Reason Quad Core Removed

[rainydays]

I have a hard time seeing anyone buying the cheapest $499 base model and putting more RAM in it. What the heck would be the point? That is a slow, simple, very cheap Mac for institutions and such. Maybe a home theater setup. It does have way better graphics performance than the 2012 model, but past that it's just a super-cheap Mac.

It's capable of much more that that. People are doing professional work on computers that are less powerful.
I could get by very well on that CPU, but I'd have to max out the RAM and put in an SSD. 4GB doesn't get you anywhere, and the stock HDD really makes it crawl. But after that update it's a very capable machine IMO. The mid model isn't that much faster, you'd have to step it up even further to get a noticeable difference.

 

[mojolicious]

I am sure that most home users are more than satisfied with a dual-core machine. Same goes for organisations. The quad core option was primarily interesting for 'geeky' purposes, such as running it as a server or a secondary/intermediate processing machine, or even setting up a distributed computing cluster. Yeah, those users will suffer, but I would be very surprised if there are many of them.

It's not so much the dropping of quad core that I personally object to, it's the taking away of the serviceability/upgradeability offered by SO-DIMMs and 2x SATA bays.

I'm virtually a dinosaur I know, but I miss the days of a 'box' with easily accessed RAM slots, drive bays, card slots, etc etc. I realise that time isn't coming back, but the mini *was* about as good as it got in that regard.

But my reply to you was actually targeted more at the power consumption and case size comments. I truly believe that <10% of purchasers are swayed by either factor.

P.S. Why is the iMac loathsome? Its seriously the best home use machine, if one wants to stick with Apple.

I guess it is due to the brutally bad heat dissipation.

Firstly, the iMac is certainly the best priced Mac. The price differential between a mini and a 21.5" iMac with marginally better CPU, GPU, and of course display/keyboard/mouse is ridiculously small.

I had the first 24" iMac (late 2006) which had a gorgeous polycarbonate casing, matt screen, externally accessible RAM slots, and relatively easy access to the interior. If it was now available with Haswell innards then I'd be all over it. But... it died because of a well documented GPU solder failure. Not sure that it was 'brutally bad heat dissipation' or more a production line issue.

This left me with a lovely but useless 24" display, which put me off all-in-one designs. The history of the iMac post-2006 – glazing, more pointless skinniness, less user accessibility, more heat-related problems caused by that pointless skinniness, less chance of addressing those problems due to Apple's user lock out, and did I mention the glazing? – has done nothing to encourage me to return to the iMac fold.

 

[Crosscreek]

I am sure that most home users are more than satisfied with a dual-core machine. Same goes for organisations. The quad core option was primarily interesting for 'geeky' purposes, such as running it as a server or a secondary/intermediate processing machine, or even setting up a distributed computing cluster. Yeah, those users will suffer, but I would be very surprised if there are many of them.

P.S. Why is the iMac loathsome? Its seriously the best home use machine, if one wants to stick with Apple.

I think you will find that dual core chips are used in 13" Mackbooks and the cheap iMac.

All other Apple desktops are quad core or more. Dual core are good for running one CPU intensive app at a time whereas quad core can multitask very easily with CPU intensive apps.

Just because the Mini got Hasswell does not mean there must be soldered ram and no SATA connections. You Can look at the NUC or the Brix and see that they too are PCIe with m.2 memory stick and offer SATA connection for spinners or SSD.

The Mini has been put in its place as an entry level Mac once and for all. Apple will not make the mistake again for overlap on the iMac except for the lowest end iMac.

 

[rainydays]

The Mini has been put in its place as an entry level Mac once and for all. Apple will not make the mistake again for overlap on the iMac except for the lowest end iMac.

Yet it seems like they overlapped the iMac and the Mac Pro now with the retina.

I honestly don't think that a quad core mini would steal sales from the iMac line. And even then I'm not sure if it's a bad thing for Apple.
If they made the new QC Mini the $999 model it would only be a $300 jump to the QC iMac. First of all the iMac would be a lot more bang for the buck given that it's a complete desktop solution. And I bet my hat that they would have a lot better profit margin on the Mini.

 

[Crosscreek]

Yet it seems like they overlapped the iMac and the Mac Pro now with the retina.

I honestly don't think that a quad core mini would steal sales from the iMac line. And even then I'm not sure if it's a bad thing for Apple.
If they made the new QC Mini the $999 model it would only be a $300 jump to the QC iMac. First of all the iMac would be a lot more bang for the buck given that it's a complete desktop solution. And I bet my hat that they would have a lot better profit margin on the Mini.

I don't think the Mini will ever move out of the U class processor SKUs.

Broadwell will have no quad core U series chips from what I have seen of the SKU leaks. There is too little known of the U Broadweel yet but I did see one I5 processor with Iris Pro at 28 watts TPD so IGPU performance should increase significantly.

Skylake will offer the greatest increase inTDP performance and maybe significant enough to include quad cores back into the Mini.

 

[magicMac]

the fact the 2012 model came with quad-core was actually a one-off for the mini.

It's always been a low powered dual-core desktop for 1) media centre use 2) home desktops that don't require much power 3) servers that don't need to do much "processing".

Probably find a more day-to-day performance boost by having PCIe flash storage and the mac mini now has that

Having said that...quad-core with Iris Pro (and 4k @ 60Hz support) would be a real market changer and I wouldn't even be looking at the iMac. Now i'm looking at iMac's again :/

Jonathan

 

[Brian Y]

Decent article worth reading. I'm sure it'll get some of you frothing at the mouth.

http://www.imore.com/nsfw-shut-about-new-mac-mini-already

FYI its not actually NSFW unless you're offended by reasonable subjective thinking.

I agree wholeheartedly with this - it's what I've been saying all along.

Take this thread for example. One user complaining because lightroom needs quad core (which it doesn't). Another saying how they're going to move their Windows and Linux VMs to another machine, etc.

Guess what? Most people who buy a Mac Mini don't do either of those. Most people who buy a Mac Mini run Safari, and occasionally Microsoft Office. Most people who buy a Mac Mini wouldn't be able to tell you what a VM was if it slapped them round the face - let alone use one. And finally, most people who buy a Mac Mini wouldn't know what RAM stands for, let alone know why they need more of it, or know how to/want to upgrade it themselves.

The Mac Mini is a low(er) margin product. The base Mac Mini is basically a MacBook Air without the screen/keyboard for $400 less - and the screen doesn't cost Apple $400! So of course it's going to get some of the bells and whistles cut. Things like RAM slots (and the boards), all cost money.

People seem to expect the Mac Mini to be a mini mac pro - it's not. It's a consumer machine. Apple's current lineup clearly focuses on 3 categories - Consumer, Prosumer and Professional:

Desktops: Mac Mini/Entry level iMac (Consumer), Mid iMac (Prosumer), 5k iMac/Mac Pro (Professional)

Laptops: MacBook Air (Consumer), BTO MacBook Air/13" MacBook Pro (Prosumer), 15" MacBook Pro (Professional).

There are bridges there, like the 15" retina without a dedicated GPU could come under both prosumer and professional, but you get the idea. Want a pro machine? Cough up the $$$ for it.

 

[atopos]

Maybe they want to lower the Mac Pro price...
4-core being much cheeper... ?
Beefed up Mac Mini 4-core nearing 2000$
would be too close...

 

[Count Blah]

True. But we all know Apple (like every othe corporation) isn't in this out of the kindness of their hearts. This is capitalism.

Refusing to give the customer what they are asking for has no part in capitslism?

I am the Mac tech support for an extended family of Mac converts. Each system has been able to be upgraded, and I was the one to do it. The last Mac system purchased was a 2012 quad core mini, last month. The next time a family member comes along for some advice on a new machine, I will steer them away from macs, because they now make disposable machines that are required to have the max specs purchased up front.

No more 6 years or use anymore. Which was the selling points for the macs to the family. So the software and compatability issues no longer outweigh the other benefits of owning a Mac. Now it is a pure apple tax, with all the problems that exist with macs existing in a windows world.

 

[rainydays]

The Mac Mini is a low(er) margin product. The base Mac Mini is basically a MacBook Air without the screen/keyboard for $400 less - and the screen doesn't cost Apple $400! So of course it's going to get some of the bells and whistles cut. Things like RAM slots (and the boards), all cost money.

Do you have any proof that it's a lower margin product?
The MBA has a screen, keyboard, trackpad, PCIe SSD, Battery, Charger etc. it adds up to quite a lot. And I bet that it's more expensive to manufacture and have a higher failure rate.

And if the target demographic is the one you claim it to be why do they even bother to have a $2199 configuration? What helpless causal consumer is going to buy a 3.0GHz i7 Mac Mini with 16GB RAM and 1TB of PCIe Flash Storage?
And obviously they were out of their minds when they made the mistake of releasing a quad.. twice! Oh and a server.

How is it clearly focused on consumers? And why can't the different lineups overlap in performance when they have other aspects that target different user scenarios? Clearly you think that the other ones can, so why not the Mini?

 

[Count Blah]

I'm going on my 8th year having a quad core desktop processor. The reason it's lasted so long is because it's a quad core processor, so it does a decent job in CPU-intensive tasks.

I can't convince myself to get a dual-core laptop-grade CPU in 2014/2015 and expect it to perform much better even right now, let alone for another 6-8 years.

Which makes the "green" movement a total joke. More machines are going to go to the landfill because of apple's move. So it's 100% hypocritical.

 

[philipma1957]

lets face it
they needed to spilt the mac mini line .

the base unit is great piece of gear with 1 mod

no spinner just an 250gb ssd. it is truly decent gear and the 4gb ram can stay soldered. no options for more ram. but an option for a 500gb ssd.

So just 2 models one at 499 and one at 599.

that would be one line.


the new line comes with the quad no spinner.

a 250 gb ssd 500gb ssd or an 1000gb ssd

and 8gb or 16gb ram.

people in the know realize the ssd removes the lack of ram issue.

Only 1 drive is fine for thermals. this was a money grab against anyone that needs a quad.

 

[Crosscreek]

lets face it
they needed to spilt the mac mini line .

the base unit is great piece of gear with 1 mod

no spinner just an 250gb ssd. it is truly decent gear and the 4gb ram can stay soldered. no options for more ram. but an option for a 500gb ssd.

So just 2 models one at 499 and one at 599.

that would be one line.


the new line comes with the quad no spinner.

a 250 gb ssd 500gb ssd or an 1000gb ssd

and 8gb or 16gb ram.

people in the know realize the ssd removes the lack of ram issue.

Only 1 drive is fine for thermals. this was a money grab against anyone that needs a quad.

The $499 Mini is a great way for emerging markets and people who want to utilize their iPhones and iPads with OS X for web surfing, file sharing, or HTPC.

Anything beyond that with the 2014 Mini is a money grab by Apple.

Hopefully by the time Skylake makes it to the Mini they will utilize more lower TDP desktop processors into the Mini design and then I will replace my 2012.

 

[leman]

It's not so much the dropping of quad core that I personally object to, it's the taking away of the serviceability/upgradeability offered by SO-DIMMs and 2x SATA bays.

I understand what you mean, but unfortunately (at least for people like you), the industry is clearly moving towards irreplaceable RAM. I would not be surprised if DDR4 would be the last spec featuring socketed RAM (because of performance and stability reasons).

I fully agree about the storage though. Apple should start using a standard connector on their SSDs...

The Mini has been put in its place as an entry level Mac once and for all. Apple will not make the mistake again for overlap on the iMac except for the lowest end iMac.

I really don't think its anything like that. The quad core etc. option will be there once Intel makes it easy again (either by using the same socket or by moving their entire line to quad core). And Mac Mini never really overlapped with the iMac — the later has been using much more capable desktop-class CPUs for a long time, while the Mac Mini was always restricted to ~40W CPUs.

 

[philipma1957]

The $499 Mini is a great way for emerging markets and people who want to utilize their iPhones and iPads with OS X for web surfing, file sharing, or HTPC.

Anything beyond that with the 2014 Mini is a money grab by Apple.

Hopefully by the time Skylake makes it to the Mini they will utilize more lower TDP desktop processors into the Mini design and then I will replace my 2012.

pretty much so.

the base with a free t-bolt external booter is nice machine for ht. but not many people have spare external t-bolts.

I have come to see the external ssd booter option as the better workaround for apples (pick your insults) use of spinners in the mini's. I then just use the internal spinner for backup of the external booter.
My t-bolt externals have held up well so far.

 

[Crosscreek]

pretty much so.

the base with a free t-bolt external booter is nice machine for ht. but not many people have spare external t-bolts.

I have come to see the external ssd booter option as the better workaround for apples (pick your insults) use of spinners in the mini's. I then just use the internal spinner for backup of the external booter.
My t-bolt externals have held up well so far.

I been using an USB3 external SSD Boot for over a year now with no problems on my Mini thinking I was going to put it in a new Mini when it came out. Works fine and still getting 450 R/W speeds. Thunderbolts are really expensive for little performance increase.

 

[philipma1957]

I been using an USB3 external SSD Boot for over a year now with no problems on my Mini thinking I was going to put it in a new Mini when it came out. Works fine and still getting 450 R/W speeds. Thunderbolts are really expensive for little performance increase.

sunk costs my modded 2011 lacie little big disks with ssd's in them . were cheap enough. I do agree buying a new one costs money.

I have 1 pegasus r6
2 lacie little big disks
1 lacie 2 drive unit
1 seagate
and the newer black magic 4 disk .

the above gear is more then 4.1k With careful shopping and some luck I paid 2.7k . I also sold off all the hdd's in the r-6 during the hdd shortage and got 1 k more off. so I paid 1.7k for my t-bolt gear. not 4.1k , the best move someone can do is buy this

http://www.macmall.com/p/LaCie-External-Hard-Drives/product~dpno~13269377~pdp.iiicaah

and this

http://eshop.macsales.com/item/NewerTech/U3S3HD/

and use an ssd in the lacie and put the 3tb in the dock . but just an opinion not a fact.

 

[Crosscreek]

sunk costs my modded 2011 lacie little big disks with ssd's in them . were cheap enough. I do agree buying a new one costs money.

I have 1 pegasus r6
2 lacie little big disks
1 lacie 2 drive unit
1 seagate
and the newer black magic 4 disk .

the above gear is more then 4.1k With careful shopping and some luck I paid 2.7k . I also sold off all the hdd's in the r-6 during the hdd shortage and got 1 k more off. so I paid 1.7k for my t-bolt gear. not 4.1k , the best move someone can do is buy this

http://www.macmall.com/p/LaCie-External-Hard-Drives/product~dpno~13269377~pdp.iiicaah

and this

http://eshop.macsales.com/item/NewerTech/U3S3HD/

and use an ssd in the lacie and put the 3tb in the dock . but just an opinion not a fact.

Yes..that's a very nice setup. I hope with Skylake that I can get a quad core and definitely invest in that LaCie.
I still need the HDMI 2.0 and the h.265 for a new 4K TV set up and by the time Skylake gets here in the Minis the TVs should be mature enough to invest in. I'm going to hate to see my plasma Panasonic go though. It's been a superb TV and still has the clarity it had when it was new.

 

[philipma1957]

Yes..that's a very nice setup. I hope with Skylake that I can get a quad core and definitely invest in that LaCie.
I still need the HDMI 2.0 and the h.265 for a new 4K TV set up and by the time Skylake gets here in the Minis the TVs should be mature enough to invest in. I'm going to hate to see my plasma Panasonic go though. It's been a superb TV and still has the clarity it had when it was new.

Yeah my 46 inch sony smart tv will be four years old this spring. It is pretty much close to perfect if I sit on the floor 5 feet away from it. But at 57 years old sitting on the floor is not always possible .

The 4 k sony 55 inch would let me sit on the couch.

 

[Crosscreek]

Yeah my 46 inch sony smart tv will be four years old this spring. It is pretty much close to perfect if I sit on the floor 5 feet away from it. But at 57 years old sitting on the floor is not always possible .

The 4 k sony 55 inch would let me sit on the couch.

Yeh, I hate to admit it but at 63 my eyes need all the help they can get.

 

[mojolicious]

at 57 years old sitting on the floor is not always possible

at 63 my eyes need all the help they can get

Suddenly I feel a whole lot less decrepit.

 

[Altis]

Which makes the "green" movement a total joke. More machines are going to go to the landfill because of apple's move. So it's 100% hypocritical.

It's quite unfortunate, really. Heck, even if a major part has a failure (CPU, RAM, motherboard), the whole thing more or less is no good (outside of warranty).

They do recycle electronics these days and I'll give Apple credit for being conscious of their materials, but it's best to increase the life cycle if possible.

 

[philipma1957]

Yeh, I hate to admit it but at 63 my eyes need all the help they can get.

Suddenly I feel a whole lot less decrepit.

Ahh I thought I had it bad but for 57 I am hanging there.


l I have a buyer for the quad 2012 I have been using.

I will put in a 750gb samsung ssd and make a 1.75th fusion with 16gb ram.

He is the fourth audio guy I built one of the 2012 quads into a beastly fusion machine. I am pretty sure Apple realized how good the quads were for the music world and said pay up.

So to equal this machine oh that's right you can't get any mac 2014 since none
allow for a 750gb ssd+1tb hd = 1.75tb fusion machine. acutally 1tb ssd + 2tb hdd = a 3tb fusion.

with a really good ssd to hdd ratio

And for the work these guys do the big ssd to medium hdd ratio works better. then a small ssd to big hdd. So all that I make from now on will need to be 2012 quad minis or 2013 macbook pros.

 

[Crosscreek]

Ahh I thought I had it bad but for 57 I am hanging there.


l I have a buyer for the quad 2012 I have been using.

I will put in a 750gb samsung ssd and make a 1.75th fusion with 16gb ram.

He is the fourth audio guy I built one of the 2012 quads into a beastly fusion machine. I am pretty sure Apple realized how good the quads were for the music world and said pay up.

So to equal this machine oh that's right you can't get any mac 2014 since none
allow for a 750gb ssd+1tb hd = 1.75tb fusion machine. acutally 1tb ssd + 2tb hdd = a 3tb fusion.

with a really good ssd to hdd ratio

And for the work these guys do the big ssd to medium hdd ratio works better. then a small ssd to big hdd. So all that I make from now on will need to be 2012 quad minis or 2013 macbook pros.

How does trim work on the fusion drives?

 

[cinealta]

He is the fourth audio guy I built one of the 2012 quads into a beastly fusion machine.

Probably thousands worldwide running 2 Minis for digital audio (DAW master & software samples slave). One third the price of a Mac Pro with similar capability (if you don't need dual graphics cards).