Hey there is this cool feature called 'Search" that is built into every browser... A quick entry of 1.1 million would have taken you right to it. I'm sorry this is outside your skill set.
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 such a lengthy delay for a Mac Mini refresh?
- Thread starter VirtualRain
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hey there is this cool feature called 'Search" that is built into every browser... A quick entry of 1.1 million would have taken you right to it. I'm sorry this is outside your skill set.
I do not think I agree with this logic. If this truly was the case, I do not believe we would see products such iPhone 5c, or 4s still available for sale. Following the same logic why would Apple would want to undercut their 21.5 fully loaded iMac for $2399 by offering one for $1099?
In the case of mini we are talking completely different computers - one with laptop grade CPU's and onboard graphics vs. a professional grade workstation with server/workstation class CPU's and graphics.
I honestly think that Apple is lazy which is unfortunately easily seen through out their whole product line.
Sure, but these lower priced versions do not perform at the same level as the higher priced ones. In the example I cited, the much lower cost Mac Mini would actually out-perform the much higher cost Mac Pro (at least in single-core benchmarks).
Which makes the fact that the lower price laptop based computer outperforms the expensive workstation grade system even more difficult to accept.
Having said all that (including my previous posts), I actually tend to agree with this somewhat. While I wouldn't use the word "lazy", I think despite their seemingly limitless resources, they are still incapable of working on more than one or two major products at a time. I think the Mac Mini has simply fallen off their priority list much like the Mac Pro did for a two year period previously.
--------------------
I agree it's a low priority... but I suspect it's a better selling computer than you think based strictly on the fact that it's the most affordable Mac in the entire line up. However, we could debate that all day long and never find out the truth.
Sure, but these lower priced versions do not perform at the same level as the higher priced ones. In the example I cited, the much lower cost Mac Mini would actually out-perform the much higher cost Mac Pro (at least in single-core benchmarks).
Which makes the fact that the lower price laptop based computer outperforms the expensive workstation grade system even more difficult to accept.
Having said all that (including my previous posts), I actually tend to agree with this somewhat. While I wouldn't use the word "lazy", I think despite their seemingly limitless resources, they are still incapable of working on more than one or two major products at a time. I think the Mac Mini has simply fallen off their priority list much like the Mac Pro did for a two year period previously.
--------------------
I agree it's a low priority... but I suspect it's a better selling computer than you think based strictly on the fact that it's the most affordable Mac in the entire line up. However, we could debate that all day long and never find out the truth.
If you compare mac mini and pro for browsing internet, yeah I agree, they will perform the same and the difference wont be noticeable. Same goes if you compare iPhone 4s and 5s for making/receiving phone calls - both will perform the function just fine without any difference.
Looking at the single CPU core performance and saying that they are the same or that mac mini will outperform mac pro is like looking at two cars with 200HP engines, but one weighing 1000kg and the other 2000kg. Sure both cars will get you from point A to B, but that will be about it.
Still, I do not see how a haswell based mac mini for $999 would be any threat to $2999 mac pro. Two different things for two different type of consumes and not an excuse for Apple to not offer it.
There's no doubt that the the Mac Mini and Mac Pro are different beasts. However, for someone sitting on the fence between getting a Mini to edit photos vs a Mac Pro, a headline like "$800 Mac Mini stomps $3000 Mac Pro in Photoshop Benchmark" would probably cost Apple a few $$$. As it was, without the Mac Mini, the $2000 iMac was a serious contender vs the entry level Mac Pro because it could beat the Mac Pro in some benchmarks and included a nice 27" display.... and what is a Mac Mini? An iMac without the display.
Clearly the mini is waiting for True North chips so I don't expect a refresh for another 5 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/s...ion®ion=pocket-region&WT.nav=pocket-region
I wanted to downvote you because of the horrible pain that would bring me. But I can't - so instead I upvoted you because the True North chips seem awesome.
Last edited:
Say WHAT?!?!
http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks
Haswell is only about 5% faster than Ivy Bridge...
Take the top end Mini (2.6ghz Ivy Bridge) = 3243 * 1.05 = 3405
Quad core Mac Pro = 3583
3405 < 3583
Not to mention that with the additional cooling head room of the Mac Pro, it should be able to stay at maximum turbo boost much longer than the Mini can (this is a limitation to Geekbench since it only tests for a very short period of time).
There's no need to estimate the Haswell performance... there are plenty of Haswell CPUs in Macs already that we can compare with. Now of course it's possible they may have refreshed the Mini with mobile Haswell CPUs instead of desktop Haswell CPUs but if they had chosen to go the same route as the iMac, this is what the results would look like...
The nMP Quad scores around 3500-3600 on single core, and 13,000-14,000 on multi-core. And there is no debate that the high-end BTO iMac can better these scores.
So if a Haswell Mac Mini offered the same BTO quad core as the iMac (i5-4771) it would score between 3800 and 4000 on Geekbench in Single Core and 14,000 to 15,000 on Multi core.
If a Haswell Mac Mini offered the same base quad core as the iMac (i5-4670) it would score between 3500 and 3900 on Single Core and 11,000 and 12,000 on multi-core.
So depending on the Haswell CPU used, a $1000 Mac Mini could have beat the entry level $3000 Mac Pro in both single core and multi core benchmarks, or at least kept up with it in Single Core.
Now again, maybe Apple didn't care about this... there are certainly plenty of other reasons the Mac Mini refresh could have been delayed or deferred, but I can't imagine that I'm the only person who might have considered this, even if it was ultimately dismissed.
Whoa whoa..... The iMac (except for the "cheap one") all use desktop CPU's. You CAN NOT use those for comparison. Unless somehow Apple is able to defy the laws of Thermodynamics and cram an 60+ TDP processor into a design that at tops can handle about about 50.....
Secondly, the Base nMP scores 14500 and not 13-14K in 64bit Geekbench.
Further, only the i7 iMacs can beat the base nMP in single threaded 64bit operations. I'm not sure where you are getting 3900 from an i5. Geekbench has the i5-4670 and the base nMP as a statistical tie. Again, only the i7's can beat them.
So again, your numbers are off and you aren't comparing a Mini's processor to the iMacs.
Agreed... i7 iMac can beat nMP Quad and the i5 is very similar. And agreed, the Mac Mini has historically used mobile processors, not desktop. However, perhaps the Mac Mini can handle an 80W TDP? We just don't know. However, even if it couldn't, then the logical Haswell choice for the Mini would be the i7-4960HQ from the MBP which is 47W and scores 3700-3800 in Geekbench which could still best the nMP in single core tasks.
BTW, I'm just getting Geekbench scores from the Geekbench search... for example, here's the i5-4670 iMac top scores... http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/search?dir=desc&q=i5-4670+imac&sort=score
Anyway, rather than argue all day long (oops too late)
... can we both agree that a top-end BTO Haswell Mac Mini would at least be nipping at the heels of the entry level Mac Pro in performance at 1/3rd the price?Anyway, rather than argue all day long (oops too late)
Probably not. I just sold a MP 5,1, 3.2GHz quad with 24GB RAM and Mav running on a Crucial M500 960GB SSD on a PCIe card. The poor old Mac Pro scored about 9825/2450 for GB3 multi/single cores.
My 2012 mini 2.3GHz quad has 16GB RAM and also boots from a Crucial M500 960GB SSD. I just ran GB 3. It scored 11974/3074 totally stomping the dearly departed MP. Does it actually run faster than the MP? No. Does the mini feel more responsive than the MP? No.
Then of course there is video performance. The Intel 4000 is adequate. The HD 5870 was really good. I love my mini but it ain't no desktop monster.
focused on the other products.
New generation Minis have historically been incrementally better than the last iteration. A different design, updated parts, and the performance is always at the bottom of the Mac hierachy barrel.
Want to guess what a new Mini will offer? (if there ever is one.. which I doubt), Look at the low end Macbook Air or iMac. Yawn.
If a new Mini does come out, it is not going to be exciting or ground breaking. It may look a little different, and have updated specs, but it will be, and always has been Apls low end dog.. hardly worthy of so much anticipation.
Want to guess what a new Mini will offer? (if there ever is one.. which I doubt), Look at the low end Macbook Air or iMac. Yawn.
If a new Mini does come out, it is not going to be exciting or ground breaking. It may look a little different, and have updated specs, but it will be, and always has been Apls low end dog.. hardly worthy of so much anticipation.
They never haven't based the Mac Mini on already available MacBook Pros and since the switch to i5 on the low end and i7 on the higher end they've been significantly better performing too.
The June 2012 MacBooks available when the October 2012 Mac Mini came out were:
13" i5: 2.5Ghz (3210M)
15" i7: 2.3Ghz Quad (3615QM)
BTO 15" i7: 2.6Ghz Quad (3720QM)
The October 2012 Mac Mini options were:
i5: 2.5Ghz (3210M)
Quad i7: 2.3Ghz (3615QM)
BTO Quad i7: 2.6Ghz (3720QM)
The current July 2014 MacBook Pro are:
13" i5: 2.6Ghz (4288U)
15" i7: Quad 2.2Ghz (4770HQ)
BTO 15" i7: Quad 2.5Ghz (4870HQ)
I'm going to take a wild guess here and say that's the likely Mac Mini line up too seeing as it always was previously. They also reserved the very fastest mobile i7 as a BTO option on the Retina 15" so the Mac Mini likely won't see the 2.8Ghz Haswell i7 because it never used the 2.7Ghz Ivybridge either.
The June 2012 MacBooks available when the October 2012 Mac Mini came out were:
13" i5: 2.5Ghz (3210M)
15" i7: 2.3Ghz Quad (3615QM)
BTO 15" i7: 2.6Ghz Quad (3720QM)
The October 2012 Mac Mini options were:
i5: 2.5Ghz (3210M)
Quad i7: 2.3Ghz (3615QM)
BTO Quad i7: 2.6Ghz (3720QM)
The current July 2014 MacBook Pro are:
13" i5: 2.6Ghz (4288U)
15" i7: Quad 2.2Ghz (4770HQ)
BTO 15" i7: Quad 2.5Ghz (4870HQ)
I'm going to take a wild guess here and say that's the likely Mac Mini line up too seeing as it always was previously. They also reserved the very fastest mobile i7 as a BTO option on the Retina 15" so the Mac Mini likely won't see the 2.8Ghz Haswell i7 because it never used the 2.7Ghz Ivybridge either.
Thanks for doing this. I've been intending to find out the exact relationship to determine CPU options for a refreshed Mini and just haven't had time. This is most likely bang on!
I really hope it is because they are redesigning it. Actually I believe that the internal GPUs of the current CPUs are to powerful and the Minis would eat into the iMac margins.
The only problem with this, is that they have never used as expensive CPU's in Macbook Pros as they do today? Many of those are $100+ more per CPU than what they put in the previous generation. To use those, they would have to bump up the cost of the Mini in order to compensate for the increase in Build costs. Anything with an Iris or Iris Pro is a much higher priced SKU than previous generations. More than likely to keep costs down they would have to go with CPU's with the HD4600...
But they could absorb that cost into the reduction of other component costs. They charge £160 to replace £40 worth of HDD with £80 worth of SSD, their RAM prices are as good as extortion too.
What's your point? Not everyone buys those add ons. So they should lose money on the base unit with the hopes that everyone buys add ons? I've never bought an add on to a base Mini. I know I can do it wayyy cheaper myself. As a FOR PROFIT organization, you can't lose money on a device with no guarantees to make money. Try telling that to your share holders.
Amazon sells devices with the expectation that you will buy content from them. Theoretically Apple could do the same with iOS devices since you can pretty much only buy iOS apps true Apple. Even buying music and books are much more difficult if not purchased through the iTunes Store. A computer on the other hand is not a locked down device. You can walk into a computer store and buy software for your Mac and never spend another dime with Apple.
Another example is Sony and Microsoft often lose money (or make very little) off their consoles, but they know that you will buy software for them which means they ultimately make it up on title sales (each title is usually $10-20 in their pocket last I checked).
Again, no guarantee on a computer since they aren't a walled garden.
I was mostly poking fun of amazon, actually, since they are so busy spending money on trying to get people in their sphere of influence that they don't make much profit.
But on your point, I think that many people buy their software for their mac on their app store and will increasingly do so due to the overwhelming convenience. I think that even microsoft knows that since they've allowed people to get office subscriptions through the app store event though apple takes a 30% cut.
No conspiracy about the delay - Broadway was supposed to come out in 2013 and Intel has experienced problems. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/11/intel_core_m_broadwell_revealed/
It is now scheduled to come out in 2015 and I would be surprised if we see something before Intel releases the chip. Ofcourse Apple can be quietely working on a non-Intel solution.
IMHO there was no real incentive to go to Haswell and that chip is now getting dated so they'll skip it.
It is now scheduled to come out in 2015 and I would be surprised if we see something before Intel releases the chip. Ofcourse Apple can be quietely working on a non-Intel solution.
IMHO there was no real incentive to go to Haswell and that chip is now getting dated so they'll skip it.