Eerie Silence: new Mac Mini is worse value than previous revision

[dh2005]

The GMA950 served in the mini for years and still meets most users needs perfectly adequately. The 9400M is 10X faster than the GMA950, had hardware T&L, DX10 and hardware h.264 decoding. It was a true leap ahead. The 320M is about 2-3X faster than the 9400M and has DX11, while its an improvement I hardly think that the 9400M was really holding back the mini for most people. For some it was lack of hardware access, which appears to have been addressed somewhat. For others its the older C2D CPU, which remains. If you are looking for a decent gaming experience, the mini was never your ticket anyhow, and still remains so.

But dude, if I may offer an opinion as someone who came into the Mac realm from the outside only a few months ago... until the 9400M turned up in the Mini's spec, I would never have gone near it.

I think Apple have correctly identified that the route to many people's hearts is competent video performance. I, for one, am very pleased with the way that the Mini is developing. It just needs to happen a little faster...!

 

[iamthedudeman]

I've been watching this board since the new Mac Mini was announced and I've been shocked by the eerie silence about the new pricing on the Mac Mini. It is very clearly a worse deal than the last model was when it was released. Or even the last model more recently.

After upgrading to 4GB RAM, the new model is $799. You also get: C2D 2.4ghz, 320GB hdd, 320M graphics

The old model was $799 for 4GB RAM, C2D 2.53ghz, 320 GB hdd, 9400M graphics.

Besides the evolutionary revision of graphics, the model from a year ago is just as well equipped or even faster. Even if you say that you only need 2GB of RAM, the old $599 model was still a better deal when it was released than the new one is now.

I don't give much value to the new form factor or ports. Smaller is nice, but it was already very small, and the miniDVI port was probably more useful than the HDMI port given that you could already get a miniDP to HDMI adapter.

Yes I know its Apple and you can buy in to their system or you can choose not to, and I'm not comparing it to Windows computers. I'm comparing it to previous Macs. The trend is usually for Macs to become better values. This new Mac Mini is not a step in that trend.

That is not actually true. Your being a little short sighted here.

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/reviews/desktop-pcs/2010/06/17/apple-mac-mini-spring-2010-40089267/

Wonder why they didn't include the server version of the new mac mini?

There is a large discrepancy in performance between the stock mac mini and the server mac mini.

You get a extra 2gb of ram and faster processor and more importantly a faster and bigger harddrive.

I would expect the server version of the mac mini to at least split the tests and come out on top in at least two of the four tests. Those being the photoshop test and the multi-media tasking tests and come close in the itunes test and would still fail in the cinebench tests.

The mac mini server overall performance is on par with the entry level imac. The imac having a slightly faster processor but a weaker overall graphics card. Half as fast. With multi-media multi tasking the mac mini server would most likely come out on top of mosts tests and that includes the gateway and imac with 9400.

Here are some numbers for the following processors.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php


Intel Core i3 530 @2.93GHz 2709 140----------gateway Intel GPU
Intel Core2 Duo E7600 @ 3.06GHz 2110 182----------imac with 9400
Intel Core2 Duo P8800 @ 2.66GHz 1873 214--------- mac mini server 320M
Intel Core2 Duo P8700 @ 2.53GHz 1796 226---------mac mini server 9400
Intel Core2 Duo P8600 @ 2.40GHz 1605 266---------mac mini 2010 320M

Now the server mac mini with the 2.66 C2D is not much slower than the C2D 3.06 of the low end imac. With the faster GPU that is twice as fast 9400 I would expect the mac mini server to handle most multi media tasks better and might be a overall more powerfull machine than the entry level imac.

In day to day tasks the mac mini server would be a overall better performer. Not bad for a mini and I think under estimated for a machine that small.

For how small it is it packs a overall performance punch the server edition. They should have went with the 7200 hard drive in the reg mac mini.

They could have did a better job on the processors and epically on the mac mini non server model.

But a machine that performs on par with a entry level imac or even out perform it in such a small device is impressive with the server model. For $200.00 and some change less than a imac you get the same performance without the monitor. But you gain in versatility and accessibility j(HTPC) take it with you on vacations etc. move it to other rooms.
But you have to provide your own monitor with overall would be more expensive up front in the long run you would actually save money as upgrading would be less in the future as you would have to only buy a new mini and you could upgrade often. Each year if you wanted. The mini has a high resale value.

 

[flopticalcube]

But dude, if I may offer an opinion as someone who came into the Mac realm from the outside only a few months ago... until the 9400M turned up in the Mini's spec, I would never have gone near it.

I think Apple have correctly identified that the route to many people's hearts is competent video performance. I, for one, am very pleased with the way that the Mini is developing. It just needs to happen a little faster...!

Yes, the 9400M corrected THE most glaring error of the old mini, the GPU. It cannot happen any faster than the chip makers allow it. The mini will probably continue to follow the MacBook which itself will continue to have an IGP for reasons of cost (and power consumption).

 

[aristobrat]

The new Mac Mini is overpriced. Whoever thinks it isn't has imbibed too much of the Apple koolaid.

What Apple computing product isn't thought to be overpriced?

 

[dh2005]

flopticalcube;

I think Apple could do better. The 320M, I'm told, is solid for a mobile GPU - but it's still pretty old tech that's tied to the Core2Duo. The design of the new Mini is gorgeous (seriously... I love it...), but I would've preferred them to've kept the PSU outside the case and made room for a more grumpy CPU like the i3.


Still, not to complain. The Mini is improving, and I'm delighted. Keep on it, Apple.

 

[flopticalcube]

Putting in an i3 would mean either using Intel's IGP (worse than the 9400M) or using a discrete GPU (more heat, power, cost, space). I agree with the PSU. They could have made a smaller inline/outboard one.

 

[dh2005]

Sure; agreed on all fronts.

I say again - I very much appreciate the 2010 update for the Mini. Yeah, I would've preferred a slightly more grumpy GPU, but the fact that it's better is excellent. I feel, for the first time, that Apple is listening to my demographic.

We want to buy Macs, Steve. We love how pretty they are, and we dig that they're different. Just give us a little more grunt.

 

[Gov98]

It depends on what you want from it. The GMA950 served in the mini for years and still meets most users needs perfectly adequately. The 9400M is 10X faster than the GMA950, had hardware T&L, DX10 and hardware h.264 decoding. It was a true leap ahead. The 320M is about 2-3X faster than the 9400M and has DX11, while its an improvement I hardly think that the 9400M was really holding back the mini for most people. For some it was lack of hardware access, which appears to have been addressed somewhat. For others its the older C2D CPU, which remains. If you are looking for a decent gaming experience, the mini was never your ticket anyhow, and still remains so.


The 320M costs the same now as the 9400M did when it was released. Its simply the replacement. I suppose we should be glad they didn't go for the i3 and Intel's own brand of IGP pain but perhaps for some people that would have been an acceptable tradeoff as well. Interestingly, there was no "premium" in moving from the GMA950 (which was seriously old last year) to the 9400M.

No doubt, an old SVGA graphics driver is sufficient for 'most' people's needs. After all no one needs to play computer games. My only point is the current limitation to the old mini was not the processor speed but the graphics chips, updating the graphics chip does more than processor (they could put in core i3 and stick with 9400m and it would be less attractive then the new mini) that's why they can do it.

Not saying I like it, but it makes business sense, and apple, if anything, since Jobs return is excellent at making a profit. (Which they should be they're a business).

 

[flopticalcube]

No doubt, an old SVGA graphics driver is sufficient for 'most' people's needs. After all no one needs to play computer games. My only point is the current limitation to the old mini was not the processor speed but the graphics chips, updating the graphics chip does more than processor (they could put in core i3 and stick with 9400m and it would be less attractive then the new mini) that's why they can do it.

Only if you don't value CPU over GPU. If your needs are more processor intensive, than an i3 would make sense. Looking at the last gen mini (9400M), the CPU looked like the major "limitation" for most. Apple has no real choice in the GPU as the 9400M is now being made EOL and they are offered the 320M for the same money. In CPU, they could not add the i3 unless they went for a discrete GPU with all the drawbacks that brings. Its not as if Apple were correcting a mistake or limitation, they just went in the only direction they could without taking any part of the machine backwards.

 

[MacSignal]

If you game, want a Mini HTPC or seek superior benchmark performance, maybe the update is worth the money. For others, maybe not.

Higher component/production cost seems to be the least likely reason for the higher pricing. I would speculate that the case is the most costly of the new components vs. components replaced in the previous model.

Partly, the Mini pricing could be a function of where Apple wants to position the iPad. To me, this also signals a move away from the strategy of the Mini as a lower cost entry-level Mac and more towards the HTPC market.

As far as real world performance, I run the lowliest previous version Mini using (four) Spaces and Expose for everyday computing tasks that don't include gaming or serious video playback (hello PS3) and it works fine for me.

 

[cherry su]

It's great for anyone who values the design. Otherwise, just build your own i5 rig.

 

[sikkinixx]

It's kind of unfortunate but I do feel as though the value has declined. My lowest price for the mac mini is $699 with my student discount (cdn). WHen the older 2.26ghz models go up fro refurb (of course they did yesterday but I wasn't able to order.... grrrrr...) they go for $550.

The $150 (or almost $170 with the extra tax) gets a speed bump sure, and a much cleaner package but I dunno... I just want a mini to use as a Mac for everyday use, while my PC will do any heavy lifting so it's not as though I really NEED the specs. A 27% price different for a pretty case and an HDMI port is "meh" to me.

Now if the new mini came with 4GB of ram and a 500GB drive.... then I would gladly fork over the money.

 

[stonemann]

In the UK, the Mac Mini is very poor value. Apple charges an astonishing £649 for the base Mac Mini. Once you bump up the memory and hard drive to a respectable 4GB and 500GB you're paying £809 (and Apple charges a further £123.00 for the processor upgrade!)

You might as well get an iMac for this money. Which is probably the whole point. If the Mini was good value for money and a well specced machine then there's be no need for anyone to buy the more expensive Macs.

 

[MacHamster68]

i agree there here in the uk the now old late 2009 model was expensive for what you got as the base did already cost £510 , but the new one for £649 is just a rip off especially considering that £649 are US$ 962
but in the USA the same mini is sold for US$ 699 which are £471 , so everybody who buys a mini in the uk must be out of his mind to accept that kind of rip off ,as the difference cant be justified by anything
it seems apple only cares about their US customers to get things cheap and the rest of the world has to subsidies US customers
Apple should after all realise that despite we are living in europe, we do not all live in castles and some of us even have to work for a living , maybe someone should explain that to Apple

 

[flopticalcube]

You also have to account for VAT so the real price in the US is about £560 UK equivalent. Still a rip but not as bad as first thought.

 

[MacHamster68]

if you go through the checkout there is no extra vat /sales tax added to the 699 dollar as it includes the sales tax from the us and you cant just add the 17.5 percent uk vat you have to deduct the us sale tax first of the 699

 

[flopticalcube]

if you go through the checkout there is no extra vat added to the 699 dollar as it includes the vat from the us and you cant just add the 17.5 percent uk vat you have to deduct the us vat first of the 699

There is no VAT in the US, yet.

 

[ntrigue]

I'll wait three months then get a 2TB server Mini (modified) on eBay for $999.

 

[jjahshik32]

The i3 isnt that much faster than the core 2 duo and it isnt necessary imo for the i3. Pretty much the i3 is on par with the core 2 duo chipset, so as long as you have 2.4GHz and higher on the core 2 duo, its fast enough for most usages.

But I cant stress enough just how much faster the 320m is compared to the 9400m. The 9400m was a snail compared to the new GPU!

Under OSX and overall usage (minus gaming of course) I dont notice much of a difference if any at all from the 320m and the 330m that I had on my 17" i7 mbp.

 

[MacHamster68]

There is no VAT in the US, yet.

no vat but sales tax

 

[flopticalcube]

no vat but sales tax

Depends on the state. Not included in the $699 price. Some states have no sales tax.