The videocard is slightly faster than the HD4000 in the 2.6 quad. Just a tiny bit, but for games, it is still the best Mini. And the 2011 runs Snow Leopard. You can run all PPC programs on a 2011 Mini, with the new one you can't. Macromedia Freehand is worth the 2011 Mini alone if you are a graphics pro. And it eaths 16Gb 1600Mhz RAM and a second SSD as well.
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.
Which Mac Mini is better? 2011 Mid-level or 2012 Base?
- Thread starter dmk1974
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yuck! I can't believe they actually sold (3) 2011's with only 8gb of ram and a 120gb ssd for $849! What a rip off!
I somehow doubt that a real _pro_ would settle for a (2011) Mini instead of a Mac Pro... (heat/noise/inbox-storage/graphic options/CPU power).
Why would any "graphics pro" want to use Freehand -- a PPC program that was discontinued in 2006 and which has to be run in emulation, rather than ... Creative Suite 6, which runs the latest version of Illustrator in 64-bit?
Anyone seen the article about Geekbench, which shows that the new i7 Minis are faster than the new i5 iMacs...?
I checked the refurb store and the mid-level 2011's are at $699.
Is there a way to check for open box Mini's from the Best Buy web site?
BH Photo just dropped their price for the 2011 i5 2.5 to $649.00 - it's anew product.
Purchase it and AppleCare is only $52.00.
Mine arrives Monday.
Loooooong weekend....
I'm not sure what the policy on bumping old threads is here, but I figured now's a good time to re-visit this discussion one year later.
It's safe to assume a new mini will not be introduced this year, and I really need a new computer. Pricing considered, what would you guys recommend in Nov 2013?
Do people still think the AMD is better than the Intel 4000 for graphics. Reviewing benchmark scores, the 2012 only outperforms the mid level 2011 by a marginal amount.
Thanks for your input.
It's safe to assume a new mini will not be introduced this year, and I really need a new computer. Pricing considered, what would you guys recommend in Nov 2013?
Do people still think the AMD is better than the Intel 4000 for graphics. Reviewing benchmark scores, the 2012 only outperforms the mid level 2011 by a marginal amount.
Thanks for your input.
Double Bump
Funny that we would both be looking at this within two days of each other. Also having read through this - refurbs are still a valid option if you're willing to be patient and regularly check the apple store. Until today they had base 2012 for $509 and mid 2011 for $549. I'm leaning heavily towards the base 2012 if I can get it for that price. I have an SSD to throw in so all it needs is an upgrade to 8gb RAM and for $50-60 and it looks like it would be pretty slick. But if anyone has anything to add comparing the 2012 base and 2011 mid that would be great! Especially concerning differences with 256mb fast/dedicated videocard vs 512mb RAM dedicated to Intel HD4000.
Funny that we would both be looking at this within two days of each other. Also having read through this - refurbs are still a valid option if you're willing to be patient and regularly check the apple store. Until today they had base 2012 for $509 and mid 2011 for $549. I'm leaning heavily towards the base 2012 if I can get it for that price. I have an SSD to throw in so all it needs is an upgrade to 8gb RAM and for $50-60 and it looks like it would be pretty slick. But if anyone has anything to add comparing the 2012 base and 2011 mid that would be great! Especially concerning differences with 256mb fast/dedicated videocard vs 512mb RAM dedicated to Intel HD4000.
2012 Base has a better processor, but the difference is ever so slight. The graphics in the 2011 Mid-Level is superior given that it is discrete where the former is integrated. Still, that GPU isn't much to write home about as far as discrete GPUs go. Yet it is the only Mac mini since the original G4 generation to have a discrete GPU.
My take is the HD4000 will be a bottom floor for casual gaming for some time to come (because it's decently competent, and very wide spread in laptops and many cheap desktops). Many/most software houses will target that as the minimum spec. The 6630m is about 25% better, so you'll have more headroom where developers stretch what the minimum requirements are to gain sales.
The 6630 is only slightly below the HD5000 in the MBA.
The 6630 is only slightly below the HD5000 in the MBA.
Hmmm, not according to notebookcheck.net:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-6630M.43963.0.html
vs
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4000.69168.0.html
Of course, maybe the 6630m they tested with is a different memory configuration than the mac mini (1GB vs 128MB) and a different type in some cases.
I just bought another i7 2.3Ghz 2012 model. I like the 1TB HD. I prefer the larger built in storage vs. the speed of an SSD. I will be upgrading the memory to 16GB. It will be a clone and backup system for the other i7 2012 Mini that purchased for business earlier this year.
I also have a mid-2011 i5 2.3Ghz model (upgraded with 16GB RAM) that I bought less than two years ago and it's my been favorite personal desktop computer I have ever owned going back to when I first started using desktop PCs with DOS and Windows... I am relatively new to using Macs.
Regarding the debate about the GPUs, the HD4000 should work fine for most applications. I use a PS3 and PS4 for gaming. IMO dedicated gaming consoles give you the best bang for your buck to play games. Both the new XBOXone and PS4 are using eight core 64 bit AMD x86 APUs so most of the future Windows PC and OS X Mac games should be easily ported by game developers to these systems.
I also have a mid-2011 i5 2.3Ghz model (upgraded with 16GB RAM) that I bought less than two years ago and it's my been favorite personal desktop computer I have ever owned going back to when I first started using desktop PCs with DOS and Windows... I am relatively new to using Macs.
Regarding the debate about the GPUs, the HD4000 should work fine for most applications. I use a PS3 and PS4 for gaming. IMO dedicated gaming consoles give you the best bang for your buck to play games. Both the new XBOXone and PS4 are using eight core 64 bit AMD x86 APUs so most of the future Windows PC and OS X Mac games should be easily ported by game developers to these systems.
Last edited:
It's a little fiddly, but if you're comfortable doing a bit of light Terminal work, and can install an extra bootable copy of OS X somewhere then it's actually not too hard. You need the extra bootable copy of OS X because the recovery partition can be a bit funny about creating the core storage volume, you could always try it anyway but a copy of OS X on another external drive is the easiest way.
These instructions are the ones I used. They may have a few extra steps you don't really need, and you can just ignore mention of 10.8.3; just get the latest download for Mountain Lion or Mavericks, the instructions are the same either way.
Just make sure when you create the core storage volume that you put the SSD first, and the Thunderbolt drive second.
And of course; your Thunderbolt drive needs to be switched on before you boot your computer.
Most importantly; make sure you have at least one full backup of your system, two if you can manage it.
I had a 2012 Mac Mini for work and still currently have a 2011 Mac Mini for home, graphically the one with the 6630M is faster. For the 6630M I am getting around 30-35fps on SC2 while the HD4000 manages a craptacular 12-18fps...
You mean for a part internal/external Fusion Drive? It's not really any different than a regular Fusion Drive, or a RAID-0 or whatever; if one drive fails you lose the set and need to rebuild it fully from back-up. Only difference with an external drive is that you have other issues like a cheap enclosure having a power supply failure or whatever, but it's not really any different in practice so long as the external drive is switched on before the computer, and if not you just switch it on and restart.
I mean, no-one should be running a Fusion Drive with a Time Machine backup (or any system without backup for that matter). After all, a Fusion Drive is misleading and neglects to mention that you're potentially doubling the chances of losing data
How likely do you think these things are? My Mac Minis use portable 2.5" drives for backup disks, which eliminates most issues (power comes from the computer, starts with computer) and I group together all permanently attached cables (monitor, sound if separate, backup drive, power, ethernet etc.) so there's very little chance of accidentally disconnecting. This should be perfectly good for an external Fusion Drive if that's what you need; don't get me wrong, if you can get the drive inside then by all means, but some people aren't going to want to add a drive to the Mac Mini themselves, or may already have two or whatever.
If you need more than a portable disk then sure, that'll need its own power source that might fail, but even power bricks don't just die left and right. If you forget to turn it on then all that happens is the machine won't boot until you do (possibly requiring a restart). You also don't have to use a Fusion Drive as a startup disk, you could for example install the OS on a partition on the SSD, and just create a Fusion Drive from the remaining partition plus an HDD to give you a high capacity, but still fast, volume for your files (or user folders). Depends how big your SSD is, but the convenience of a Fusion Drive compared to manually juggling all your data shouldn't be ignored; I used to do the latter and after switching to a Fusion Drive setup I haven't looked back since.