New Macs are out!

Well I been asking for a while now when the new Mac Mini would be released and I have to say, from the keynotes I wasnt thrilled but also not disappointed, until this morning after the store was updated..

Seems the new Mini's will ONLY be Dual Core CPU's. This is a complete downgrade IMHO for users like myself who have the 2.6Ghz Quad Core i7's. So I have to say this really hurt my feelings a great deal.

Now on to something more positive. The 5k retina display iMac really caught my eye. Doing a lot of photography as I do now and video editing, the screen real-estate on that system is just amazing. Truly a nice looking system. The factory default system specs are really not that bad either. I am thinking of getting the base model and just bump up the ram to 16GB and call it done. So I am super happy this system is appealing to me since I don't think the Mini got the love I hoped it would. Now when they announced the price, deep inside I was praying for them to say like $2000 for the base model, even those the practical side was saying their likely to price it at $3500.. So when it was announce for $2500, I felt it was a very reasonable starter price. Though they are likely to drop a few dollar by spring or so. I will be getting one of the 27" Retina iMacs come next summer. I want one today, but unfortunately I have to wait for them to arrive here in the Philippines (they seem to be about 3 months behind on everything) and also pay off my credit card. Plus this will give them plenty of time to see if any issues arise in the new displays before I buy.

But what is everyone elses thoughts on the new systems?

Exodist said:

Seems the new Mini's will ONLY be Dual Core CPU's. This is a complete downgrade IMHO for users like myself who have the 2.6Ghz Quad Core i7's. So I have to say this really hurt my feelings a great deal.

Click to expand...

Thought #1. I think that we need to wait & see what the benchmark scores are. Maybe these new Mac-Mini's with dual-cores are faster than the previous models with 4-cores.

Thought #2. Many folks that purchase Mac-Mini's may be more casual users (internet & email)…and don't need the power of a quad-core Mac-Mini. Maybe 99% of their computing tasks only use 2-cores…and they don't have software that uses 4-cores.

Thought #3. Maybe quad-core Mac-Mini's weren't selling very well.

Thought #4. Maybe Apple realized that putting a quad-core cpu into a Mac-Mini was really getting away from one of the original concepts of the Mac-Mini. And that was…the Mac-Mini was supposed to be an entry level low-cost computer.

Thought #5. Maybe putting a quad-core cpu into a Mac-Mini was getting too expensive (price point between Mac-Mini's & iMac's getting too close).

Thought #6. Companies like to have product lines that are distinctive from each other. Maybe the Mac-Mini lineup & the iMac lineup were starting to overlap…and this only causes cannibalization of sales from both lines.

- Nick

pigoo3 said:

Thought #1. ............ lines.

- Nick

Click to expand...

I would be a fool if I said I didn't fully agree with everything you said. However the multicore comparison can be very lucrative based on the software using it. Some things will run better, some applications not. But regardless the point is they did say it was a introductory mac, thus I feel as you may that they see it as a low cost alternative to get users to use a mac, fall in love then buy their iMac.. LOL


Now you know that I have been against getting a iMac, mostly due to me using dual screen monitors. Now along comes Sally with a 5k display that is effectively 7 of my 1080p monitors.. Heck 4k was 4 of them.. Plus I really like the base specs of these jewels.. Just throw in 8more GB of RAM and I am happy.. Got to get that credit card paid off tho.. LOL

I guess the news could be worse...

A couple weeks ago I went into my local ma & pa Apple store to get my Mac Mini appraised. They buy Mac's that are in good condition and resell them.

They told me that if the computer was in good enough shape, theyve paid as much as $600 for the mid-2012 Mac Mini that retailed for $800

They told me it would take just 2 days for them to appraise the computer.

A week goes by and I call them up to ask what the deal is. I get some BS excuse about how they have been real busy but they will get to it shortly.

Another week goes by and they finally call me up to say they have finished the appraisal but they cannot tell us what the results are because a new Mac Mini is coming out and it might affect the price they can offer me.

At this point Im pretty agitated because it seems they've been just stringing me along/delaying until the new Mini comes out.

I had no idea a new model was on the horizon otherwise I would have figured it out and just went straight to Craigslist immediately and skipped the runaround.

In the last month alone Ive spent over $3000 in their store. I dont think they'll ever get my business again.

But like I started off saying, it could be worse. It doesnt sound like this latest Mini is vastly superior to mine. I wont get what I could have by selling it, but it's not like my Mini is vastly obsolete and thus worthless either.

The thing about the New Mini that bugs me is the one for $499. 1.4Ghz Dual core i5. Same CPU as in that low end iMac that came out a while ago. Anand I believe did a test and that 1.4 Ghz CPU really holds it back. I know it's $499 instead of $599 but I checked the store and you can not even upgrade the cpu!

dtravis7 said:

The thing about the New Mini that bugs me is the one for $499. 1.4Ghz Dual core i5. Same CPU as in that low end iMac that came out a while ago. Anand I believe did a test and that 1.4 Ghz CPU really holds it back. I know it's $499 instead of $599 but I checked the store and you can not even upgrade the cpu!

Click to expand...

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the term "entry-level."

It's not a 1.4GHz processor, for starters. It's a 1.4 that scales to 2.7GHz on demand. So if you're running something demanding, it's a 2.7GHz processor. For under $500. But of course Facebook and Solitaire (the two primary uses of computers today, let's be honest) don't need 2.7GHz ...

Second, the non-upgradable CPU isn't new. Maybe there was once a model of Mac mini that had an upgradable CPUS, but I can't recall one offhand.

Third, have you tested one? Hint: no. Maybe you should get over the spec sheet and actually see for yourself whether it's any good or not ... Maybe remembering that the target for this unit isn't power-users ...

chas_m said:

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the term "entry-level."

I....

Click to expand...

I agree, besides they have two other models listed that have speedy CPUs. I think they may have noticed a drop in sales of iMacs and contributed it to Man Minis in 2012 having a reasonable mid to high end desktop grade CPU. Which makes sense as the iMacs at the time while were slightly faster in GHz were only i5's and the Mac Mini had an i7. Now regardless of true through output performance, the fact the name i5 made many consider it a lower end CPU. Which is why I personally went with the Mini over an iMac at the time. So IMHO Apples move to keep the Mini as only a dual core and entry level system is a smart move.

Back to the iMac Retina, comparing the non-ret with the new 5k ret. It appears at first there is a huge price gap. But the top end non-retina 27 iMac only comes standard with the 1TB drive, while the Retina 27 has the 1TB fusion as standard, which mediates $200 in upgrade cost. Which IMHO makes the 27Ret a really good bargain.

Chas, I VERY WELL understand the term. Before today, it was $100 more but a lot faster CPU. I have READ tests on that new iMac with that 1.4 and all said it was holding it back, at least the people I respect who know how to review computers.

By Upgradeable I did not mean Socketed btw. I meant on the Apple store no option to upgrade on that model for more $$$.

And you asked have I tested one? Check the specs of Entry Level iMac and the Mini. I HAVE seen the iMac tested. I told you the results.

Like what you want but do remember, I do understand probably a lot more than you think I do and know a LOT about computers and hardware and performance.

I am not the first one to notice and make comments about it.

dtravis7 said:

...........

Click to expand...

Very true, I over looked that part as well.

I think those of us like myself who have a Quad Core i7 Mini, was hoping to at least see a much faster i7 and Iris PRO 5200 in the Mini have been let down. Instead we got a dual core, that price wise doesnt really seem cheaper since its DUAL CORE and only HD5000 Iris NON-Pro iGPU..

But then I had a lot of hopes. Hoped they would have brought back the Mac Desktop computer, which is now extinct. You got a Mini, iMac and Mac Pro..

I personally see the 21" iMac models as a complete waste. Screens are to small IMHO and the system specs are that of a current MIni. Would be much better off to buy a 24" LED display and a Mini saving money.. That said I feel a 24" iMac would been a better system with performance of the top end 27" but with smaller 24" IPS display.. At least IMHO..

dtravis7 said:

The thing about the New Mini that bugs me is the one for $499. 1.4Ghz Dual core i5. Same CPU as in that low end iMac that came out a while ago. Anand I believe did a test and that 1.4 Ghz CPU really holds it back. I know it's $499 instead of $599 but I checked the store and you can not even upgrade the cpu!

Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying. I checked the cpu benchmarks on the 2014 1.4ghz iMac…and it's cpu benchmark score is 5361. The cpu benchmark on the former low end Mac-Mini (2.5ghz i5 dual-core) is 5666.

Assuming that the new 2014 1.4ghz Mac-Mini scores close to the 1.4ghz iMac…then it will only be slightly slower than the previous low end Mac-Mini (5361 vs. 5666). Plus the new Mac-Mini is $100 less. I'm thinking Apple wanted to do their best to have a Mac-Mini offering less than $500 bucks.

I know what you mean about no upgrades. This is the way Apple tricks or forces us into buying the next model up (getting the $699 model instead of the $499 one). I think that the $499 model is purely for the folks with a smaller budget.

At $499 it's still an ok deal. Just venting a bit. For most average folks it will be fine. I just wish they had the $599 one with a faster processor.

I hear ya! The newest (low-end) Mac-Mini doesn't have the latest integrated graphics either (Iris)…but the HD 5000 graphics. Probably another cost cutting measure. There is also no flash-storage upgrade (officially). There is with the $699 & $999 models.

And for what it's worth. The high end new Mac-Mini costs way too much ($999)…and certainly deviates from the initial low cost concept of the Mac-Mini. Let's not even talk how expensive the upper end Mac-Mini would be with upgrades. If someone was to pay $999 or more for the upper end Mac-Mini…they really should consider a 21" iMac (IMHO).

The previous low end Mac-Mini was $599…and the previous upper end Mac-Mini (without upgrades) was $799. So with the new models…the entry level is $100 less ($499)…and the upper end one is $200 more ($999).

- Nick

pigoo3 said:

.....

And for what it's worth. The high end new Mac-Mini costs way too much ($999)…and certainly deviates from the initial low cost concept of the Mac-Mini. Let's not even talk how expensive the upper end Mac-Mini would be with upgrades. If someone was to pay $999 or more for the upper end Mac-Mini…they really should consider a 21" iMac (IMHO).
......

- Nick

Click to expand...

I hear ya but here is where the issue comes in. Mini is a "entry system" BYOKMD. Which is fine. But for previous Mini owners looks to get a new system, say the 21" iMac isn't a practical option as they already have a display, keyboard and mouse. Plus 23 and 24" displays are really the "Norm" now for small displays. A 21" is just like "wow that's small". If they bumped the 21 up to 23 or 24, which IMHO they should have done. Then this makes the iMac a practical upgrade option as everyone in a sense could use a additional display. But IMHO they should offer a 1080p 23" display version of the iMac as a entry level system thats a step above the current Mini.

Exodist said:

I hear ya but here is where the issue comes in. Mini is a "entry system" BYOKMD. Which is fine. But for previous Mini owners looks to get a new system, say the 21" iMac isn't a practical option as they already have a display, keyboard and mouse. Plus 23 and 24" displays are really the "Norm" now for small displays. A 21" is just like "wow that's small". If they bumped the 21 up to 23 or 24, which IMHO they should have done. Then this makes the iMac a practical upgrade option as everyone in a sense could use a additional display. But IMHO they should offer a 1080p 23" display version of the iMac as a entry level system thats a step above the current Mini.

Click to expand...

Just a comment, but not everybody wants an all-in-one, hence the Mac Mini. Difficult to repair when things go wrong!
I suppose there is always the Mac Pro, but not all of us are that rich.

neilf said:

Just a comment, but not everybody wants an all-in-one, hence the Mac Mini. Difficult to repair when things go wrong!
I suppose there is always the Mac Pro, but not all of us are that rich.

Click to expand...

A very understandable point. One I fully agree with also. This is something that has kept me at bay on the iMacs for so long. Even though the mini isnt exactly user friendly when it comes to taking it apart, or more so putting it back together. It can be done without breaking anything or pulling any glue apart. I have had mine fully disassembled twice. I am not going to try my luck a third time mind you.. LOL

I must admit that at £1999 here in the UK the retina iMac is very tempting - not this year but I'll definitely be taking a closer look in January / February 2015.

I thought it would come in at possibly twice that price wise - perhaps Apple is putting customers before profits and selling these at a low margin?

For us photographers I think the resolution together with the amount of screen space is a major winner here - but then again it might show up flaws in technique ;-)

nickyr said:

I must admit that at £1999 here in the UK the retina iMac is very tempting - not this year but I'll definitely be taking a closer look in January / February 2015.

I thought it would come in at possibly twice that price wise - perhaps Apple is putting customers before profits and selling these at a low margin?

For us photographers I think the resolution together with the amount of screen space is a major winner here - but then again it might show up flaws in technique ;-)

Click to expand...

Yea I been wanting a better display, I think that is what is really driving me to wanting the new iMac. It will be June before I could buy one, which is great cause I still get more out of my current system, pay my credit card off and most importantly make sure no hardware or driver issues arise in the displays.

But you know, the thunderbolt displays are past due for a update. If they release a retina model of the new TB displays next spring. Then I could get one of those and just upgrade my RAM to 16GB and be a very happy camper. The only issue would be if the HD4000 graphics in my 2012 Mac Mini would be able to drive the 5k display. IMHO it should. I drive 2x 1080p displays with my current system now. But the one retina would be like 7 of those.. So.... Thats something to consider. Option C would be get a current TB display and still be happy.. And get a Mac Pro two years from now when my Mini actually cant be upgraded to a newer OS..

Actually the new retina iMac is a "poor man's Mac Pro" when you think about it. Rev up a Mac Pro along with a TB display and you're looking at $4000 or more. Now you can get a 27" 5K display along with a powerful Mac for $2500. Of course you can go higher but still a lot less than a full blown Mac Pro plus display(s).

To add to what you said Charlie. From a Geekbench 3 cpu score perspective:

- the 2013 3.5ghz quad-core 27" iMac = 14673
- the current low end 3.7ghz quad-core "New Mac Pro" = 14426
- the "new" 5k retina iMac with what looks like an almost similar 3.5ghz quad-core cpu should score at least as well as the previous model (14673)

So I would say the new retina iMac (and even the previous high-end iMac) could be a "poor-man's" new Mac Pro (at least from a cpu perspective)!

Remembering that the 2013 3.5ghz high-end 27" iMac is $2199 vs. $2999 for the low end quad-core new Mac Pro! Of course the retina 27" iMac is closer to the Mac Pro @$2499.

- Nick

Nick, it's my understanding the new Retina iMac has a newer CPU in it than the previous so it might score even higher.