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.
Why can't mac-mini spec be same as top iMacs
- Thread starter Applecom
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
2 reasons come to mind. Maybe 3.
1. Heat. A mini with the top imac parts would burn a hole in your desk!.
2. If it had the same parts, then a lot less people would buy the imac.
3?. I don't know the size of the gpu in the top imac, but I guess it wouldn't fit.
1. Heat. A mini with the top imac parts would burn a hole in your desk!.
2. If it had the same parts, then a lot less people would buy the imac.
3?. I don't know the size of the gpu in the top imac, but I guess it wouldn't fit.
The issue is size and heat. The mac mini weighs about 3 pounds. The 27inch iMac weighs 30 pounds. You cannot fit 30 pounds of equipment into a 3 pound box. And yea, you'd burn a hole in the table with the iMacs processor in the mini. Not enough room for cooling.
It is completely about a heat. The Mac Mini has the same cooling properties as a laptop (and really it is nothing more than a screen and keyboard-less laptop). You don't see 3.4ghz DESKTOP processor in a laptop now do you? The iMac has a huge aluminum back that can dissipate a lot of heat, the mac mini has roughly what a 1/6? (I've never done the math to compare so 1/6 is just a guesstimate) of the same square footage to dissipate the heat.
Seriously, it's the laws of thermodynamics. Understand it and you wouldn't have to ask such a silly question.
Seriously, it's the laws of thermodynamics. Understand it and you wouldn't have to ask such a silly question.
There's no need to be condescending. It's not a silly question. Not everyone knows the laws of thermodynamics or the heat properties of various computer components.
There's no need to be condescending. It's not a silly question. Not everyone knows the laws of thermodynamics or the heat properties of various computer components.
actually psu is a big problem along with the heat.
85 watts is the max for the mac mini. the iMac psu has more power available. currently no one makes a power supply that fits in a mini that could power the 3.4 quad. and a 6970 gpu.
the 3.4ghz quad core cpu in an iMac is 95 watts
the source below claims the gpu pulls 75 to 100 watts.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-6970M.43077.0.html
so go low and you are at 170 watts for 2 parts an 85 watts psU will not do it.
with a brick as psu 110 to 130 watts would be max
psu
this power supply is one of the biggest on the market 130 watts.
http://www.buy.com/pr/product.aspx?sku=220399066&sellerid=27095498
so this lets you have a 45 watt cpu and a 50 watt gpu in a mini of course you get a brick not a power cord.
now If you make a 130 watt brick as a BTO option and put in a better cpu/gpu
you would need a second fan and maybe just one hdd. you could get the
i7-2860qm it is 45 watts
http://ark.intel.com/products/53476/Intel-Core-i7-2860QM-Processor-(8M-Cache-2_50-GHz)
the 6870m it is 50 watts
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-6870M.43733.0.html
this is 95 watts with 35 watts for other parts.
Apple could make this work if they want.
this would be the best they could do in the mac mini if they add the 130 watt brick.
it would be quite a machine. it could handle 16gb ram ddr3 1600 but they won't make it. too bad. it could run a great ht/game room.
You do get that 45Watt TDP is NOT the amount of power that the CPU uses right? TDP stands for Thermal Design Power. This is the amount of HEAT that a processor gives off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power
While traditionally, a 130 Watt TDP processor will use more power than say a 45 Watt TDP, it doesn't correlate directly to the amount of power that a processor uses.
So just slapping a power brick onto the Mini will not allow you to run a desktop CPU or better GPU.
A lot of the Mac mini components are based on laptop sized parts-- the hard drive, for instance. In order to keep the cost of the machine itself down they make compromises-- a 500gb laptop hard drive is significantly less expensive than a 1tb drive.
Also, and probably more significantly, better specs on the Mac mini would cut into sales of the iMac and even the Mac Pro.
Also, and probably more significantly, better specs on the Mac mini would cut into sales of the iMac and even the Mac Pro.
A Mac- mini twice the size may be able to cope??
Thanks for all the answers, and I do understand that size matters.
The iMac is a lovely screen, and so any connections - ethernet, 2 thunderbolt for 2 more screens, usb for a eyeTV, another one for something else, hard drive - suddenly you need to consider cable management and which impacts on the aesthetics.
Seriously, there is no need for that kind of attitude on these forums. The guy said he was new to this and didn't understand things. Read the post first before showing off.
I too wish for a computer that is more than the mini but not as much as the Mac Pro.
Some of us just don't like all in ones and feel Apple is leaving users like us to flap in the breeze.
Take the footprint of the mini (I would actually like the previous versions footprint) and make the case as tall as is necessary to make everything work. A computer with the footprint of the mini that is 6, 8, 10 inches tall would still be much smaller than the Mac Pro.
Instead Apple offers one choice (iMac) of mid range computer.
Some of us just don't like all in ones and feel Apple is leaving users like us to flap in the breeze.
Take the footprint of the mini (I would actually like the previous versions footprint) and make the case as tall as is necessary to make everything work. A computer with the footprint of the mini that is 6, 8, 10 inches tall would still be much smaller than the Mac Pro.
Instead Apple offers one choice (iMac) of mid range computer.
The simple answer is that the Mac Mini is just too small to have the same internals as the iMac. A lot of people want exactly what the guy above me just posted. I can imagine something with about the same footprint as the current mini, but 3 or 4 times taller. A cute little tower with a desktop CPU and a mobile GPU. Then people will complain that they want a desktop GPU so it will have to get bigger. The problem is that apparently we're in the minority when it comes to wanting something like this... I am not so sure. At this point in time Apple are in a place that is pretty good for a tech company - "If you build it, they will come". I imagine there would be a lot of people wanting to snap up a QC 3.4 2600 i7 with space for a PCIe expansion card, two 3.5" HDDs and plenty of ports. We don't all need a desktop computer with a screen.
I've written to Tim Cook and Steve Jobs about this, but they're not interested.
I've written to Tim Cook and Steve Jobs about this, but they're not interested.
Last edited:
apple has intentionally created a gap in their product line. why I don't know.
it is not to protect iMac or Mac Pro.
My Ht has a 46 inch screen. I have no need for an iMac and I can't quite fit a mac pro. So I like many others are SOL!
http://www.superbiiz.com/system_category.php?id=7 I may build this. use windows only.
it is not to protect iMac or Mac Pro.
My Ht has a 46 inch screen. I have no need for an iMac and I can't quite fit a mac pro. So I like many others are SOL!
http://www.superbiiz.com/system_category.php?id=7 I may build this. use windows only.
Sadly they never built anything between the mini and the iMac. On the forum there used to be a lot of talk about an xMac. There are plenty of Windows PCs that use a form factor maybe 4 times the size of the mini and do well. Maybe Apple didn't want to go to a place where users could do too much modding..then they would have to deal with more graphics cards, more drives, more cards...etc.
this may be what apple is thinking for a ht/gamer setup
https://www.macrumors.com/
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/12/2...2-and-37-apple-television-sets-in-early-2012/
a 32 to 37 inch tv
https://www.macrumors.com/
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/12/2...2-and-37-apple-television-sets-in-early-2012/
a 32 to 37 inch tv
re this thread
good thread - learned alot
started off slow - but got rolling into some good info and discussion
yeah id like a qc i7 mini with screaming graphics - ok to dream on
good thread - learned alot
started off slow - but got rolling into some good info and discussion
yeah id like a qc i7 mini with screaming graphics - ok to dream on
Apple actually once built Macs that were between a Mac Mini and an iMac. They were rectangular desktop computers that were not as powerful as the high-end tower Macs. There were consumer Macs called Performa and "prosumer" Macs in a similar form factor with a more powerful processor. Neither Mac shipped with a monitor.
I won't be buying another iMac; my 24" matte display iMac will be my last. The lack of an anti-glare display and no ergonomic adjustments are deal-killers for me.
Yet Apple offers the Mac Pro which allows users the ease of replacing drives, adding cards, etc. It is as if Apple majically assumes there is some inherent skill level difference between the persons that purchase a Mac Pro and the rest of the people.
yes and as a former mac pro owner and user it is sad that I may need to build this for my ht.
this is 950 add a decent gpu is 150 or so like a 6870 around 170
add a blu-ray drive is 100 total of 250 like a pioneer bdr-206dbks
plus the 950 is 1200
i can add a gpu and a blu ray drive and have a 1.3k system that spanks most any mac except the mac pro.
I can fit this in my ht rack I can't fit a mac pro and an iMac is useless due to the small screen (27 inches is small for ht)
this machine is a very nice ht/gamer machine. so at a 1200 to maybe 1400 range i have what I want.
the only machine that can do this from apple is the mac pro cost more then 2600 with the blu ray player and the mac pro is too big.
Attachments
Last edited: