You all don't seem to recall that the MacBook Airs and the 13" MacBook Pros with Retina Displays don't come with Quad-Core processors. You can't upgrade to quad-core either.
LMAO @ Complainers.
LMAO @ Complainers.
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.
"shame on Apple for having a dual-core processor in 2014!"
- Thread starter SolarShane
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think people are upset because the CPU is a downgrade from previous model - its not a mobile computer either - its a desktop
FYI - I have no interest in old or new Mac Mini
I think people are upset because the CPU is a downgrade from previous model - its not a mobile computer either - its a desktop
FYI - I have no interest in old or new Mac Mini
Agreed. But sometimes they act a little....... possessed.
LMAO @ failing to see the problem.
The problem is the "new" one has worse CPU performance than the old one.
The MBA and 13" MBP have never had quad core CPUs and their performance has increased from each update. If the mini never had a quad core CPU in the past, this wouldn't be a problem.
I think that the reason behind changing to the dual core was that the new design wouldn't allow for the removable RAM so they had to switch to the dual core that supports LPDDR3 which is better since it has a higher bandwidth than DDR3L. Its all about the packaging. This redesign is much thinner then the out going model. Note that the mini has always been stuffed with a mobile CPU. If you what a desktop CPU you have to step up to an iMac. If that's not your thing then your only choice would be to go with a 15 inch MacBook pro.
Since I haven't seen the specs of the up coming Broadwell one can't rule out seeing a quad core that supports LPDDR3, but as of now no quad core supports LPDDR3
I disagree with this. Apple chose not to do so. We can all throw our hands up in the air and give reasons, but it's all conjecture. A choice was made for a reason we will likely never know.
There's surely more to the equation than that. Have you compared the power and thermal requirements between chip generations? There are a lot of possible explanations for apple's decision here, but it obviously wasn't as arbitrary as you suggest.
The case is exactly the same as the 2012 model, which had quad core and user upgradeable RAM.
We'll never know the real reasons why Apple didn't include quad cores in this update, but the fact remains they alienated a big user base for the mini. We can only hope that the next update or redesign will bring back quad cores and be a true upgrade over the 2012.
We'll never know the real reasons why Apple didn't include quad cores in this update, but the fact remains they alienated a big user base for the mini. We can only hope that the next update or redesign will bring back quad cores and be a true upgrade over the 2012.
Where is the evidence for that? Big user base? So you really think Apple just cut the best selling option??? I would say the best selling model was the i5 dual core option as most people can barely afford a new computer anyway.
Last edited:
I suspect, as has been stated elsewhere, the fact the Haswell quad core processor requires a different socket than the Haswell dual core processor was the driving factor. I wouldn't be surprised to learn the dual core 2012 Minis vastly outsold the quad core models. If this is indeed the reason, and it seems very likely to me, it makes sense.
The quad core haswell model has a higher TDP of 47 vs 45. Maybe not much, but it does make a difference. Also the cost of each processor is much higher when comparing at quad core Ivy Bridge HD4000 vs Haswell quad core with Iris Pro (there are no Iris GPU's in the quad cores it's either HD4600 or HD5200). When trying to make their entire Mac Line Up cheaper, they would actually have had to charge more.
Now would it have been nice to have a BTO quad core? Yes, but again if the socket changed to go from the dual cores to the quad, that's a lot of extra R&D for very little gain.
My guess is most people who buy a Mini only by the base. How many people want to spend 800 (or more) for a Mini when they can get a "whole laptop" for $900 (11" MBA). At least that's how your average user would look at it.
I currently own 2 - 2012 Mac Mini Quad Cores, so trust me I would have loved a quad core 2014. I'm just explaining the reasons why Apple probably made their decision they did.
I'm actually thinking about picking up a 2014 Mid-Mini and handing off all my rendering to my 2012's.
Just to be clear, the Haswell CPUs are not a "downgrade." They simply aren't offering a quad core option. That's no more a downgrade than if Chevrolet stopped offering the Z06 version of the Corvette. The base model this year IS faster quantifiably than the base model of 2012 or 2011.
You can still be upset and annoyed that there is no quad core option, but calling it a downgrade isn't accurate. Now, if they only offered Atom or Pentium CPUs that would be a true downgrade.
You can still be upset and annoyed that there is no quad core option, but calling it a downgrade isn't accurate. Now, if they only offered Atom or Pentium CPUs that would be a true downgrade.
Comparison is flawed.
If you need more computing power than the MBA, then you can select the trim of Macbook that meets your needs.
Granted, the first tier of quad-core MB is the 15" Pro, which is double the price of the Air ($999 vs $1999). But the point is you can still get a Macbook with quad-core if you want, even if it means picking up a bunch of extra things along the way (16 vs 4 GB RAM, retina display, 256 vs 128 GB storage).
For a headless Mac, you have no choice but to spend a huge amount more on a Mac Pro.
If you need more computing power than the MBA, then you can select the trim of Macbook that meets your needs.
Granted, the first tier of quad-core MB is the 15" Pro, which is double the price of the Air ($999 vs $1999). But the point is you can still get a Macbook with quad-core if you want, even if it means picking up a bunch of extra things along the way (16 vs 4 GB RAM, retina display, 256 vs 128 GB storage).
For a headless Mac, you have no choice but to spend a huge amount more on a Mac Pro.