dual i5 in the base Mini and a quad as a BTO/higher end model. If the base one still sports an optical I guess the higher end could get rid of that in favor of more space for a quad, more cooling, and an SSD as a BTO. If enough affordable Thunderbolt external harddrives come along I don't think they'll get a second HDD in there.
Hefty (amateur) speculation though.
Well as IB has a rumored better TDP range than SB I would have thought that this series of CPUs would be a better fit for a Mini - could be wrong though. As for TB - lots of people on Mac forums seem to be under the impression that this is a Apple innovation when in fact it is Intel's baby. HP has decided not to use it at present as they can't see a market until there are more peripherals. I'm sure as other PC manufacturers adopt TB then prices are bound to fall.
Don't forget that with Lion there will no longer be a separate server edition.
I think they can do it, if they do what they did in the MBA, solder the RAM on the LB, then put the SSD drive on the LB, remove Superdrive, and add a fan with air flow ports on the back.
I would love to see this in a new Mini
i7 Quad Core
4GB Ram standard
128/256/512 SSD standard
NO Superdrive
It all depends on what they do with the price, I have a Mid 2009 C2D 2.0 Ghz Mini with 4GB/500GB and it works well however the 9400M leaves me a little needy for a better GPU.
I would love to see this in a new Mini
i7 Quad Core
4GB Ram standard
128/256/512 SSD standard
NO Superdrive
It all depends on what they do with the price, I have a Mid 2009 C2D 2.0 Ghz Mini with 4GB/500GB and it works well however the 9400M leaves me a little needy for a better GPU.
Apple could use a mobile i7. Look at this chart...
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/corei7/mobile/index.htm#specifications
The 2649m is 25 watts. Could help apple with a refresh until a desktop chip with low watts is available. Or, if apple would get there head out of the rear end, they could double the height of the mini and put just about and sandy bridge chip they want with room for cooling, a ssd and a 2.5 inch hard drive. If apple turns to an A series iOS chip and use the iPhone OS, it would kill the mini. But then again, with apple pushing the iOS platform, this would be a good way to test the market for a desktop model. I wouldn't buy one though.
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/corei7/mobile/index.htm#specifications
The 2649m is 25 watts. Could help apple with a refresh until a desktop chip with low watts is available. Or, if apple would get there head out of the rear end, they could double the height of the mini and put just about and sandy bridge chip they want with room for cooling, a ssd and a 2.5 inch hard drive. If apple turns to an A series iOS chip and use the iPhone OS, it would kill the mini. But then again, with apple pushing the iOS platform, this would be a good way to test the market for a desktop model. I wouldn't buy one though.
What might work would be a Via QuadCore, the architecture of which is clock for clock is faster than Bobcat and Atom and runs about 32W counting chipset. The downside is that it runs at a measly 1.2GHz so is unlikely. OTOH it is way more powerful than ARM and run x86
Excellent post! You changed my mind!
Thank you. Very kind.
Had another thought
"They" say that it's unlikely Apple will launch any new hardware at WWDC 2011. Apple have been known to not to announce incremental updates so unless there has been a full redesign of the Mac Mini for 2011, I can't imagine them bringing it up for an i3 / i5 dual core processor upgrade.
I can see three possibilities for 2011.
1. They work out how to put a quad core into the existing thin Unibody Mac Mini and have that quad core as an option. Very unlikely.
2. They create a Mac Mini Pro which would be a tall or wide version with quad core, better fans, no Superdrive, SSD only and Thunderbolt. (Heat from hard drive would be too hot). Different design to Mac Mini so different name. Not impossible.
3. They upgrade the Unibody Mac Mini with an i3 / i5 Sandy Bridge processor and put a Thunderbolt socket on it. Very likely.
Or option 4 - do absolutely nothing. A lot of people forget that the Mini is supposed to be an "introduction" to the world of Mac so Apple are hardly going to make a budget entry blisteringly fast. Even today the present Mini can still hold it's own against some budget line Windows PCs. I think they may just upgrade the RAM and HD - that is if they do anything at all.
True. Between the 2,1 and the 3,1 there were 19 months however between the last 3,1 and the 4,1 Unibody there were only 8 months.
Yes the Mac Mini is supposed to be an introduction but a Mac Mini Pro wouldn't be that introduction. The Mac Mini would.
What could an iMac without a screen be called?
All mobile SB chips have hyperthreading (i5 and i7), and the entry-level 15" MBP is an i7, not an i5. Also, the quad-core i7 is about 50% faster in that benchmark than the i5 (for only a 28% increase in TDP), which is significant for workflows that take advantage of the extra cores/threads.
Not to say the dual-core SB chips are slouches. For some of the video encoding tests I did, they're almost as fast as the quad-core i5 in last year's iMacs.
As much as I'd like quad-cores, the pessimist in me says that Apple will just use dual-cores in the Mini, not for TDP reasons (they put quad-cores in the MBPs despite being more physically constrained than the Mini), but just to keep the markets segmented.
Or to turn it the other way, I could build a PC with a desktop i5-2500, Radeon 6770, 1TB drive, 4GB RAM, wifi, Win7 license, etc, for $700. The performance gap, even if we get dual-core SB chips next month, is still pretty wide. Of course, despite the leaps and bounds Microsoft made with Win7, I still prefer OS X, so I'm continuing to use a Mini.
And crash twice as much, give perplexing system errors twice as much, take 10x longer to boot, etc.