Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Will 2016 Mini be quad core only?

Santabean2000 said:
Personally, I wouldn't mind switching to ARM; the heaviest app I use is FCP X and that could be optimised by  pretty quickly. [I fully understand why others would not be so keen tho...]
Click to expand...

Apple doesn't optimize Final Cut Pro, because it wants you to buy more 12 core machines. It has conspired with Adobe and the rest of the industry to ensure that this illusory advantage is reflected in Adobe Premiere, DaVinci Resolve, etc, etc.

Only Geekbench dares to tell the Truth! If you use code that's optimized to fit in a L1 Cache, there's no need for Intel's so called "expertise!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Basic75
jerwin said:
Apple doesn't optimize Final Cut Pro, because it wants you to buy more 12 core machines. It has conspired with Adobe and the rest of the industry to ensure that this illusory advantage is reflected in Adobe Premiere, DaVinci Resolve, etc, etc.

Only Geekbench dares to tell the Truth! If you use code that's optimized to fit in a L1 Cache, there's no need for Intel's so called "expertise!"
Click to expand...

So what is your point? Intel makes chips with instruction sets and that is all. AMD and ARM as well make chips with instruction sets. Is there a point to your statement about optimized programs with respect to Intel over another? I surely have missed it.
 
I suppose I don't understand why people are clamoring for ARM chips. If you want a fast chip, get an Intel chip. If you want a chip that sips power, and speed is a wholly secondary consideration, things might be different.

But, the mini plugs into a wall socket. It doesn't need to sip power so as to extend battery life.

What am I missing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Altis
jerwin said:
I suppose I don't understand why people are clamoring for ARM chips. If you want a fast chip, get an Intel chip. If you want a chip that sips power, and speed is a wholly secondary consideration, things might be different.

But, the mini plugs into a wall socket. It doesn't need to sip power so as to extend battery life.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

You're missing that the Mini is a hobby for Apple and ripe for experimentation in this area. That it plugs into the wall isn't the point.
 
Crosscreek said:
Apple usually uses the chips in the low end MacBook Pro. I think it will be highly unlikely that will change. They are more interested in iMacs and Laptop sales which have higher demand and profits.

BUT you never can tell with Apple.
Click to expand...
Except for the base model which was the same as the 2014 macbook air. The air has long moved up though.
 
tibas92013 said:
Last June I bought a Refurbished MM(Late 2014), 2.8GHz,8GB RAM, 256GB SSD which has met all my computer need expectations now and for the foreseeable future!
Click to expand...

Well its great you got a castrated Mini that works well for you. For some of us, they remain anemic and unacceptable given that Apple has a 2012 model that (save for onboard graphics) was a vastly superior performer. Enjoy your purchase as it should be.
 
phrehdd said:
Well its great you got a castrated Mini that works well for you. For some of us, they remain anemic and unacceptable given that Apple has a 2012 model that (save for onboard graphics) was a vastly superior performer. Enjoy your purchase as it should be.
Click to expand...

And here's the evidence:

Screen Shot 2016-05-19 at 8.41.42 AM.png


Do you even know what the word "castrated" means?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: brendu
jerwin said:
Aren't you forgetting something?

I think some people would appreciate a macbook pro's capabilities in a desktop form factor. Might be expensive, though.
Click to expand...

Not really; no quad core Mac Mini in 2014. The models that are available have slightly improved performance over their 2012 equivalent for single core tasks; which my guess is what most Mac Minis do most of the time for the average Joe or Jill.

Want multi-core pro performance? Get a Pro.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: brendu
Apparently, a four core chip would have required Apple to design and manufacture a separate motherboard.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/11/not-the-upgrade-we-were-hoping-for-the-2014-mac-mini-reviewed/

So if you're Apple and you need to work around the holes in Intel's lineup, you have one of four choices to make. None are optimal.

  • You can continue to offer dual- and quad-core CPU options using one motherboard, but you have to take a slower GPU in some or all cases.
  • You can create two slightly different motherboards for dual- and quad-core Minis. This lets you keep your CPU and GPU power, but it complicates the manufacture of what is almost certainly your least-popular Mac (or second-least-popular; it's hard to tell how well the Mac Pro sells outside tech circles).
  • You can go with quad-core CPUs and more powerful GPUs across the lineup and accommodate them using one motherboard. However, this will inflate the cost of the price-conscious Mini and potentially cannibalize the iMac.
  • You can go with dual-core CPUs and more powerful GPUs across the lineup, and accommodate them using one motherboard. However, you can't offer quad-core CPUs.
Apple chose option four..
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: brendu, robotica, Basic75 and 1 other person
phrehdd said:
Well its great you got a castrated Mini that works well for you. For some of us, they remain anemic and unacceptable given that Apple has a 2012 model that (save for onboard graphics) was a vastly superior performer.
Click to expand...

The HD 4000 iGPU is the only significant weak point on that model for me, and it is not too bad, just have to be a little disciplined with the number of programs and files/windows/tabs you have open.

Might be a different story for serious gamers or graphics people. But works for me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Micky Do
Miat said:
The HD 4000 iGPU is the only significant weak point on that model for me, and it is not too bad, just have to be a little disciplined with the number of programs and files/windows/tabs you have open.
Click to expand...
And not expect too much when you connect it to a 4K TV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miat
Micky Do said:
And here's the evidence:

View attachment 631987

Do you even know what the word "castrated" means?
Click to expand...

Yes, I certainly do know what the word means and the multiple contexts. Do you?

Lovely that you provide us with only the single core result. You fail to mention any multi-core testing. Why does Apple even bother selling a dual core when your* numbers are so wonderful? Oh that's right - many apps take advantage of multi-core.
 
phrehdd said:
Yes, I certainly do know what the word means and the multiple contexts. Do you?

Lovely that you provide us with only the single core result. You fail to mention any multi-core testing. Why does Apple even bother selling a dual core when your* numbers are so wonderful? Oh that's right - many apps take advantage of multi-core.
Click to expand...

Yes, farm boy that I am, I do know what castrated means, and have removed thousands of testicles in my time. As far as I am aware, the Mac Mini doesn't have a pair.

Not my numbers for single core performance, but on the 2014 the score is not not down on the equivalent 2012 model. As has been attested here and in other threads, even the 1.4 GHz model is adequate for the humble needs of the the average undemanding Joe or Jill.

Need, or desire, more grunt? Man up, get a MacBook Pro, or a Mac Pro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brendu and jpietrzak8
What this little discussion is missing is any mention of Arm server chips

Now, in the past few minutes, it's unveiled a pre-production 24-core 64-bit ARMv8 processor for servers in data centers. The system-on-chip is manufactured using FinFET gates, although Qualcomm wouldn't reveal the process size – nor a timeline of when we'll see these things on the market. We reckon these puppies will be available in volume in about a year.
Click to expand...

Of course, the large numbers of cores tend to be well matched to server loads. Some computer programs are still serial in nature.
 
Micky Do said:
Not my numbers for single core performance, but on the 2014 the score is not not down on the equivalent 2012 model. As has been attested here and in other threads, even the 1.4 GHz model is adequate for the humble needs of the the average undemanding Joe or Jill.
Click to expand...

This post by Micky Do needs lots of upvotes. :) Apple's main interest with the Mini is, I think, the casual computer user; they would prefer for other users to purchase a different product.

But then, that's the problem; all of Apple's products are specifically designed to satisfy a particular market niche. They do not have any true general-purpose desktop computers available; you've either gotta fit into the Mini niche, the iMac niche, or the Mac Pro niche. Don't quite fit into one of those three boxes? Too bad, Apple has no interest in you... :(
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Micky Do, phrehdd and bse5150
jpietrzak8 said:
This post needs lots of upvotes. :) Apple's main interest with the Mini is, I think, the casual computer user; they would prefer for other users to purchase a different product.

But then, that's the problem; all of Apple's products are specifically designed to satisfy a particular market niche. They do not have any true general-purpose desktop computers available; you've either gotta fit into the Mini niche, the iMac niche, or the Mac Pro niche. Don't quite fit into one of those three boxes? Too bad, Apple has no interest in you... :(
Click to expand...

One thing that's bothered me about Apple's product line is that ever since the demise of the powermac, there's been an strong element of upselling.-- "if you want this, you want these five other things, and you want to pay for those five other things", whereas the PC computer scene is very much minimaxed--things like dual video cards pared with an i5 and 8 GB of RAM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jpietrzak8
jerwin said:
One thing that's bothered me about Apple's product line is that ever since the demise of the powermac, there's been an strong element of upselling.-- "if you want this, you want these five other things, and you want to pay for those five other things", whereas the PC computer scene is very much minimaxed--things like dual video cards pared with an i5 and 8 GB of RAM.
Click to expand...

That's what I find frustrating too. I want more power than the current Mac Mini offers, but I can't afford even the base model of the Mac Pro nor do I need dual GPU or Xeon that comes with it. But there's no "middle" for the non-iMac desktops and that I find annoying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miat and jpietrzak8
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back