When it was hobbling along on two cores at most, three years after its last update, an “update” which pretty much everyone panned as a step backward for removing the quad-core option?
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.
The new Mac mini is almost certainly coming
- Thread starter GabrieleR
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mac mini new mac mini
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly. Apple basically crippled the mini, didnt update it, but kept charging the same prices and then says 'see it only makes 2% of mac sales'. Frankly, given how horribly neglected and crippled it was, 2% is actually pretty impressive sales!
I just checked, and mine is coo to the touch. Plus, I have never even heard the fan, ever. SO, I would guess it runs too cool for my cat, who loves heatHaha - that was the first time she slept there. It was very cute, but the Mini is now shoved back underneath the monitor and she has found a new place to sleep.
So, I guess I'll keep it under the monitor.
Yes, it can be argued that Apple's long stretch of ignoring the mini did not help it's sales, but it can also be argued that even when Apple was regularly updating it, it wasn't selling enough for them to continue that focus when there were models (MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iMac) that were selling so much better that they could focus attention on (which they did).
And one could argue Apple dropped the four-core option for the mini because the significant majority of sales were very likely just the two-core model so it simplified the product line without impacting much of the customer base.
With Apple not reporting unit sales for so long, it's hard to know just how much the 2018 Space Grey model with the 65W CPUs boosted sales both overall and within the mini family. I will note, however, that Intel did release new generations of 65W CPUs in 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 and Apple did not bother upgrading the mini to use them.
One could argue that is because Apple wanted to move to Apple Silicon and therefore was not going to bother with Intel anymore, but Apple did update the MacBook Pro, MacBook Air and iMac with new Intel CPUs of the same generation, as well as launched a new Mac Pro. So to me, that implies the Space Grey Mac mini did not move the needle enough to justify any additional investment anymore than previous models did.
I would be happy with a bump to m2, and easier triple monitor support
Well, I am certainly not going to defend the 2014 Mini! However (IIRC) Apple actually dropped the price of the entry level Mini to $499 in 2014 (from $599 in 2012?) and made a big deal about that. Unfortunately, it was a big step in the wrong direction but at least it was cheaper, LOL.
I don't see the Max coming in a mini, but the Pro...? Well, yes please; that'd fill the gap just nicely.
Not only that but the Mini is a transition/entry level computer. It is for the PC user who doesn't care about games and already has a monitor and keyboard. It is for someone who want to get into the Mac ecosystem while spending as little as possible (ie get cheap keyboard and monitor)
The problem is, that Apple is slowly moving away from "cheap" computers. It can happen, that in 2-3 years, there wont be any new Apple computer, that is under 999 $.
And it is also possible, that the Mac mini gets totally replaced by Mac Studio... the starting price tag of that is right now around 1999 $.
So no cheap computer for the plebs anymore.
Maybe Macbook Air M1 in 2025 for 999 $.
It makes no sense for Apple to move away from "cheap" computers - you need an entry/transition point for the PC crowd especially as the PC makes have woken up and are going into ARM.
It makes no sense for Apple to move away from "cheap" computers - you need an entry/transition point for the PC crowd especially as it looks like the PC makers have woken up and are going into ARM. In quantum mechanics two solid objects can pass through each other - doesn't mean it will happen in anything resembling a sane about of time.
That is nonsense. The Mac Studio is clearly, at worst, a mid range Mac as there is just way too much power there for Joe Shmoe User.
I truly hope you’re right, but Apple in the PowerPC (G3/G4/G5) era didn’t really have an entry level machine, I don’t think we would go back to that model of doing business, but I’m just saying that in the past Apple has focused on higher price ranges.
I wonder how likely it is that the M2 13" is using recycled/refurbished stock of M1 13"s. I watched a YouTube video that seemed to imply that even the packaging was from M1 era with just new stickers put on. If that's the case and I have no idea, I bet we can see an M2 Mini that will keep the same everything from the design and be launched by the fall.
It’s because the GHz wars are over. It’s not like we’re going to see a 6 GHz SOC ten years from now.
The power of SOCs now is in core count and node size. But even core count is hitting a wall. There aren’t any consumer apps that can utilize a 40 core SOC.
Even if the niches are very small, there are enough of them to justify the Mac mini continuing as "a product in our lineup".
The thing about the PowerPC is it was supposed to be a joint project between Apple and IBM but things fell apart. In fact, the first Mac Mini (January 11, 2005) came out with a G4 (and was $499). The very next year the first Intel Mac Mini came out. Given the issues the M2 seems to have with heat Apple may scrap a redesign of the mini and simply put an M2 in in the current design as the fan is designed for the space heating Intel CPU.
Edit: Seems Max Tech was looking for problems and created this "benchmark" to so they would have something for a problem video. So this is most likely a Nothing Burger.
Last edited:
Over a 100c, ouch! At least it’s correctable if you run the fan manually like with Mac Fan Control. I run my 2018 Mini fan at a constant 3000rpm and I don’t even hear it. At full blast it still isn’t that loud.
Even when you run the fans at over 7000RPM to drop the CPU temp by 20 degrees C, the M2 MacBook Pro doesn't run any faster per Max Tech's testing so I don't believe it is correct to say that the M2 thermally throttles.
As with Max Tech's testing of the entire M1 family, it doesn't looks like Apple allows any M series SoC to draw maximum power (as measured by wattage) to run the clock speed at the maximum rated speed, but instead keeps it a few hundred MHz below that maximum both single and multi core.
This seems to be to allow the SoC to run with either no fans or at the minimum speed possible for as long as possible.
As with Max Tech's testing of the entire M1 family, it doesn't looks like Apple allows any M series SoC to draw maximum power (as measured by wattage) to run the clock speed at the maximum rated speed, but instead keeps it a few hundred MHz below that maximum both single and multi core.
This seems to be to allow the SoC to run with either no fans or at the minimum speed possible for as long as possible.
Probably meaningless to Apple - they don't need to these days as comparing with Intel and AMD is a pointless venture especially when you can't compare CPUs due to performance vs efficiency cores and architecture in general.
Last edited:
I wonder if Apple are doing this to keep the power draw consistent - so it doesn't drain battery quicker in the laptops? So maybe it's not about performance but about battery life?
Away from laptops though, it strikes me that the existing M1 Mac mini case - complete with overspecced power supply) should be able to sustain a higher power draw - or would Apple want to keep the benchmark figures consistent across all M2 lines?
Certainly I'd suggest that the existing M1 Mini case should be able to cool the M2 to a decent degree.