Upgrading Late 2012 Mac Mini

[D.T.]

One major issue is in graphics work where the HD 4000 in the 2012 Mini is only getting older and the Iris chips that Apple is using in the higher end 2014 Mini (and likely higher end configurations of a 2016 or 2017 Mini) are a significant upgrade. The HD 4000 is quite capable of running a desktop environment at high resolution and includes multi-monitor support but it struggles with 3D work, especially on software that is newer than 2012.

I rely on mine for gaming and it is a fine chip for Indie titles and older games but falls apart with virtually anything new. The last major release I have played on it with a reasonable frame rate and visuals was Borderlands 2, though I am sure other gamers on this system might have experience with newer titles. I'd been thinking of trying Fallout 4 on it but I loathe the idea of playing that game on low with a resolution below 1080p just to get playable FPS. It goes without saying that if you aren't planning to run these kinds of programs, the HD 4000 should remain adequate for the next couple of years. This chip is capped at 2k resolution (2560x1600 IIRC) however, so if you are planning to upgrade to 4k+ in the next few years you will want something newer.

My personal plan is to keep my Ivy Bridge mini until 2017 when cannonlake becomes widely available. Unless Apple does something really surprising with the minis (like offering user upgrades and quad core CPUs again), I'll likely retire it for an iMac. I don't figure on it being a bad computer in 2017, but I will be looking to upgrade from that HD 4000 to at least a 4k display. I'll probably turn the computer into an HTPC or give it to my parents after that.

Great post. Mine wasn't too bad for some work in Unity and Unreal Engine, FWIW, it did make a noticeable difference when I went from a '12 i5 to a '12 i7 (same RAM/SSD) in those apps. That being said, if I were to have pursued that direction, I would definitely have moved to a newer machine (probably a rMBP '14/750M, or a '15/390X).

For gaming, we just use a console. There's always something good (even if some "PC only" titles don't make it), and the dedicated gaming hardware is pretty stout (and we can chill in front of a big TV on a sofa )

I'm with you on keeping this machine though, I think it'll easily have solid life - outside of hardcore gaming - well into '17. I mean, right now, I've got 2 VMs running with dozens of apps, services, all the OS X native apps and services and it runs without a hiccup!

 

[macmesser]

If you go pure SSD then EVERYTHING can take advantage of it. I play a few different computer games that require loading off the disc as you move into different areas of the game. With the SSD these load times are virtually nonexistent and the entire game is more seamless. Big file transfers like moving around collections of media, etc. are a snap.

Using small SSDs for the OS and a few key apps is very popular as large SSDs (mine is 1 TB and cost about $430 USD) are still quite expensive. Apple even sells their "fusion drives" like this. It is really an SSD and an HDD but software magic makes the computer think it is just one drive.

My advice if you plan to install an SSD? Buy the largest you can afford. You can use your slower plate drive for data. That works great but if you have say 128 GB SSD that is the OS + all apps on that drive that are benefiting from the improved speed for super fast loading, etc.

I use .25 TB ssd for my boot drive, 128GB ssd for scratch and working files on my '09 Mac Pro. I have a fair amount of applications installed, email, some docs on the boot drive. Boot drive is under half full and the system is fast. For data I use larger HDs, including a slow "green" drive. I bought mine a while ago and they are a lot cheaper now. I agree with your advice to go with the largest you can afford, with the qualifier that it should be "easily afford." That's not to say one shouldn't anticipate trying some new kinds of apps. For your gaming a bigger drive is going to be a big boost in quality of user experience. In my case, for digital photography, I'm close to the point of diminishing returns on SSD size, although I get tempted by sales.

 

[Daisy81]

I'm thinking of adding an SSD to my mini (2012 2.6 i7 8Gb memory 1Tb drive)

I see that Apple has dramatically reduced the size of the flash memory in the new iMacs to 24GB - so is there much benefit in having a larger SSD over a smaller - given I have enough storage on my current drive? I'm guessing an OSX install (El Captain) is not that big So, rather than buy a large SSD I could just have a small one? Is there really much disadvantage to using a 32GB over 128 or 64? I do a bit of photo editing and playing with video, but nothing serious, but I'd like to 'speed it up' a bit!

I had no idea that they did this. Is it possible this is a transition away from fusion drives and towards sad drives only?

I would not buy a fusion drive with so little SSD. I suggest the 256GB SSD and buy an external USB3 drive for storage.

 

[voyager03]

I had no idea that they did this. Is it possible this is a transition away from fusion drives and towards sad drives only?

Since they are using a spinning disk and a small flash drive, I guess not! (In time I'm sure physical discs will be superseded by memory, but I think that is some way off yet)

I would not buy a fusion drive with so little SSD. I suggest the 256GB SSD and buy an external USB3 drive for storage.

I have the 1TB drive, so would keep that in the mini - it's more a matter of the cost/benefit of a larger SSD to make a Fusion Drive from it.