Expert’s Rating
Pros
Cons
Our Verdict
While the entry - level Mac miniskirt ( Late 2014 ) is price attractively at £ 399 , it would benefit from a storage rise at least to 8 GB , specially since this upgrade will never be potential later . By then compare this promote cheapest mannequin at £ 479 to the middle model with the same computer memory complement , price at £ 579 , you ask to decide if the additional £ 100 justifies an increase in available mainframe functioning . That dispute is around 15 - 25 percent faster according to our bench mark results . Graphics carrying out is marginally increased in the middle exemplar , but perhaps not by as much as the sexy Intel Iris name would suggest . Neither Mac mini is what we ’d call games well-disposed . When judged against the top Mac miniskirt , the CPU of today ’s top 2.8 gigacycle per second mini perform around 6 - 7 percent faster than this middle model , which will likely not even be detectable in normal use . But the rise to Fusion Drive in this same model will be much more blatant , although that will mean a price hike of £ 230 . You could customize a middle model with the same Fusion Drive , and that will reduce the difference of opinion to £ 160 ; or put another way , a £ 70 save over the best Mac miniskirt with its 200 megacycle per second faster central processing unit . In the absence of the late and lamented quad - inwardness Mac mini , that would be the near thing to our economic value selection for a newfangled Mac mini .
Apple refreshed the Mac mini range in October 2014 , stimulate a hustle in the procedure by releasing models that were slower than the former 2012 propagation that they replace . That ’s what we found when equate the best of 2012 against the best of today , with the shortage from the latest Macs squarely head to the retraction of any quad - core processor models . Check out the Mac mini on Apple ’s web storage : here .
Read our otherMac mini reviews : Apple Mac miniskirt ( belated 2014 ) 2.8GHz review|Mac mini ( Late 2014 ) 1.4 GHz review
And if you ’d like to know about the next Mac mini update and when it ’s likely to be released , turn to our articleNew Mac mini 2016 update rumour
As much ira was raised by members of the Mac mini appreciation society from Apple ’s decision to solder the retention to the system of logic card , removing the popular pick of buying basic models then maxing out the RAM with upgrade kits from the like of Crucial Memory . Or simply acquiring the Mac with the memory board you required today , good in the noesis it could be expand in the hereafter when and if software computer memory requirements involve .
We did some sums in our first 2014 Mac mini review , and calculated that Apple ’s gamey tax on memory upgrades is not as usurious as it once was . In the case of the move from 8 GB to 16 GB , as you may be tempted to do with this middle - order Mac , pass the important route currently be £ 98 , while Apple charge £ 160 .
So while that ’s £ 60 more than some people experience that should have to pay for the same end answer , it ’s not the several hundred pound difference it used to be . And the define - memory insurance policy should imply that RAM of guaranteed quality is being securely install . It thereby reduces the time - consuming job of tracking down bad RAM as a cause of system instability – even the big - name memory vendors have been known to suffer from occasional timber publication .
Read:2014 Mac miniskirt v 2012 Mac mini comparison limited review
Mac mini (Late 2014) 2.6 GHz: Positioning
The middle Mac miniskirt cost £ 569 in standard clipping , and sits neatly between entry model at £ 399 and the top pick at £ 799 .
( When we say ‘ top ’ , that ’s just the best off - the - shelf translation . If you purchase from the online Apple Store , as with any other Mac , you’re able to select your own shape with limited tweaks to the mainframe , storage and memory board . In fact the top Mac miniskirt today would be one with a 3.0 GHz Intel Core i7 dual - core mainframe , 16 GB memory and 1 TB PCIe - attached flash drive . It costs an heart - watering £ 1759 . )
There ’s actually a little gap in price between the most basic and middle , than the heart and top . You ’ll see this more easily if you round up the disquiet 99s from the swing tag end : £ 400 , £ 580 and £ 800 .
So what is the dispute between entry and middle Mac mini model ? Looking at the specs alone , quite a luck . The entree model runs the same mainframe and memory as the meretricious MacBook Air , but with a slow 500 GB hard record instead of the firm storage in consumer computers that is the PCIe - attach flash cause . Meanwhile the new entry - stage Mac mini also runs the same processor and 500 GB storage as the garish iMac , although this budget screen background personal computer is at least fitted with 8 GB of memory .
ill-treat frontward the middle Mac mini . This see a healthy kickstart in processor clock speeding , from the 1.4 gigahertz Intel Core i5 - 4260U twofold - pith processor to a 2.6 gigahertz Intel Core i5 - 4278U. Do take down that most of Apple ’s consumer PC range is using U - suffix Intel fries today , denoting ultra - low power usance ( by Intel standards ) , and designed with power economy in mind .
The middle Mac mini see a double in storage capacity , from 500 GB to 1 TB , but observe the same older hard - disk technology . This remains the weakest part of the system , holding back much potential , but unlike with the solder memory board issue , this one is at least fixable – provided you ’re technically adept at stripping down intricate microcomputer ironware . We wo n’t traverse , though , that since Apple barricaded the way with security measures screws , it ’s not as soft as it used to be .
Memory has also doubled , from 4 GB to 8 Gbit . Compared to the last generation of Mac miniskirt , it has evolved subtly from standard 1600 MHz DDR3 SO - DIMM modules , to a low - power variant ( LPDDR3 ) that is famously and quite permanently solder to the circuit board .
The third and last difference between cheesy and middling Mac mini model is in the graphics processor spec . All Mac minis since the previous Late 2012 generation have relied upon the built - in graphic capability of the Intel Core series Mobile River chips , and here we see a change from an Intel HD Graphics 5000 to Intel Iris Graphics 5100 .
have the telling performance saltation we incur with the Intel Iris Pro graphics in the last 15 - column inch MacBook Pro with Retina display , you may be forgiven for expecting a substantial raise in nontextual matter execution when selecting the middle Mac mini . lamentably while they both have the Book ‘ Iris ’ in common , the graphics central processing unit in the middle Mac is little better than that found in the debut - level . Let ’s take a closer look .
learn next : Magic Trackpad 2 review|Mac accessory recap
Mac mini (Late 2014) 2.6 GHz: Graphics performance
When we tested the 1.4 gigacycle per second model , we found it just about capable of playing some Windows games ported to OS X – offer you select a scurvy concealment solvent and reduced quality configurations .
For instance , Batman : Arkham Citycould play with an medium framerate of 31 fps , when rig to 1280 x 720 pixels and spiritualist render caliber . The midway 2.6 gigahertz theoretical account with its Iris Graphics was found to be able-bodied to vacate this to just 33 fps . Those are average framerates ; but on both Macs , the game slowed to minima of around 15 fps , which will be noticeable as occasional graphic stuttering . In other words , we would n’t recommend either Mac miniskirt for this game at least .
A like news report was tell apart when we ranTomb Raider 2013on both Mac minis , but with a slenderly felicitous ending . The basic Mac miniskirt could average 35 Federal Protective Service when set to 1280 x 720 and Low quality ( Legacy OpenGL mode ) , but usefully it never dip below 23 fps , which is penny-pinching to the 25 Federal Protective Service threshold usually consider a viable lower limit .
The middle Mac mini in the same game and preferences recorded 36 fps average but a minimum framerate now at 27 Federal Protective Service . While this Mac is still borderline it may tiptoe the residuum toward some periodic gameplay .
Read : Mac mini or MacBook Air : small cost Macs compared
Mac mini (Late 2014) 2.6 GHz: Processor and memory speed
If not the art , then perhaps the mainframe upgrade may contain some useful supernumerary ability for those that demand it . But despite the near doubling in processor clock frequency , you should n’t carry twice the performance .
In Geekbench 3 , the processor and computer storage test app rated the loud 1.4 GHz modelling with an norm of 2803 points in single - core mode , and 5401 point in multi - core .
This 2.6 gigahertz Mac miniskirt here scored 3184 stage single- and 6793 point in multi - core way . That ’s a useful encouragement in bare-assed speed , and not an insignificant one : we ’re looking at almost 14 percentage quicker for one core but closelipped to 26 percent with four nigh hyperthreaded cores working away .
As a divagation , it ’s deserving remembering that the Primate Labs Geekbench 3 benchmark test was actually calibrate with an Apple Mac mini back in 2011 . The model used was also the middle of three ( ‘ better ’ in the marketing pecking order of good / better / best ) , with 2.5 gigacycle Intel Core i5 - 2520 M processor and 4 GB 1333 MHz DDR3 memory . This arrange a utile equivalence , given that that model and the middle mini we ’re test here have almost the same clock frequency ( 2.5 vs 2.6 GHz ) and same contour of two physical cores with Hyper Threading Technology to approximate four cores .
That bench - reference Mac miniskirt of 2011 was normalised to score 2500 point in exclusive - essence modal value , and it then scored 5740 points running in multi - core mode . So compare middle models of 2011 and 2014 , we can work out a portion increment in raw processing power of 27 per centum and 18 percent for each mode of surgical operation , when assessing nucleus processor and store performance at least .
Given the onward motion in performance - per - clock , with the ostensibly half-witted but amazingly capable 1.4 GHz Intel Core i5 - 4260U as exemplar , we were in reality surprised that there was n’t a clearer gap between 2011 and 2014 mid - range Mac minis , specially given the small clock advantage of the later 2.6 gigacycle per second Mac .
Turning to the Cinebench tests of processor carrying into action , we go steady standardized gains between the entry - level 1.4 GHz and middle 2.6 Gc Mac miniskirt mannikin of 2014 .
In Cinebench 11.5 , sexual conquest moved from 1.1 points to 1.3 points , an 18 percent improvement . Running multi - core modality , the scores increase from 2.49 to 3.13 points , or a 26 percent increase .
In Cinebench 15 , the lashings went from 97 to 112 decimal point with one Congress of Racial Equality , and from 236 to 274 tip with both core . This indicates a less convincing advantage of 15 and 16 percent faster carrying out for the middle Mac mini .
interpret : iMac versus Mac miniskirt
Mac mini (Late 2014) 2.6 GHz: Power consumption
The flower world power white plague of the 2.6 GHz Mac miniskirt ( former 2014 ) was around 30 percent high than that of the 1.4 GHz good example ( 52 versus 40 W ) . But to be clear , this is run at top speed with both CPU and GPU push to upper limit .
When sit slug at the desktop , both Mac mini models were seen to draw just 5 W of mains power , making it by a considerable margin the most frugal x86 - base PC we have ever quiz .
Mac mini (Late 2014) 2.6 GHz: Against the best…
We did n’t test the £ 1759 configured Mac mini listed earlier , but how does the 2.6 GHz Mac miniskirt in the in-between tie-up against the sound Mac mini of 2014 with its 2.8 GHz central processor ?
remainder between these models are enumerate as two . There is a somewhat faster primary processor , by 200 MHz . This also integrate an increase Turbo Boost Technology headroom by the same amount , run from 3.1 GHz to 3.3 GHz . And there is a hybrid entrepot system on the best Mac miniskirt , supplementing the 1 TB notebook difficult disk with a 128 GB PCIe - attached newsbreak drive . This composite gadget is the Fusion Drive which offers much of the focal ratio advantage of solid - nation storage , with the people entrepot content of gaudy hard disks .
see at the CPU differences , the increase in bench mark scores were modest but quite commensurate with the delta change of the processor clock frequency . While the CPU is melt around 6 to 8 percent faster , the grade likewise move up by around 6 to 7 per centum .
So Cinebench single - Congress of Racial Equality ratings run from 1.30 points to 1.38 , and 112 distributor point to 120 ; or 6.2 and 7.1 percent increases respectively . Multi - core ratings changed from 3.13 points to 3.36 , and 274 points to 292 ; giving a 7.4 percent and 6.6 percent increment .
Geekbench 3 move from 3184 to 3363 points ( 5.6 percent ) , and for multi - substance , from 6793 points to 7208 points ( 6.1 percent ) .
nontextual matter performance between better and honest Mac minis was almost paltry . They both feature the same Intel Iris Graphics 5100 engine , and in our tests the difference of opinion was no more than 1 frame per 2d advantage to the fast Mac , and that only in around half the tests .
Mac mini (Late 2014) 2.6 GHz: Fusing the storage
For the user of the Mac miniskirt , a far greater depression of speeding on the better model will predominantly be due to the usance of fast flash warehousing . functioning of the PCIe - attached Fusion Drive is tricky to benchmark due to the complex means it is knitted to the large hard disk by OS X ’s Core entrepot technology . But we can give a flavour of the speed you’re able to ask , from a benchmark test of a solitary 256 GB PCIe - bond split second parkway find in the MacBook Air ( Early 2014 ) .
The top sequential read and write swiftness of this SSD were around 730 MiB / s take , and 620 MB / s write . Compare those top speeds with the 104 and 103 MB / s results of the Mac mini ’s difficult disk .
( This is not a direct corresponding test we realize , not least because a 128 GB SSD is probable to have reduced peak write - speed carrying into action than a 256 GB sampling due to boil down inner parallelism . )
More crucial to the overall user experience is the minor - file transfer performance . The unvoiced record averaged 16 and 18 megabit / s for random reads and write severally , using datum sized from 4 kB up to 1024 kB. Our SSD recall results in the same test of 172 MB / s and 273 megabyte / s – that ’s greater than an fiat of magnitude of difference .
Not appraise here but a important difference between storehouse technologies is the ease with which a flash drive can swiftly beguile stacked threads of data at the same time , while a severe disc is still caching and roil when presented with the same multiple streams of datum at the same time .
In practice the manipulation of a flash cause simply means that apps launch much quicker , files undefended and can be saved in next to no time ; and when you ’re multi - tasking yourself on various projects on your Mac , it ’s unbelievable to randomly slow down down and present a colour rack for a cursor .
Mac mini (Late 2014) 2.6 GHz: Final comparison, honest
How does today ’s center - rank Mac mini compare to the last genesis middle mini with 2.3 GHz space - core Intel Core i7 central processor ? On the whole , not well . It ’s irksome , by as much as 50 percent .
In the Geekbench 3 test , the single - essence resolution was 7 percent high – but after that the numbers start to tumble . In the multi - core test the 2014 example was 42 percent slower ( 6792 point versus 11,752 point ) .
With Cinebench 11.5 , the new Mac mini was 1.5 and 50 percent slower in single- and multi - core mode . Using Cinebench 15 , it was 2.6 and again 50 per centum wearisome in the same tests .
We do n’t have lineal comparison figures for gaming test , but we can liken the 2.6 gigacycle per second quad - Congress of Racial Equality Mac miniskirt of 2012 with the 2.6 GHz dual - core of 2014 . Batman : Arkham City averaged 42 fps ( 1280 x 720 , Medium ) against 31 fps for the raw model ; that ’s 26 percent slower than once was . And in Tomb Raider 2013 , the sr. Mac played at 35 fps against 36 fps for the 2014 middle Mac mini . Hence despite the mooted improvements to Intel ’s integrated graphics between the HD Graphics 4000 of 2012 and the Iris Graphics 5100 of today , there ’s little in it based on this simple comparison . And indeed the older graphics trump out the new in one game trial .
