Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FYI Aperture is optimized for multicore, but get go ahead and get the lesser computer for more money.

The iFanboys will buy anything.

PS - don't spend a months pay on an icrap mini. That's just nuts.

With the only Apple products I have ever owned being the original 2005 Mac Mini, and the 2009 Mac Mini (that I am using now), I hardly qualify as a Fanboy. I don't own an iOS anything, and probably never will.

I wanted a computer that I could use with minimal hassle. I have had that with both my Macs. That is not something I can say for the el cheapo Windows machines that some of my colleagues have done battle with and replaced every couple of years. That's nuts, to my way of thinking.

FYI any Apple computer as far back as 5 or 6 years ago has been at least dual core. Anything more than one is multi, is it not?

Yes, I know you are proud of your hod rod PC's, but I don't know what you are trying to achieve here denigrating modestly specified Mac computers that function just fine in the real world of many.
 
Just handbrake??

Sorely disappointed when I clicked on this thread and saw a comparison for just one application. That hardly represents real world performance between the 2012 and 2014 mini's. Do everyone a favor an re-label this thread "Handbrake Comparison" or something similar. Or maybe provide some more application performance metrics and make it more comprehensive.


Thanks.
 
With the only Apple products I have ever owned being the original 2005 Mac Mini, and the 2009 Mac Mini (that I am using now), I hardly qualify as a Fanboy. I don't own an iOS anything, and probably never will.

I wanted a computer that I could use with minimal hassle. I have had that with both my Macs. That is not something I can say for the el cheapo Windows machines that some of my colleagues have done battle with and replaced every couple of years. That's nuts, to my way of thinking.

FYI any Apple computer as far back as 5 or 6 years ago has been at least dual core. Anything more than one is multi, is it not?

Yes, I know you are proud of your hod rod PC's, but I don't know what you are trying to achieve here denigrating modestly specified Mac computers that function just fine in the real world of many.

I don't understand your defending of Apple on this one as buying a new or refurb 2012 today gets you the same iWork suite. Also with a 2014, you're being forced to pay weeks pay now to get extra ram with no option to upgrade later and Aperture runs much faster with quad core when working with larger RAW files than a similarly equipped dual core that Apple likes to charge us the same for as yesteryears quad.
 
With the only Apple products I have ever owned being the original 2005 Mac Mini, and the 2009 Mac Mini (that I am using now), I hardly qualify as a Fanboy. I don't own an iOS anything, and probably never will.

I wanted a computer that I could use with minimal hassle. I have had that with both my Macs. That is not something I can say for the el cheapo Windows machines that some of my colleagues have done battle with and replaced every couple of years. That's nuts, to my way of thinking.

FYI any Apple computer as far back as 5 or 6 years ago has been at least dual core. Anything more than one is multi, is it not?

Yes, I know you are proud of your hod rod PC's, but I don't know what you are trying to achieve here denigrating modestly specified Mac computers that function just fine in the real world of many.

Are you able to get the refurbished Mini's in Thailand? The 2012 quad's are worth looking into if you can get one. I see your point about computers still getting cheaper over time but for Macrumors posters cheaper isn't worth bragging about. People want to talk about how fast they can run Handbrake and Geekbench.

My question is why did Apple bother updating the Mini if the performance hasn't been improved? Why not just leave it as it was for another year?

s
 
Are you able to get the refurbished Mini's in Thailand? The 2012 quad's are worth looking into if you can get one. I see your point about computers still getting cheaper over time but for Macrumors posters cheaper isn't worth bragging about. People want to talk about how fast they can run Handbrake and Geekbench.

My question is why did Apple bother updating the Mini if the performance hasn't been improved? Why not just leave it as it was for another year?

s

I don't think Intel gave Apple a choice. Most likely Intel has ceased production of Ivy Bridge.
 
I don't think Intel gave Apple a choice. Most likely Intel has ceased production of Ivy Bridge.

Well...

Ivy Bridge quad-core processors fit both Mac Mini and rMBP 15" chassis. Now Haswell quad-core processors fit the same rMBP 15" chassis. Why a Haswell quad one wouldn't fit in a Mac Mini case?
 
Well...

Ivy Bridge quad-core processors fit both Mac Mini and rMBP 15" chassis. Now Haswell quad-core processors fit the same rMBP 15" chassis. Why a Haswell quad one wouldn't fit in a Mac Mini case?

Read the Arstechnica article. When Intel made Ivy Bridge, they thankfully used the same socket for both Quad and Dual core. They also put the best GPU - HD4000 - in both. Starting with Haswell - and going forwards with Broadwell and Skylake - stupid Intel (most likely due to marketing reasons) decided to fully differentiate their mobile CPU lines. Now if you choose fastest iGPU like HD5000/Iris you can't get Quad unless you get a different socket from the dual cores that have Iris. There are Duals that use the same socket as the Quad Iris Pro, BUT they only have slower iGPU's like the slower HD4400.
 
i have owned both Mac Minis (2014 and 2012) for a few days

and franckly, for daily tasks, i don't see any difference

but when it comes to converting FLAC files into Apple lossless or mp3

or editing my raw pics with Photoshop

well, my quad i7 2.3 2012 Mac Mini is way faster than the dual i5 2.8 2014 Mac Mini

for all the rest, no one will ever see a difference

i guess that for video editing (i don't do any, maybe in a near future if i finally stop hesitating buying a Gopro :p ), i guess that the quad will be faster

That sounds about right. When I first got my 2010 Mac Pro I had been using a late 2009 mini with a 7200RPM HDD. For fiddling around on the Net or writing something using Word I couldn't see much difference.

Later the mini was replaced with a 2012 2.3 quad. Both machines seemed like the same thing. They both used the same display, Apple full-sized keyboards and Mighty Mouse(s?). It was really hard to know which machine I was using until I opened Photoshop, Aperture or played a video.

The 2014 mini should be just fine for regular computing as long as one does not buy that cheapie ripoff version with 4GB RAM.
 
With the only Apple products I have ever owned being the original 2005 Mac Mini, and the 2009 Mac Mini (that I am using now), I hardly qualify as a Fanboy. I don't own an iOS anything, and probably never will.

I wanted a computer that I could use with minimal hassle. I have had that with both my Macs. That is not something I can say for the el cheapo Windows machines that some of my colleagues have done battle with and replaced every couple of years. That's nuts, to my way of thinking.

Yes, I know you are proud of your hod rod PC's, but I don't know what you are trying to achieve here denigrating modestly specified Mac computers that function just fine in the real world of many.

The only windows computer I have is a VM running in osx. However, as a functioning human with a brain, I am not ruling out building a Windows 10 pc.

Really that is great you like the crippled mini, glad it works for you, but why defend apple's choice to limit it for the rest of us with their half cores, half the hdd space, soldered ram design?


FYI any Apple computer as far back as 5 or 6 years ago has been at least dual core. Anything more than one is multi, is it not?

Way to miss the point.
 
One thing for certain... S.J. would NEVER have done this to the Mini.

The new dark days of apl are upon us.
 
So Apple can make iPads in three colors but cannot make two versions of a motherboard?!?

Please read what I was quoting. I wasn't saying that Apple can't make 2 different motherboards, the poster was asking why they couldn't just keep on making the 2012 models today.
 
So Apple can make iPads in three colors but cannot make two versions of a motherboard?!?

it's like you were comparing the colors available for a car and the number of engines available

yes, you can have your car painted in thousands of colors available, but it's a lot more complicated and costly to rethink and rebuild a new engine

that's the same with the motherboard
 
Moms, pops and kids are not ripping DVDs to an HTPC. They're doing email, web-browsing, word-processing and updating Facebook status.

There's a 90$ crapdroid tablet for that.
The Mini has happened to become the smarty pants macpro alternative. A workstation for creative professionals that want to re-use their perfect Eizo or NEC screen.
It no longer is. That sucks.

----------

I don't think Intel gave Apple a choice. Most likely Intel has ceased production of Ivy Bridge.

Back in time when his all mighty black turtle-necked holiness was reigning, Apple TOLD Intel what to make, not the other way around. Intel sucks big-time lately. Bummer! Where's that affordable 6-core 12 thread 14nm i7? Lazy asses. They totally screw up their own invention: Moores Law.
 
There's a 90$ crapdroid tablet for that.
The Mini has happened to become the smarty pants macpro alternative. A workstation for creative professionals that want to re-use their perfect Eizo or NEC screen.
It no longer is. That sucks.

----------


Exactly... people are buying cheap tablets for that stuff. Computers need to be capable for work and soldered ram in a desktop is ridiculous.

The fact is that the 2014 is far less capable than the 2012 for people that do more than facebook/twitter/word processing.
 
it's like you were comparing the colors available for a car and the number of engines available

yes, you can have your car painted in thousands of colors available, but it's a lot more complicated and costly to rethink and rebuild a new engine

that's the same with the motherboard

Yet most cars come with several engines to choose from.
 
Back in time when his all mighty black turtle-necked holiness was reigning, Apple TOLD Intel what to make, not the other way around.


There's some truth to that.
At least, he was not known for taking a "No" easily ;-)
It would have been a particularly uncomfortable meeting.

But I really doubt the Mini was much on his radar after the initial introduction.
After 2007, iPhone and iPad probably sucked up most of his time he had left.
Which, given various quotes from Schiller et.al., is even more true today: the iPhone is the juggernaut that runs the show at Apple. A box like the Mini is a rounding-error in that calculation.
 
I don't understand your defending of Apple on this one as buying a new or refurb 2012 today gets you the same iWork suite. Also with a 2014, you're being forced to pay weeks pay now to get extra ram with no option to upgrade later and Aperture runs much faster with quad core when working with larger RAW files than a similarly equipped dual core that Apple likes to charge us the same for as yesteryears quad.

Not really defending Apple; more taking a neutral position.

RAM needs of some software have gone up exponentially over recent years, but maybe that has started to level off. Apple claims that Yosemite is makes more efficient use of RAM than it's predecessor. In the end the usefulness of computer is the sum of its parts, not the power of any one component.

Faster running Aperture and raw files with quad core may be of benefit to a professional photographer, or even an avid amateur, but that is neither me, nor many others I know.

I enjoy photography, especially taking action shots of sports, which others seem to appreciate in the local newspaper and on websites. I use a little Fujifilm X10, which has RAW, but it is not compatible with OS X (that came with the X20). Nothing fancy I know, but it fitted my budget. Easily carried on a motorcycle or bicycle, it suits my style.

For the most part iPhoto works OK, but Aperture could be of some benefit in editing. It would be nice to have, but not a must have, with a consequent need to have hardware to maximise its potential.

Are you able to get the refurbished Mini's in Thailand? The 2012 quad's are worth looking into if you can get one. I see your point about computers still getting cheaper over time but for Macrumors posters cheaper isn't worth bragging about. People want to talk about how fast they can run Handbrake and Geekbench.

My question is why did Apple bother updating the Mini if the performance hasn't been improved? Why not just leave it as it was for another year?

s

My question too.

On reflection, although there has been no improvement in maximum performance, there has been no decline in day to day usability for the average Joe or Jill. The 2014 Mini, and Yosemite, come with some connectivity improvements that are likely to be of benefit to many in day to day use, especially those who have both OS X and iOS devices (I don't).

Refurbished Mini's in Thailand……?There is neither much of a 2nd hand market for anything here, nor the desperate need for annual updates. People tend to own things until they are no longer useful, or repair is no longer worthwhile.

I just had the engine overhauled on my 1997 motorcycle; it should be good for a few more years. Likewise, I'll probably pop in a SSD in my 2009 Mini and maybe a bit more RAM, and it will soldier on for a good while more.

The trend to a lack of repairability and upgradeability does instinctively bother me. On the other hand, with more reliable components, and more efficient software coming, maybe the need is now reduced. Time will tell.

The only windows computer I have is a VM running in osx. However, as a functioning human with a brain, I am not ruling out building a Windows 10 pc.

Really that is great you like the crippled mini, glad it works for you, but why defend apple's choice to limit it for the rest of us with their half cores, half the hdd space, soldered ram design?

Way to miss the point.

You were superhumanly quick to remove your signature, revealing that you don't own a Mac, just some hot rod PC and the odd iOS device.

You may enjoy bragging rights to having the fastest computer on the block, and tweaking it to take on all comers.

Who cares?

The humble Mac Mini is all the computer many need for their real world, and they have little interest in yours.

That sounds about right. When I first got my 2010 Mac Pro I had been using a late 2009 mini with a 7200RPM HDD. For fiddling around on the Net or writing something using Word I couldn't see much difference.

Later the mini was replaced with a 2012 2.3 quad. Both machines seemed like the same thing. They both used the same display, Apple full-sized keyboards and Mighty Mouse(s?). It was really hard to know which machine I was using until I opened Photoshop, Aperture or played a video.

The 2014 mini should be just fine for regular computing as long as one does not buy that cheapie ripoff version with 4GB RAM.

Welcome to the real world…… in which even the cheapie 4 GB Mini probably has a place.
 
Last edited:
You were superhumanly quick to remove your signature, revealing that you don't own a Mac, just some hot rod PC and the odd iOS device.

You may enjoy bragging rights to having the fastest computer on the block, and tweaking it to take on all comers.

Who cares?

The humble Mac Mini is all the computer many need for their real world, and they have little interest in yours.



Welcome to the real world…… in which even the cheapie 4 GB Mini probably has a place.

LOL... okay. I own a macbook (2008 8GB ram, ssd) and an android phone. Run a windows in a VM.

Edit: I will consider building a windows 10 pc in another year since apple no longer makes a computer that meets my needs and many others that do more than twitter and facebook.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited:
forgive me for being ignorant, but which of the 2012 machines were actually quad core? Did one have to upgrade the processor to quad as a BTO option, or was it an option on the standard "good, better, best" options?

2012 models were:-

Base - i5 @ 2.5Ghz (Dual)
Mid - i7 @ 2.3Ghz (Quad)
High (BTO) - i7 @ 2.6Ghz (Quad)
Server - i7 @ 2.3Ghz (Quad) + 2 x 1TB spinner drives

Other BTO addons like RAM/SSD were available on all models.
 
There's a 90$ crapdroid tablet for that.
The Mini has happened to become the smarty pants macpro alternative. A workstation for creative professionals that want to re-use their perfect Eizo or NEC screen.
It no longer is. That sucks.


Yup, I agree with this. It annoys me when someone sys that the Minin is only for people switching to Mac from Windows, or for people who just want to email and browse the web.

There are a lot of people using Minis for heavy processing work (photo/video for example) where the extra cores are useful. The counter argument that these people should be using a Mac Pro is equally dull (massive price difference being one).

Similar arguments appear in the camera world. Take the new Nikon D750 for example - Nikon brand it a high end enthusiast camera, and yet the camera is gaining excellent reviews and 'beating' the Pro cameras in some respects. Pros are using the D750 because it is much lighter than the D4 & D800 lines. Nikon still wins in my opinion because the user is still using Nikon (and their lenses and flashes), which is better than loosing the user altogether.

Branding something as 'enthusiast/switcher/home/pro' is just that - branding. It does not actually say who can and cannot use a particular computer (or camera!) and yet people seem to take this as gospel (which is the point of the marketing, I guess!).
 
I see a lot of people arguing about buying slower computer using older technology and I'll not disagree. I too am disappointed in apple's move to dual core. Yet with that said, will most people who buy them (aside from the MacRumor's tach-savvy folks) really notice. As mentioned the typical consumer who just office apps, Facebook, email etc. They'll not notice any difference. To them its a brand new computer.

I'm not making an excuse for Apple, it was a bad move on their part imo. It was really stupid to go down to two cores, but yet I think they're gambling that most buyers won't notice.

I was looking for a new Mac Mini for my family but I'll hold off and look for a better product for my limited funds.
 
Thanks for the good information on the Mac Mini 2012-2014.

I am considering either the new Mac Mini 2014 Base model (Model: MGEM2LL/A) for $400 (Open Box)

The 2012 Base Model for $365 Open Box.

Or the Mac Mini 2012 Intel Core i7-3615QM 2.30GHz for $500

I did notice this comment below from another poster. Which system above do you think has the most value for the $$. Thanks


well, my quad i7 2.3 2012 Mac Mini is way faster than the dual i5 2.8 2014 Mac Mini
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.