Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Im running the 6xm processor on the 2k11 mini

Diablo III and Warcraft run with great playability to about 3/4ths of max graphics.

Twiddling with your graphics settings produces some great results even more-so.

The card is good, Runs Fallout III and vegas with great graphics as well on Windows side.

'free to play'
 
What makes it annoying is the fact that they've proven they CAN put a discrete GPU in that case without problems but then decided NOT to! ugh!
 
What makes it annoying is the fact that they've proven they CAN put a discrete GPU in that case without problems but then decided NOT to! ugh!

Price point and segmenting the product line. They want to keep away from the iMac in both cost and performance. I'm surprised they offer the Quad i7 in the Mini as that machine with 16GB of RAM is a screamer.
 
What makes it annoying is the fact that they've proven they CAN put a discrete GPU in that case without problems but then decided NOT to! ugh!
You are making them smile in Cupertino. They want YOU(since you are complaining) to buy a MBP or iMac instead.

As Mike said, they want to have a solid line between the min and iMac/MBP. Even when they did put discrete GPUs in the mini, it had half the VRAM it should have, just to make that line even clearer.
 
You are making them smile in Cupertino. They want YOU(since you are complaining) to buy a MBP or iMac instead.

As Mike said, they want to have a solid line between the min and iMac/MBP. Even when they did put discrete GPUs in the mini, it had half the VRAM it should have, just to make that line even clearer.

Meh everything had half the VRAM it should have had and also the 6630M while okay was still a mediocre card. The GTX 660M especially should have had at least 1 GB and the ultimate retina MacBook Pro should have had an option for 2 GB of VRAM for the 650M.

Apple is not going to make me want to buy a more expensive computer, they are however going to make me skip a generation until I'm ready to upgrade.
 
Meh everything had half the VRAM it should have had and also the 6630M while okay was still a mediocre card. The GTX 660M especially should have had at least 1 GB and the ultimate retina MacBook Pro should have had an option for 2 GB of VRAM for the 650M.

Apple is not going to make me want to buy a more expensive computer, they are however going to make me skip a generation until I'm ready to upgrade.

Mac mini owners are in the rare position of really being able to consider upgrading with every generation due to the extremely high resale value. Is it economical, not really but its reasonably feasible to do so. Is it necessary? clearly not.
 
Mac mini owners are in the rare position of really being able to consider upgrading with every generation due to the extremely high resale value. Is it economical, not really but its reasonably feasible to do so. Is it necessary? clearly not.

The Ivy Bridge dual-core was maybe a 10-15% jump up from the Sandy Bridge dual-core. If I was going to buy a Ivy Bridge quad-core, then it would be a decent jump. If I was going from Sandy Bridge quad-core to Ivy Bridge quad-core than not much of a gain again.

I know I will be getting a Haswell quad-core machine though.
 
The Ivy Bridge dual-core was maybe a 10-15% jump up from the Sandy Bridge dual-core. If I was going to buy a Ivy Bridge quad-core, then it would be a decent jump. If I was going from Sandy Bridge quad-core to Ivy Bridge quad-core than not much of a gain again.

I know I will be getting a Haswell quad-core machine though.

I expect big things from Haswell but I don't expect to see it until early 2014.
 
Apple is not going to make me want to buy a more expensive computer, they are however going to make me skip a generation until I'm ready to upgrade.
Not if you want to do something other than basic gaming. When it comes to that, the mini is purposely built to say "Move along".
 
Not if you want to do something other than basic gaming. When it comes to that, the mini is purposely built to say "Move along".

A mini with a quad-core processor is sufficient, the graphics just have to be decent as well. I think Haswell will meet my requirements.

I have no interest in an iMac especially with all the yellow tint issues plus I like having my own monitor. Discrete graphics is not worth that.
 
You are making them smile in Cupertino. They want YOU(since you are complaining) to buy a MBP or iMac instead.

As Mike said, they want to have a solid line between the min and iMac/MBP. Even when they did put discrete GPUs in the mini, it had half the VRAM it should have, just to make that line even clearer.

Then there's all those like me who'd gladly spend a bit more on a Mini with decent GPU, if only the option was there. As it's not, we prefer to settle on recent Minis (I have the 2011, HD 6630M Mini), but end up also buying more powerful PCs instead. One ends up with a Mini for serious work & a PC for games or more graphically intensive stuff.

A few years ago, I'd have rarely touched Windows. Now it's a most acceptable compromise. I find Windows 7 really isn't that far behind OS X. I already have a PC laptop & will be getting my first PC desktop this week for gaming, etc.

FWIW, I've had an iMac before. I'd never buy another AIO ever again! Awful, reflective screen, superdrive that scratched half my CDs & the logic board went within 3 years.
 
Why 2014?

http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2013/2013020501_Intel_to_launch_Haswell_ULV_CPUs_at_Computex_show.html

If Intel launches in June what would stop Apple from updating the Mac Mini and iMac in October? It isn't bleeding edge in terms of the release date for either Hawell or OS X 10.9 .

The imacs are still way behind schedule. They wont be on schedule and running normal until sometime in the late spring most likely. The haswell minis are expected to be about a 15% improvement on the current minis. That's dangerously close to competing with iMacs and potentially cannibalizing sales. Plus the mini often gets updated with the iMac so its safe to say apple will likely want some time between iMac releases (overlapping the hype from the same product with new generations isn't something apple has a history of doing). Further, the mac mini has been having longer release cycles lately. it's not unreasonable or out of line with the past two cycles to see a mac mini released in january or february 2014.

----------

A mini with a quad-core processor is sufficient, the graphics just have to be decent as well. I think Haswell will meet my requirements.

I have no interest in an iMac especially with all the yellow tint issues plus I like having my own monitor. Discrete graphics is not worth that.

the yellow tint exists in the 2011 and 2012 minis. 1 port displays fine, the other with a yellowish tint. it takes an annoying amount of time calibrating to eliminate it from the yellow side.
 
The imacs are still way behind schedule. They wont be on schedule and running normal until sometime in the late spring most likely.

That is highly dubious position. In case the missed the story on the front page of this site today.

https://www.macrumors.com/2013/03/0...hours-in-apples-north-american-online-stores/

Apple is basically on track to be caught up worldwide during April (far more the start of Spring let alone the end of it; June ).

Apple could perhaps slide a week or so into November but by the October it is basically on track for average iMac release ( see Buyers guide here ).

The haswell minis are expected to be about a 15% improvement on the current minis. That's dangerously close to competing with iMacs and potentially cannibalizing sales.

Not really. HD4500 and HD5200 graphics will be better but it is unclear it mini will get HD5200. the Mini has to hit its price points and extremely likely will not be getting discrete options. There is a price , performance and completeness gap between them.

With a Haswell update and appropriate graphics update to the iMac it isn't even an issue any more than it is now.

Plus the mini often gets updated with the iMac so its safe to say apple will likely want some time between iMac releases (overlapping the hype from the same product with new generations isn't something apple has a history of doing).

October is 12 months from the annoucemnts. How long do you want them to wait. Most customers don't want them to wait a year. Over a year? on purpose? That is very thin ice.

If Apple drops new laptops in late July-August there is no hype to overlap with.... It would have been a couple months since new products. The new mini may pop up in October but it is beyond goofy to supress the Mac products on some hype index. Apple has every opporutity to show great Mac Q4 growth if they have refreshed their whole Mac line up this time as oppose to having suppressed it by 770K iMacs. Not shipping a new iMac wont drop it by 700K but most definitely would be a drop if they did not shipped new after 12 moths.

Further, the mac mini has been having longer release cycles lately.

Likely because resources being diverted to double up the Mac laptop line up. 3 different 13" laptops? It don't think that is going to last another year.

The mini takes queues from the MBP 13". If Apple is doing a Haswell 13" offering the mini will be falling along an adjacent path.

it's not unreasonable or out of line with the past two cycles to see a mac mini released in january or february 2014.

The mini was hamstrung also at time because of lack of parts. Right now Intel's CPU development track for mainstream CPUs is exactly lined up with the mini. Note that Intel dropped out of the generic motherboard market but are staying with making Next Unit of Computing track

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us...rboards/next-unit-computing-introduction.html

What does that most look like in Apple's Mac product line up??????????
You think Apple is going to sit still while Intel pours marketing dollars into system vendors pushing these kinds of boxes? I don't. It would be a bozo move for Apple to go to sleep on the Mac mini right now.
 
Last edited:
Is that the case? I have a Mac Pro 1,1 with the GeForce 8800 GT...would the new Mini be faster or slower than what I already have?

Comparable

People should also not forget, that HD4000≠HD4000.
The one in the entry 2.5 i5 is much slower than the one in the 2.6 quad, and the amount of RAM makes the performance differ too.
 
I've been quite happy with the performance of my Mini. Would I have sprung the extra cash for a dedicated GPU if Apple made one available? Probably. But at the end of the day it is all about compromises. I compromised on Graphical power per $1 spent by buying a mac in the first place, and I compromised on a dedicated GPU by choosing a machine without a screen attached. At the end of the day it plays Portal 2 just fine and assuming it plays SimCity just fine, then its powerful enough for me for the foreseeable future. I have zero regrets.

So its really not a matter of the HD4000 not being good enough for the mac mini, its a matter of whether the HD4000 is good enough for you.
 
I've been quite happy with the performance of my Mini. Would I have sprung the extra cash for a dedicated GPU if Apple made one available? Probably. But at the end of the day it is all about compromises. I compromised on Graphical power per $1 spent by buying a mac in the first place, and I compromised on a dedicated GPU by choosing a machine without a screen attached. At the end of the day it plays Portal 2 just fine and assuming it plays SimCity just fine, then its powerful enough for me for the foreseeable future. I have zero regrets.

So its really not a matter of the HD4000 not being good enough for the mac mini, its a matter of whether the HD4000 is good enough for you.

Ditto here in both respects. I'm pleased with my 2011 Mini with HD 6630M, esp since I upgraded the RAM to 8GB.

It won't surprise anyone that many in my position have passed on this generation of Minis & will at least wait for Haswell chipsets. However, I admit I'm quite envious of the HD4000's capability to optimize up to 768 VRAM if having 8GB RAM. As the HD 6630M is restricted to a paltry 256 VRAM, I find that quite impressive for an integrated card.
 
Comparable

People should also not forget, that HD4000≠HD4000.
The one in the entry 2.5 i5 is much slower than the one in the 2.6 quad, and the amount of RAM makes the performance differ too.

o_O The HD4000 in the quad mini is different from the dual mini?
 
Then there's all those like me who'd gladly spend a bit more on a Mini with decent GPU, if only the option was there. As it's not, we prefer to settle on recent Minis (I have the 2011, HD 6630M Mini), but end up also buying more powerful PCs instead. One ends up with a Mini for serious work & a PC for games or more graphically intensive stuff.

A few years ago, I'd have rarely touched Windows. Now it's a most acceptable compromise. I find Windows 7 really isn't that far behind OS X. I already have a PC laptop & will be getting my first PC desktop this week for gaming, etc.

FWIW, I've had an iMac before. I'd never buy another AIO ever again! Awful, reflective screen, superdrive that scratched half my CDs & the logic board went within 3 years.
Of course. That is the option that lots of us here would gladly jump at. But that is not something Apple will offer because it would eat into iMac and MBP sales.

Others here have claimed it's ONLY because Apple doesn't want to have to manage another BTO option. I highly disagree with that opinion, given their approach to the GPU in the mini since the beginning.

Apple wants as solid a line as possible between the mini and the more expensive machines. Allowing a GPU that is actually worth a damn in the mini, blurs those lines too much.

We could see the G3 integrated graphics option at some point on the mini. It's just that it will NOT be offered in the next update, IMHO. It won't be offered until the iMac and MBP are at least another generation ahead in their discrete graphics. And even if the G3 is offered, I'm sure that if it is possible, Apple will restrict the amount of VRAM that would be available.
 
Last edited:
Comparable

People should also not forget, that HD4000≠HD4000.
The one in the entry 2.5 i5 is much slower than the one in the 2.6 quad, and the amount of RAM makes the performance differ too.

I wouldn't consider 1100mhz vs 1250mhz at full turbo to be "much slower" (and the "normal" operating speed is the same).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Bridge_(microarchitecture)#Mobile_processors

----------

o_O The HD4000 in the quad mini is different from the dual mini?

There's a slight speed difference of 150mhz at full turbo. The normal operating speed is the same. Blanka tends to exaggerate....
 
Of course. That is the option that lots of us here would gladly jump at. But that is not something Apple will offer because it would eat into iMac and MBP sales.

Others here have claimed it's ONLY because Apple doesn't want to have to manage another BTO option. I highly disagree with that opinion, given their approach to the GPU in the mini since the beginning.

Apple wants as solid a line as possible between the mini and the more expensive machines. Allowing a GPU that is actually worth a damn in the mini, blurs those lines too much.

We could see the G3 integrated graphics option at some point on the mini. It's just that it will NOT be offered in the next update, IMHO. It won't be offered until the iMac and MBP are at least another generation ahead in their discrete graphics. And even if the G3 is offered, I'm sure that if it is possible, Apple will restrict the amount of VRAM that would be available.

Thanks for some VG points & what seems a very accurate understanding of Apple's long-standing & successful business plan with Mac lines (& probably other Apple products also). Nothing I'd go against. :)

Apple make VG profit margins on their iMac range, so I agree they're highly unlikely to offer anything that might risk cannibalizing those sales. That just about rules out a more powerful Mini anytime soon or a cheaper, upgradable Mac Pro, when that line finally gets updated sometime this year.

It's regrettable here only in the sense that, like many others, I'd have preferred to have stayed all Mac & just Bootcamp my Windows software. But as it turned out, for me the compromise of getting a PC was more than acceptable. The only regret is not being able to run OS X on the PC without doing a hack & then maintaining it after Apple's updates, which tend to break various things. ;)
 
Apple make VG profit margins on their iMac range, so I agree they're highly unlikely to offer anything that might risk cannibalizing those sales.

Apple makes VG profit margins on all of the Macs. There are no "loss leader" Macs which are dependent upon sales of some other Mac to offset lower than nominal (for Apple) profits on that product.

So users moving down to lower priced products because their workload has pragmatically plateaued and now only really need a lower product is just fine. If the workload has plateaued so much can transition to an iPad. That is OK too.

What Apple isn't going to do is the fraticide flavor of cannibliziation. Where products priced about the same have very approximate peformance/functionality.

If just swapping mini sales for iMac sales or vice versa all that does is just rearrange the deck chairs. It isn't growing the overall Mac market. Rearrangng the deck chairs can't be the primary objective or result.

Most of these "add stuff to the mini so it is equivalent to iMac" tracks basically kill off the mini's margin. What you are saving is not only engage in fraticide, but take less money. It shouldn't be surprising why probably isn't going to go with that strategy. That's pretty much what was done in the early-mid 90's. It was giant bust of a strategy.


That just about rules out a more powerful Mini anytime soon or a cheaper, upgradable Mac Pro, when that line finally gets updated sometime this year.

The dubious assumption here is that the iMacs can't also be moved forward at the same time. There should be tweaked mobile offerings from both AMD and Nvidia by Q3-Q4 when the updated iMac should be do to roll out.

If Apple upgrades the iMac there is nothing in Apple's strategy against moving the mini up into that vacated performance zone.

The likely problem with the top end GT3 Haswell solution is that it is likely going to cost more. If Intel is bundling the RAM into the same CPU package as the GT3 and selling that bundle they are certainly going to charge a premium for that. Intel doesn't give away "free" any more than Apple does. Apple isn't going to eat that increase resulting in lower margins. So it is questionable that top end GT3 will make the Mini's price point constraints. I suspect there are some TDP constraints too for top end GT3.

There is a range of GT3 HD5200 and HD5100 coming. For the mini's price point it will likely be the more limited one that probably doesn't put an updated, but price equivalent, to a GT640M in danger.

The iMac is higher priced so it can afford better parts with no margin loss.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.