It's all about the screens (and the money, of course). Laptops, iMacs, watches, phones, iPods - Apple is a screen-seller. They don't have much interest in products without screens.
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 Pro is almost certainly coming
- Thread starter Yvan256
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just to correct you, the Mac Mini base model uses the 15w U series CPU which are used in the MBA. As does the base model 21.5" iMac for bizarre reasons.
The Mac Mini 2014 mid and high end models use the 28w U series CPU which are used in the Macbook Pro. The 28w chips use Iris Graphics. The Haswell ones from the 2013 rMBP 13" are Iris Graphics 5100, the Broadwell ones from the 2014 rMBP 13" are Iris Graphics 6100. The next logical progression would be to use Skylake with Iris Graphics 550 because Kaby Lake isn't due until well into 2017.
Iris Pro Graphics come from the HQ series quad core i7 CPUs which go into the 15" rMBP and the Skylake variants apparently come with 128Mb of eDRAM. These have been stubbornly stuck on the Haswell chips despite the availability of Broadwell chips for some time.
The Ivy Bridge platform used in the 2012 Mac Mini used the same socket type between HQ and U series CPUs so Apple could select dual or quad core cpus without extra R&D spend. The story goes that once the platforms diverged after that Apple had to choose one or the other and went with Dual Core U.
I think Apple are saving on R&D costs on this line by only updating every other year, so it stands to reason that they will update this year. U series Kaby Lake is too far off in 2017 so it'll be Skylake, Apple seem to be running down the MBA line so one could argue that they won't be minded to add a 15w MBA Skylake option to the Mac Mini if they aren't adding it to the MBA.
Similarly, the 21.5" iMac line is probably going all retina at some point so they won't be using 15w CPUs in that just to hit a price point either either this year or next year. The only different thing that Intel have done this year is this:
Intel i5-6350HQ cpu (2.3Ghz Quad core without hyper threading, 45w mobile CPU) that crucially costs the same as per guide price of the U series dual core CPUs. This CPU could allow Apple to lower the price of entry to the 15" Macbook Pro. It's around $130 cheaper than the i7 quad core cpus that come with hyper threading that go into the rMBP 15" and the Intel Skull Canyon.
So here's the betting:
a. Apple refresh the Mac Mini line for 2016 but only change mid and high end machines - the 2014 base model Mac Mini stubbornly stays in production at the same price (because they are doing the same with the MBA and 21.5" iMac when the middle model goes retina later this year). These base models are clearly there to hit an artificial price point. Much wailing on Macrumors etc.
b. Apple refresh the Mac Mini line for 2016 and they all use 28w U series Skylake CPUs with Iris Pro 550 Graphics, even the entry level model, which may for may not be price bumped. Low end users are guided towards iPads.
c. Apple refresh the Mac Mini line for 2016 and they all use 45w HQ series Skylake CPUs that come with Iris Pro 580 graphics - to run a forthcoming 4k Cinema display at reasonable performance. There may be a case redesign to cope with extra heat if we're really lucky. Mac Minis go up in price because the iPad Pro is taking up space below them.
That was a very informative post, thanks for that!
I gotta say, option A to me seems like something Apple would definitely do. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they play around with the RAM configurations, much like they did for the 13" MacBook Air without getting a new processor.
Spot on. Option C please . [Because you know, these things are decided by vote, right..?]
That RAM bump was purely put in place so that it can remain untouched for the next two years - as the entry level laptop.
I expect a slight price decrease when they adjust the lineup later this year.
The Mac Mini is supposed to be entirely level. Even the low-end model is capable of general 'stuff', email, web, light photo editing, iTunes, etc. For many years now entry level CPU's have been capable of this, so there's no reason for a Mini to be any quicker than it is as the entry level machine. If you need a quad core mini, get one of eBay there are loads of them - I was going to sell mine until I realised how many of them there are and how cheap they are.
Now even if a new mini was released with a quad-core skylake it wouldn't be 500% quicker, more like 20-30% quicker, and I bet most wouldn't even notice the increase in speed over the old one. Okay so the RAM can no longer be upgraded nor can the internal storage. Buy it with the RAM you need and get a thunderbolt disk for your storage
My advice for anyone looking for a Mac Mini Pro would be to understand what their performance requirements for their applications are first. Are they CPU, GPU, RAM or I/O restricted? This should help you size up which Mac you need, or indeed if you would be better served by another platform. it might help if you tell us all what your requirements are and then we can help point you in the right direction, but just getting 5000 posts of nonsense doesn't help anyone.
[doublepost=1465136692][/doublepost]
I've got both a 2012 quad-core i7 mini and a nMP (6-core D700's) and I agree there should be something in-between them that's not an iMac. An i7 version of the nMP with a single consumer-level GPU would be just what a lot of people are wanting. Personally I'd rather have the nMP, but it is in need of an update now as it's no longer cost effective for the performance on offer.
Now even if a new mini was released with a quad-core skylake it wouldn't be 500% quicker, more like 20-30% quicker, and I bet most wouldn't even notice the increase in speed over the old one. Okay so the RAM can no longer be upgraded nor can the internal storage. Buy it with the RAM you need and get a thunderbolt disk for your storage
My advice for anyone looking for a Mac Mini Pro would be to understand what their performance requirements for their applications are first. Are they CPU, GPU, RAM or I/O restricted? This should help you size up which Mac you need, or indeed if you would be better served by another platform. it might help if you tell us all what your requirements are and then we can help point you in the right direction, but just getting 5000 posts of nonsense doesn't help anyone.
[doublepost=1465136692][/doublepost]
I've got both a 2012 quad-core i7 mini and a nMP (6-core D700's) and I agree there should be something in-between them that's not an iMac. An i7 version of the nMP with a single consumer-level GPU would be just what a lot of people are wanting. Personally I'd rather have the nMP, but it is in need of an update now as it's no longer cost effective for the performance on offer.
That would be on the button for us as a database server. We have the 2012 mini running well, but a little more oomph and much greater connectivity would be fantastic. We don't need the graphics card for much. It won't even have a monitor attached.
I'd just buy a small form factor PC for this and put Linux on it. Would be cheaper, faster and more flexible solution. Unless your application will only run on OS X this would be my first choice. Even then I'd look to migrate the server side of it off Mac and onto Linux, and just keep Macs as the clients. You can even do a small form factor X99 build and shove loads of cores and RAM in there.
I have enjoyed reading more than 5000 posts of nonsense on "the new mac mini is almost certainly coming." And I enjoyed contributing my share of them. Otherwise, I agree with your very sensible post.
I know what you mean, some of them are good and an interesting debate, others are just... well you know.
The Mac Mini supposed to be "entry level"?
Maybe that's how it was once marketed, but as you suggest even the low end model is capable enough for the general requirements of many. Hardly entry level; for many folks it is all the computer they need. Some on this forum attest to that. For more demanding users, higher spec models and options are available, but the Mini is what it is.
Despite the dreams of some a Mac Mini Pro is almost certainly not coming. Anyone who seriously thinks it is, or should be, takes themselves way too seriously. The new Mac Mini, however, is almost certainly coming….. eternally.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/the-new-mac-mini-is-almost-certainly-coming.1681773/
Last edited:
Exactly! I believe this is the reasoning behind the 2014 update to the Mini line: by soldering down the RAM, by locking the internals of the machine with security screws, by eliminating the high-end CPU options, Apple is trying to enforce the notion that the Mini is only supposed to be "entry level". If you want a "serious" Mac, you need to choose the iMac...
I guess we just want a cheaper entry level new Mac Pro.
Nah. We want the most popular, most flexible, most bang-for-your-buck computing device ever created: the good old desktop tower box. A device able to hold a motherboard, a handful of expansion boards, a selection of drives, and a decent power supply, all kept neatly inside a single container. Years ago, Apple produced these devices; I don't see why they couldn't do so again.
It is true that Apple has made a fortune selling pretty little mobile devices. I guess it's only logical that all their desktop computers have been morphing into things that look like pretty little mobile devices (even the Mac Pro!). But honestly, I just don't see this as a sustainable long-term policy; rather than people migrating from PC to Mac, I think people will start migrating from Mac to PC, as that is where the hardware is...
Lack of expansion card space has been at Apple since the iMac G3. The iMac G3 also single-handedly saved Apple from absolute destitution.
The problem isn't in the lack of card space. The problem is that Apple's choice of hardware options has been either stupid or delusional lately. THAT'S what is going to bite them in the butt, not the lack of expansion card slots.
I have my part list together and waiting for the November sales to start. I will build a Linux/Windows machine with a decent GPU and will be what I want plus cheaper than a medium spected Mini with ssd and ram upgrades.
my Mini will be on server duty after that.
So I need a Mac Mini , mine is a 2010 !
Would I be better to wait and see what happens OR just go with the i7 + 16 Gb + 256 MB_SSD ?
Should a new one come out , I would probably get a similar configuration , unless there high end was already configured as such.
I would be grateful for all replies , as I could use what ever info you folks would be willing to provide !!
Thanks
Gary
[doublepost=1465252103][/doublepost]So I need a Mac Mini , mine is a 2010 !
Would I be better to wait and see what happens OR just go with the i7 + 16 Gb + 256 MB_SSD ?
Should a new one come out , I would probably get a similar configuration , unless there high end was already configured as such.
I would be grateful for all replies , as I could use what ever info you folks would be willing to provide !!
Thanks
Gary
Last edited:
And to amplify this, I'm effectively obligated to expect that Apple will remove all of the mini ports that a coming-from-PC would want to have and just stick USB-C onto it, thereby self-nuking the concept that a mini can be a cost effective PC-to-Mac bridge (because they traditionally didnt have to buy everything all at once).
Yeah, I'm testing out an Ubuntu box right now. Still lots and lots of rough edges to the UI, but I think it's decent enough for daily work...
[doublepost=1465259501][/doublepost]
Apple's choices of hardware are neither stupid nor delusional; they've simply been choosing low-power options that both fit the market niche they've been targeting, and are inexpensive for their bottom-line.
The problem is that people who are not part of that particular niche have no recourse; they have to use the hardware provided by Apple, or go without. The ability for the end-user to add custom hardware to a Mac, which is what expansion slots allow, could help greatly in this regard. (For example, there are now pre-2013 Mac Pros with graphics power far greater than the 2013 model, simply because expansion slots allow for the latest GPUs to be used.)
Really it all depends on what you need to do. I use Linux for anything I want to keep private and secure and I use Windows 10 for mostly transcoding and play.
The recourse is to go Windows or Linux, which I fear people are doing in droves against Apple. You don't try to get new people (the trendies) at the expense of your already established userbase (everyone else). That's pretty suicidal if you ask me.
Ok for a few folks who are happy to muck around with computers, professionally or otherwise. Not a new user; I am part of the established user base; have been since I bought my first computer, the original Mac Mini. I'm no fan-boy or geek; just want to do simple stuff. I'm not going anywhere soon; for my humble needs Apple and OS X are OK.
Mucking around is what I do on my mac mini which is a 2014 with an ssd, 16 GB of ram and an i7. I didn't track it, but I'm fairly sure it's more expensive at the Apple store than it was two years ago because of our weaker dollar. I have a decent DSLR and I work with 50 or 60 MB RAW files. When I do a timelapse or panorama, which is many of these files processed at once.....I consistently get the beachball. It's not a joy to work with. Why would I pay an apple tax if it's not a joy? It's sure not for OS X.
The Mac Pro is not an option being absurdly overpriced. The iMac has a screen and I'm looking for 64 GB and a decent GPU.
Apple - you had a customer hooked by the mac mini. You lost a customer because of the mac mini....
Stop with the "mucking about" line. I mucked about to 64 GB of DDR4 RAM, a 6700k CPU, a beautiful phanteks enthoo evolv case, 6 3.1 USB connections, a ton of solid state storage along with the Samsung 950 Pro NVmE as my boot drive..... It wasn't that hard.
Doing an hour's worth of research was worth saving the $1000+ more I'd have to pay to get something equivalent in a Mac. Windows 10 is half decent and pretty comparable to OSX the way it's been going.
Do I hope the mac mini is coming? Hell yes. Will I buy one? Probably. What will I be doing with it? Mucking about and that's about it.
If it's meant as entry level, fine, but have another option above it, as there's not a gaping hole but a gigantic cavern in your lineup. I enjoyed Apple and probably will continue to do so, but for the last year owning one has felt like Stockholm Syndrome.
Last edited:
That and the very slow updates. Apple sells a lot of laptops, it prefers them to desktops, but yet it has no Skylake MBP. Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc have been shipping Skylake across their entire laptop range for over 6 months now. I'm in need of a new laptop but waiting to see what's released at WWDC. If Apple can't provide I'll be ordering a Dell Precision 5510.