Let me add:
Original Mac Mini ($499) > Old Mac Mini ($599) > New Mac Mini ($699)
Man, the refurbs were going for $419...
Those were the days...
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.
Eerie Silence: new Mac Mini is worse value than previous revision
- Thread starter tuna
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Let me add:
Original Mac Mini ($499) > Old Mac Mini ($599) > New Mac Mini ($699)
Man, the refurbs were going for $419...
Those were the days...
Well interestingly the 320GB hitachi 5400 rpm (which apple has stock now on the base model mac minis) cost about $49.99 retail so the $100 difference is not bad at all.
Pretty much the 320GB gives you more space while you would pay $50 more anyway to upgrade from the 160GB (but this part doesnt matter to me and probably most others as they have their own hdds or ssd drives to replace with) but for the people who dont replace their hdds will benefit.
That would make the nvidia 320m GPU thats far superior to that of the 9400m cost $50 more to get. You can also include the 2.26GHz ---> 2.4GHz as well for $50, which imo is a great deal.
When using my 13" mbp with the same specs as the new base model mac mini, the difference in performance compared to the previous generation mac mini with the 9400m feel like a laggy outdated piece of hardware. 9400m is hideously SLOW.
Huh? Given the design constraints of the iMacs and minis, its just as relevant as the laptops which is why they have used laptop parts for so long.
Well in my view it seems that your the one thats embarrassing yourself. LOL.
Its upsetting when people dont give anything a try before making statements. Try the plex player if you can with an apple remote and see for yourself.
I personally dont use netflix but imo mkv files looks and sounds the same as any bluray disc.
Bluray discs reminds me of back in the days of the dreamcast discs, where the files are much smaller than what the disc can really hold so the 70% of the discs are filled up with dummy files (that just makes the disc read over it but does nothing) to make the disc full (so issues dont arise when the laser is reading the discs).
seriously, by jjashik's logic, we should all be happy to pay $80,000 for a new MacBook considering all the improvements from the old $3000 PowerBook 1400. I mean come on, it gets upgraded from 16MB Ram to 2GB, thats like 250x as much ram, thats got to be worth at least $10,000 or $20,000.
This makes no sense at all, a really bad analogy.
Were talking about a $100 bucks here for almost 3x more gpu power and modest cpu and hdd upgrade.
Also the i3 isnt that impressive, its just a new gimmick/name that shouldnt even exist. i3 is pretty much on par with the core 2 duo cpus. Now if the mac mini got the i5's that would be impressive but if they were stuck with the intel gpu, that would still be a HUGE step backwards.
Its not logic, just opinion. The 9400M is not that far removed from the 320M in performance or cost. BD is superior to just about anything you can download.
Correct, I'm assuming that they would still be AMD laptop parts, but in a real laptop better performance/watt gives you better battery life, which is critical... in a desktop all you have to worry about is heat.
It feels like a "the new computer has bigger numbers so it should cost more" sort of situation to me.
$50 in January 2010 bought me an E3200 at 2.4 GHz. Today it buys an E3500 at 2.7 GHz. Should I be paying more for the faster processor?
The MCP79 is circa Late 2008. It wouldn't make any sense for the MCP89 to cost more than that original lot.
I still dont understand the bluray vs. downloadable content argument. I guess if your comparing to itunes or netflix that might be true, but man I know I cant discuss more so I'll stop here about mkv files.
How is the 9400m not too different as to the 320m?? Anyone that makes this comment clearly has never used both gpus and havent seen the difference.
Once again I'd say 3dmark06:
Nvidia 9400m = 1800 points
Nvidia 320m = 4600 points
Thats a HUGE difference if you ask me. And you can immediately see the difference when using it in the real world.
I sold my 17" i7 2.66GHz macbook pro to save some cash for a new projector and I can say one thing for sure, I dont miss the 330m one bit with the 320m because in overall usages under OSX I see virtually no difference in speed. But the 9400m.. its dog SLOW.
The real world doesn't revolve around a 4 year old benchmark (or any benchmark, really). For most uses, there is very little difference in the GPUs, gaming being the exception.
I see what your getting at and its a good argument. There is a part of me thats saying Apple should keep the price the same as its replacing the same base model of the updated components where the outdated components (previous generation mac minis) have gone down in price.
Real world is owning both machines and testing the crap out of each one.
As for the 4 year old benchmark it shows a good difference in performance because both machine is running the same benchmark. You can run any same benchmark between two machines and it will show you what the difference is and in this case its a huge difference. But thats only a measurement on paper that I'm trying to show here on this thread as it seems that you or others never compared a 9400m to a 320m in the real world.
One thing I can say and its a bold statement is that the 320m feels the same as the 330m under OSX.
It's really obvious when you're talking about Intel's processors and chipsets.
You'll start off with 2.5 GHz (E7200) at say $133. After a year you can get 3.06 GHz (E7600) at the same price you did the older part.
It doesn't cost anymore for Apple to buy these parts. Intel, nVidia, and every other component inside is going to progressively get faster over time at the same price points. (The Mac Pro is a nightmare when it goes from the 2008 to 2009 model.)
http://www.hkepc.com/5074
The Core i7 950 at 3.06 GHz is coming in to replace the Core i7 930 that replaced the November 2008 Core i7 920 2.66 GHz.
My point being is that CPU and GPU is the most important part of a computer. And now that the mac mini has a far superior performing GPU, it can perform much better driving bigger HDTVs and especially when it has an HDMI port built in. It seems Apple is catering the mac mini towards a media center more with this move and its a great upgrade.
Do you understand my Consumer Electronics or 'computer component market' background? No, you don't, so please tell me what I know and don't know. I provide a respectful counter point and don't berate you, so I would expect the same in return. All I'm stating is that the $799 model we were discussing is not a better value than the new $699 model. If you disagree, then explain why, but don't get snarky or argumentative about it.
In the case of the $599 older Mac mini, its arguable whether or not the newer model is a better or worse value. The question really is, do consumers feel that the $100 price increase is worth the CPU bump (not a big deal), larger HDD, HDMI Port, an SD Card Slot, easier accessibility for upgrades, an upgraded GPU, revised case, loses the power brick, and uses less power then the older model.
For some people (you?) it may not be, and you're better served by the older model. In that case, save the $100 and be happy with the older model. For other people, myself included, the $100 is well worth those changes. Again, its arguable when comparing the $599 older model to the $699 new model. I cannot tell you what $100 is worth in your eyes, and you can't say the same for me.
However, I can reasonably argue that the $799 model that we were discussing is not a better value than the new $699 model. In the case where you upgrade the memory to 4GB to match price points, you're essentially trading 133mhz for the additional features of the newer model. No one will notice the increase in clock speed, but would appreciate and notice the additional features. In that case, I would argue that the new Mac mini is a superior value than the older $799 model in almost any circumstance.
I am paying for it. I'm paying for the upgrade by purchasing the newer model which is at a higher price point than the previous entry level Mac mini, along with several other 'upgrades'. Upgrades don't have to be free. Even if I didn't pay extra for it, how can you argue that it isn't an upgrade? Is the 320M faster than the 9400M? The answer is yes, therefore, an upgrade.
Three times faster my ass. Yes, its a great improvement and its great that they've upgraded to it, but as others have tried to explain to you, its just the current mainstream-level integrated graphics offering from nVidia for the same price or less than a 9400M would have been when it was their new mainstream graphics offering.
And my analogy was perfect. You're not comprehending the time variable in computer pricing. Yes, the 320M is more powerful, but it is also coming out 2 years after the 9400M did the fill the same product slot from nVidia. Just like the 320M is more powerful than the graphics from 10 years ago or 20 years ago. We don't pay more for it, in fact we pay a ton less than we did then. Even though it is much more powerful.
And you're also being ignorant by suggesting that the HDMI port and/or SD card slot contribute to the cost. They cost next to nothing to implement, for all we know an HDMI port cost less than the old mDVI. Since mDVI never caught on anywhere outside of Apple, I wouldn't be at all surprised it that was true.
![picture1xd.png]()
Three times faster my ass. Yes, its a great improvement and its great that they've upgraded to it, but as others have tried to explain to you, its just the current mainstream-level integrated graphics offering from nVidia for the same price or less than a 9400M would have been when it was their new mainstream graphics offering.
And my analogy was perfect. You're not comprehending the time variable in computer pricing. Yes, the 320M is more powerful, but it is also coming out 2 years after the 9400M did the fill the same product slot from nVidia. Just like the 320M is more powerful than the graphics from 10 years ago or 20 years ago. We don't pay more for it, in fact we pay a ton less than we did then. Even though it is much more powerful.
And you're also being ignorant by suggesting that the HDMI port and/or SD card slot contribute to the cost. They cost next to nothing to implement, for all we know an HDMI port cost less than the old mDVI. Since mDVI never caught on anywhere outside of Apple, I wouldn't be at all surprised it that was true.
Just look at the 3dmark06, its almost actually about 3x faster. I'm just telling you try using it and compare in the real world. Its actually that staggering of a difference when you do.
99.99% of the time I keep thinking that I have a dedicated GPU rather than an integrated one. I still cant believe its an integrated GPU. Let alone that I dont feel a difference between the 320m and the 330m from my 17" i7 2.66GHz macbook pro.
Are the graphics REALLY that much better? It's my primary complaint with my current Mac Mini. Sluggish and choppy as heck.
Thats why I'm so excited about the new mac minis because it performs so much better than the 9400m. The 9400m is very sluggish to use but the 320m feels like a real dedicated GPU. Pretty much on par with the 9600m GT from the previous generation macbook pros. Trust me if your on the fence, upgrade and you will be very happy with the results.
Basically this is the first time that you can buy a mac that doesnt cost you $1k (or over $700) that can manage to give you a full/better experience of OSX.
Especially when driving the mac mini to a bigger hdtv, the new mac mini handles it like its nothing.
My thoughts on the new GPU is that its a welcome upgrade and does perform faster. I would rather have the 320M than the 9400m, but I would not say its 3x faster than a 9400m, regardless of what the synthetic benchmark says.
I have a 9400m in my MBP15 and I think its perfectly fine for what it is.
I have a 9400m in my MBP15 and I think its perfectly fine for what it is.
Because you are ignoring the time aspect. The old $599 and $799 models were those prices with those components a year ago. The new model is $699 today. Computer technology has significantly improved in the interceding year. For example, the 320M is the new version of the 9400M. And actually, Core i5 has replaced Core 2 Duo but I can agree on that one around the graphics issue. As I said before, there's a reason we don't pay $80,000 for a new computer when they may very well be 40x more powerful than a $2,000 computer was some time in the past. Performance improves while prices stay the same or go lower.
What are you guys doing on those 9400m's that making it appear sluggish? On my MBP15, I never switch to the 9600m GT unless I'm playing game which demands the better GPU. In normal usage, I never switch to the 9600m GT. On the 9400m, I've played back 1080p .mkv Blu-ray rips with no problems.