Real world comparison of 2012 vs 2014

[reco2011]

The new 2014 Mac mini with its duel core only processor and it's soldered on memory has some people all in a tizzy. Yes we all get there is a community that likes to MOD and be a DIY'r, however I feel your in the minority just like the people that MOD there cars. Most people just want to plug it up and go and when things no longer work or the new software won't run on there system they sell it or repurpose it.

As someone who is interested in buying used systems (I did so just yesterday and I'm looking at another one on Tuesday) the ability to upgrade the memory is important to me. I do not consider a memory upgrade as "modding" a computer. It's not an uncommon thing. As a buyer I considered buying the 2012 and 2014 model. I decided to buy the 2012 model as I can easily upgrade its 4GB RAM to more should my needs require it. If I purchased the entry level 2014 model I would never be able to upgrade the memory. Of course I could opt to buy a model with more memory but that drives up the initial purchase cost. So, IMO, upgradable memory is not unreasonable. In fact I won't even consider a used MBA with 2GB of memory.

Apple didn't say let's force people to buy our memory upgrade so let's use soldered on memory, no... I'm pretty sure they looked at all options and the LPDDR3 memory gave them the biggest gains for the iGPU and CPU due to having a higher bandwidth. Probably on the advice of Intel.

Do you not see the irony of this explanation? Below you argue a user will be content to run their Handbrake transcoding "a bit slower". Yet here you are arguing pro LPDDR3 RAM given its higher memory bandwidth. On one hand you say "so they'll run one task slower" and on the other say "but this one thing is faster". It's more ironic given most people, especially Mini users, will not see any real world benefit to higher bandwidth memory. Additional irony can be found as higher core count processors benefit more from memory bandwidth than lower core count processors. Yet this model doesn't offer a processor that could benefit as much from the additional memory bandwidth as the previous generation model.

The only people being cheated are the rMBP "15 inchers because the CPU is able to recognize up to 32GB but Apple has set a max of 16GB with on other options.

Apple didn't take away anything, this new system can still run the same programs as it did before they maybe a bit slower when it comes to transcoding video using Handbrake.

And yes we all understand that the base model is almost the same as the MBA and the mid and top models are rMBP "13's.

If you feel that your going to need the processing power of a quad core then you'll have to look at "15 rMBP, iMAC, or MP. If you don't get over it cause it's not going to change like everyone wanting Apple to make a more PC like computer that they can upgrade themselves.

If you want to MOD and customize then build yourself a PC it's not hard.

In the end it is what it is. Apple made the decisions they made for whatever reasons the did and there's little we can do to change it. That doesn't mean we have to be happy about it.

----------

I love how the OP chose one specific benchmark to support his point. Most users will not notice the lack of the extra 2 cores, unless they are doing CPU intensive stuff all the time, like encoding movies every day.

Who do you think is complaining about the lack of quad core processors? That's right...those who can use it. Should they feel better because others won't take advantage of the additional processors despite the fact their needs do?

 

[fastlanephil]

It's not like this is anything new from Apple. When they came out with the Mac LC they hobbled it's processor so that it would'nt compete with the Mac llCi.

I just don't think the quad-core Mac Mini fits in with Apple's current eco system. It was always intended as an intro to using the "real" Mac computers. Now the phones and pads accomplish this much better with Apple's emphasis on consumer products.

Phil Shiller kind of did the bums rush with the Mac Mini at the end of the last Apple event. Time to move on. Nothing to see here.

 

[magbarn]

That really depends on which part of performance you're referring to.

Image

Image

Image


I love how the OP chose one specific benchmark to support his point. Most users will not notice the lack of the extra 2 cores, unless they are doing CPU intensive stuff all the time, like encoding movies every day.

----------



Why present a balanced view when you can find a single graph to support your agenda? /sarcasm

I fully agree with you.

----------



No, that analogy is completely incorrect.


--------------

Some of the design choices in the 2014 Mini are inexcusable, like removing the upgradeability and soldering the RAM, but some of you need to get a grip. Just out of interest, how much did the 2012 Mini with a quad core CPU cost? I can't remember.

Edit: US$799 for the base level quad core - Quad Core "Ivy Bridge" 2.3 GHz Intel "Core i7" (3615QM)

Last night, the 2.3 2012 quad refurb was available for <$600. That makes it a no-brainer. The majority of the benchmarks you posted are also synthetic and have not much bearing on real world applications. For example, in many gaming benchmarks the HD5000/Iris can show a 25-50% improvement over the HD4000, but when you're going from 12-14 fps to 18-22 fps at 1080P resolution which is the rez that most mini's are hooked up to, you're still far from the 30fps mark that would make it decent. If GPU compute is important to you, then you shouldn't be looking at non-discrete gpu setups anyway.

Yes, Iris/HD5000 is a an upgrade over the HD4000, but if the importance of the GPU is really that high, the meager improvements over the HD4000 really isn't worth the loss of upgradability and quad core. The saying of 'polishing a turd' comes to mind.

Also the 128gb SSD featured on the 2012 Mini is at least 3-4 generations old. Yes, you're limited to SATA 3 speeds, but a 840 Pro/850 Pro 256GB SSD's have consistent 500+ MB/sec read/write performance for a cheaper price than what Apple is asking for.

 

[DavidG328]

how come they were right? i still want to watch my blurays and rip my music cds without using an external device

Sounds like what people said about their cars and cassette tapes.

 

[magbarn]

Sounds like what people said about their cars and cassette tapes.

Going way OT here, but while iTunes music downloads blow away cassette tapes in musical quality, any decent screen size (it's much more noticeable on 65 inches on up) easily shows the compression quality shortcomings of streamed/downloaded videos vs bluray.

 

[gugy]

Last night, the 2.3 2012 quad refurb was available for <$600. That makes it a no-brainer. T

Damn, I missed that one. This is the one I am looking to get and max out with RAM and SSD. That's a good price.
It was a odd time they had it on sale past midnight on a Saturday night. The good news is at least they have these appearing here and there, so we can hold on the hope to get one.

 

[theSeb]

He picked it because its a real world program. Hence the title "Real world comparison".

You posted benchmarks of Geekbench and quickbench.

Handbrake encodes videos, easily takes them from DVD and puts them in iTunes. Its designed for a novice to use.

What real world purpose does Geekbench and Quickbench serve?

I suggest you look again because I did not include Geekbench. Do you really not know what real world implication a faster result in quick bench will have, or are you just having a laugh?

 

[Thunderchicken]

As someone who is interested in buying used systems (I did so just yesterday and I'm looking at another one on Tuesday) the ability to upgrade the memory is important to me. I do not consider a memory upgrade as "modding" a computer. It's not an uncommon thing. As a buyer I considered buying the 2012 and 2014 model. I decided to buy the 2012 model as I can easily upgrade its 4GB RAM to more should my needs require it. If I purchased the entry level 2014 model I would never be able to upgrade the memory. Of course I could opt to buy a model with more memory but that drives up the initial purchase cost. So, IMO, upgradable memory is not unreasonable. In fact I won't even consider a used MBA with 2GB of memory.



Do you not see the irony of this explanation? Below you argue a user will be content to run their Handbrake transcoding "a bit slower". Yet here you are arguing pro LPDDR3 RAM given its higher memory bandwidth. On one hand you say "so they'll run one task slower" and on the other say "but this one thing is faster". It's more ironic given most people, especially Mini users, will not see any real world benefit to higher bandwidth memory. Additional irony can be found as higher core count processors benefit more from memory bandwidth than lower core count processors. Yet this model doesn't offer a processor that could benefit as much from the additional memory bandwidth as the previous generation model.



In the end it is what it is. Apple made the decisions they made for whatever reasons the did and there's little we can do to change it. That doesn't mean we have to be happy about it.

----------



Who do you think is complaining about the lack of quad core processors? That's right...those who can use it. Should they feel better because others won't take advantage of the additional processors despite the fact their needs do?

It is unfortunet that you don't understand that the iGPU also shares the memory bandwidth AND THAT IS THE POINT to having a HIGHER BANDWIDTH.

 

[cfedu]

I suggest you look again because I did not include Geekbench. Do you really not know what real world implication a faster result in quick bench will have, or are you just having a laugh?

Do you really not know what real world implication a faster result in quick bench will have? A 2012 mini with raid ssd will have faster IO's.

Do you know that the base mini is not configurable with an SSD?
Did you know that the mid model can only use a 256 GB ssd? do you know what happens to an ssd when it gets close to full?

I bet an almost 10 year old intel mac mini with an SSD would beat the 2014 Base 2014 Mac Mini. My core 2 duo WITH RAID SSD's could probably beat the top of the Line 2014 top of the line mini.

Do you know catching up to performance from 5 years ago is kinda laughable?

 

[theSeb]

Do you really not know what real world implication a faster result in quick bench will have?

Yes, I am incredibly aware. More aware than you would imagine. Please keep the childish insults to yourself.

A 2012 mini with raid ssd will have faster IO's.

And? It's pointless to try and throw the goal posts around to suit your point.

Further ranting with no real point

I was obviously naive to try and have a reasonable discussion when this sub forum is still frothing at the mouth and people feel the need to behave like children, so I'll gracefully bow out.

 

[cfedu]

Yes, I am incredibly aware. More aware than you would imagine. Please keep the childish insults to yourself.


And? It's pointless to try and throw the goal posts around to suit your point.




I was obviously naive to try and have a reasonable discussion when this sub forum is still frothing at the mouth and people feel the need to behave like children, so I'll gracefully bow out.

Goal Post has not moved, 2012 Mac mini has and will always have better potential IO performance than the gimped 2014 model.

The 2014 mini has better GPU performance and thats about it, slightly better single core performance and slightly cheaper for the base model.

It's really rare that an older model of anything goes up in value, and when it does it's because it's normally being discontinued (iPod Classic, Jailbreakable ATV2). The fact that the the 2 year old 2012 Mac mini is the most sought out Mac mini I have ever seen , speaks volume to how much a turd the 2014 Mini is.

----------

Yes, I am incredibly aware. More aware than you would imagine. Please keep the childish insults to yourself.

You get insulted by the same question that you asked the previous poster? I guess it shows how childish you are.

 

[reco2011]

It is unfortunet that you don't understand that the iGPU also shares the memory bandwidth AND THAT IS THE POINT to having a HIGHER BANDWIDTH.

Ahahahahahaha. Oh, you were serious? Ahahahahahaha!

 

[magbarn]

It is unfortunet that you don't understand that the iGPU also shares the memory bandwidth AND THAT IS THE POINT to having a HIGHER BANDWIDTH.

Using the exact same ram, the Iris Pro on the rMBP 15 is so much faster than the rMBP 13's regular Iris lets me know that the meager improvement in bandwidth between LPDDR3 vs regular DDR3 is more marketing speak than actual positive reasons for removing the ability to upgrade the memory. The reason for Iris Pro's much better performance? 128MB of on-board super fast L3 Cache for the GPU that's lacking in the mac mini's CPU's.
The Mac mini would have to be equipped with GDDR5 RAM to significantly boost the memory bandwidth enough to make a serious improvement in performance.

 

[Occamsrazr]

Since when do we expect that the base model of a new lineup should outperform a max-specced model of the previous generation?

I'm worried about the group think on this forum with respect to the mac mini 2012. Hopefully, we won't see any novices go buy the 2012 thinking that it is actually a better system than the 2014.

 

[antonis]

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

But isn't that what the iPad is for ?

 

[Occamsrazr]

Sure, but isn't that what the iPhone is for?

There are different levels of convenience for each device. Each one has pros and cons.

I can assure you that the mac mini is designed to be more than just a handbrake console. (Even the 2012 model was designed to be more than that).

 

[antonis]

It's not like this is anything new from Apple. When they came out with the Mac LC they hobbled it's processor so that it would'nt compete with the Mac llCi.

I just don't think the quad-core Mac Mini fits in with Apple's current eco system. It was always intended as an intro to using the "real" Mac computers. Now the phones and pads accomplish this much better with Apple's emphasis on consumer products.

Phil Shiller kind of did the bums rush with the Mac Mini at the end of the last Apple event. Time to move on. Nothing to see here.

Exactly. But while users had more uses for this mac than apple was intended, now it's just an iPad that requires keyboard and screen.

 

[opeter]

It is true, that when you order a new Mac mini (2014) with 16 GB RAM, you get only one memory stick? So 1 stick of 16 GB LDDR3 RAM?

If that is the case, that is really quite expensive and now I understand the Apple pricing.

 

[cfedu]

Since when do we expect that the base model of a new lineup should outperform a max-specced model of the previous generation?

I'm worried about the group think on this forum with respect to the mac mini 2012. Hopefully, we won't see any novices go buy the 2012 thinking that it is actually a better system than the 2014.

You are correct! but I would also not expect that the high end 2014 model to be outclassed by the 2 year old the middle and high end 2012 Mac MIni in more than one area.

Hopefully, we won't see any novices go buy the 2014 to replace the 2012 model thinking its faster, cheaper, upgradable or a big improvement.

 

[reco2011]

It is true, that when you order a new Mac mini (2014) with 16 GB RAM, you get only one memory stick? So 1 stick of 16 GB LDDR3 RAM?

If that is the case, that is really quite expensive and now I understand the Apple pricing.

There are no more sticks. The memory is soldered the motherboard. This makes it even less expensive for Apple as there is no need for additional parts (i.e. circuit board, etching, etc).

 

[reco2011]

Since when do we expect that the base model of a new lineup should outperform a max-specced model of the previous generation?

Are people doing this? If so can you provide a reference so I can look these comments over?

 

[scottsjack]

(Even the 2012 model was designed to be more than that).

Cute, nice touch.

 

[And]

I was obviously naive to try and have a reasonable discussion when this sub forum is still frothing at the mouth and people feel the need to behave like children, so I'll gracefully bow out.

Actually, I appreciated your more open-minded approach, for what it's worth. Thank you.

 

[Bollockser]

Also the 128gb SSD featured on the 2012 Mini is at least 3-4 generations old. Yes, you're limited to SATA 3 speeds, but a 840 Pro/850 Pro 256GB SSD's have consistent 500+ MB/sec read/write performance for a cheaper price than what Apple is asking for.

Thanks for pointing this out, Apple's stock SSDs always sucked and even their PCIe disks are subpar. That graph is out of date.

And as far as the quad-core performance being some kind of niche: just because "everyday usage" does not see me transcoding blu-ray discs, doesn't mean when I do need to use that function, I'm willing for it to take twice as long - for more money.

I am happy to own a machine that blows away mac pros from a few years back - for way less money and with the portability of a laptop. Almost.

 

[DaveN]

Honestly I don't know why people are so passionate about the choices. I was in need of replacing my old MacBook and decided that for my uses a mini would be a good alternative as I wanted to setup a HTPC too. Based on my use, I went for a refurbished 2012 quad 2.33 GHz. Here is why:

1) Some of my main programs are efficiently multi-threaded and make good use of available CPU cores.
2) I want to scan photos I took over the years and the scanner I purchased years ago has Firewire. I may as well make use of it.
3) The video 'chip' is good enough for my needs.
4) I know the 2012 is limited by a slow HDD but I can upgrade that. I can also boost the RAM. I like to tinker. It gives me a little pride that I had something to do with 'my machine'.

Now if my needs were less CPU intensive or a little more GPU demanding, I would have gone with the newer model. I'm not that insistent on tinkering and I can pick up a USB 3 film scanner that would probably be faster than what I have now.