Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mac mini Late 2018 Teardown

ifixit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 197 posts

Re: Mac mini Late 2018 Teardown

#171

Post by jws »

pkamb wrote: post #141

Can you case-swap into the classic Silver body?

If it bothers you, you can remove the anodization chemically with household products. That gets you to silver, but easily scratched. Then you can anodize it using more household and hot tub chemicals and a current limited power supply, a bench supply is fine. That gets you to silver and hard, but will stain. Soak it in whatever dye you like to color it, or not, then boil it to seal off the pores in the anodization and you have the case of your dreams.

Re: Mac mini Late 2018 Teardown

#172

Post by jerrysievert »

davidwparker wrote: post #148
mattnewton wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counter counter point, my 128gb 2013 mbp I use for development has 90gb of “system” cruft somehow and I regularly have to shuffle files around, and have been thinking I need to re-image it since I can’t dig deeper into what the “system” bucket is made up of easily.

I have the exact same issue. I have 256gb in my MBP, but 162gb are used by system files. I can't seem to figure out what is being used and how to clear it out.

Omni Disk Sweeper is free and works pretty well: https://www.omnigroup.com/more

Re: Mac mini Late 2018 Teardown

#173

Post by ex3ndr »

giobox wrote: post #104
rayiner wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trade-off isn't height--an M.2 slot takes up a relatively large amount of floor space on the motherboard. There's nowhere to put it: https://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/ZLFbiRsOdiemeWLA.h... .

Given previous versions of this enclosure (with I believe the same exterior dimensions) managed to fit the computer plus two 2.5” old school hard disks, Apple clearly could engineer the interior of this device to fit a much, much smaller m2 SSD. This is a question of engineering choices, not physical space limitations. In this case the engineering choice was probably driven at least in part by the desire to take adva…

They had mobile processors.

Re: Mac mini Late 2018 Teardown

#174

Post by derefr »

kllrnohj wrote: post #166
derefr wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that they couldn't make m.2 PCIe NAND; it's that nobody else is making m.2 PCIe NAND. The T2's storage controller wouldn't know what to do with any other (NVMe or SATA) m.2 SSD, since then it'd be the T2's storage controller talking to the SSD's storage controller.

That's incredibly false. Literally everyone makes m.2 PCIe NAND. In fact it's increasingly hard to find M.2 SATA these days with how overwhelmingly common PCI-E 3.0 x4 M.2 is. And M.2 PCI-E isn't just stupid common, it's also cheap. Really, really cheap. 1TB of crazy fast PCI-E nand is $230: https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-970-EVO-1TB-MZ-V7E1T0BW/dp/B0...

Er, no, you didn't understand my statement at all.

What you're talking about is NVMe NAND—which is a standard protocol on top of PCIe. If you aren't aware, both the PCIe m.2 NVMe SSDs, and the PCIe "card" NVMe SSDs, and even the DIMM-slot SDRAM-speaking NVMe SSDs, all still contain a flash controller behind their PCIe/SDRAM controller, which implements the standard NVMe protocol, acting as a translator between the host's decoded commands from the bus, and the NAND's proprietary protocol. And, like all other flash controllers, the flash controllers in NVMe SSDs do a host of "enrichments" to the abstraction they expose, like opaque wear-levelling.

Whereas what I'm talking about—"direct PCI-e NAND"—refers to the concept of NAND memory sitting directly on the PCIe bus with no flash controller, just a PCIe controller. This would, if it existed, allow the host to directly program and erase NAND blocks—as if the host was the flash controller—by sending the NAND commands in the NAND's own proprietary command format, wrapped into PCIe packets.

Directly-addressable NAND has none of the "enrichment" a flash-controller provides to NVMe NAND, and directly-addressable NAND also speaks whatever dumb protocol the NAND's manufacturer makes it speak, requiring a special custom driver per NAND (or a host-side flash controller.)

Old embedded systems (like phones and cameras ca. 2002) used to contain directly-addressable NAND, soldered onto the motherboard. They mostly switched away from this to using eMMC chips—those being single BGA packages containing a flash controller and NAND—because they were gaining no advantage from having a separate flash controller, only inconveniences (like having to write their own storage drivers) and/or costs (of adding their own flash controller to the embedded board's BOM.)

Old iOS devices used to use eMMC. But, since the creation of the Secure Enclave, Apple has found an advantage to having a discrete flash controller: namely, that it can interact with the Secure Enclave. So, since the iPhone 6, Apple stopped using eMMC in favor of their own flash controller + directly-soldered NAND flash.

And now, Apple have done the same thing to the Mac Mini that they did to iOS devices: switched from an interface that expects to find a flash controller speaking a standard protocol (NVMe or SATA), to an interface where the flash controller is on the host side and expects to find directly-addressable NAND flash on the other side for it to manage.

Attaching an m.2 NVMe SSD to that interface, would be similar in effect to what you'd get by taking one of those old phones that uses directly-soldered NAND with a host-side flash controller, and instead of soldering in NAND, soldering an eMMC card in its place.

In short: you'd have a dead device.

Re: Mac mini Late 2018 Teardown

#175

Post by winter_blue »

ricardobeat wrote: post #139
winter_blue wrote: post #111

They say it’s got impressive specs, but I don’t find it impressive at all. This brick-sized Gigabyte (NUC) computer has far more impressive specs than the Mac Mini: https://www.gigabyte.com/Mini-PcBarebone/GB-BRi7-8550-rev-10

What's impressive about it? That's a mobile CPU, ~20% slower than the Mini base model. Slower RAM (2400 vs 2666). Two USB3.1 ports vs four in the mini, no Thunderbolt (10gbps vs 40gbps). Weaker GPU, can't output 4K. To top it off, it doesn't come with RAM (+€80 8gb) or an SSD (+€50 128GB). Total cost €680 vs €899 for the Mac Mini - it actually makes the mini look like an incredible deal.

Those are fairly good points. I upvoted you.

Yes graphics is better — the GPU on the Mac Mini is the Intel UHD 630 vs the UHD 620 on the Gigabyte Brix.

With regard to the CPU, the Gigabyte’s i7-8550U is slightly faster[1] than the i3 in the Mac Mini, but slower than the i5 and i7 offered on the Mac Mini.

The lower TDP might be something that people who plan to run a server on it might care about. I have a desktop with a i7-5820K (which has a 140W TDP), and I realized that a DigitalOcean droplet was cheaper than keeping my computer running all day (even with the monitor turned off, idle power usage was 100W+, and my electric cost is over $0.20/kWh).

I consider 16 GiB of RAM a minimum, and it is significantly cheaper with the Gigabyte. Apple’s $200 charge for an upgrade from 8GB to 16GB (in the US) is a bit too much. You can buy 16 GiB (2x8GiB sticks) for that.

Having the flexibility to pick your own SSD is nice too. The 960 PRO is one of the fastest PCIe SSDs out there — I wonder if the SSD in the Mac Mini comes close to it in speed. Also: if you don’t care about the SSD speed but want a lot more storage, you have the flexibility to get the slower 1TiB 860 EVO (or similar SSD) for around $150 — wheread Apppe charges $600 for an upgrade to 1TB on the Mac Mini — and exorbitantly high price.

Lastly, I use Arch Linux both on my home laptop, and on my work machine (whenever possible). And the fact is most people buy Macs for macOS; but I’m quite comfortable using Linux, and don’t really need macOS.

[1] https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i3-8100-vs-Intel-...

Re: Mac mini Late 2018 Teardown

#176

Post by giobox »

ex3ndr wrote: post #173
giobox wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given previous versions of this enclosure (with I believe the same exterior dimensions) managed to fit the computer plus two 2.5” old school hard disks, Apple clearly could engineer the interior of this device to fit a much, much smaller m2 SSD. This is a question of engineering choices, not physical space limitations. In this case the engineering choice was probably driven at least in part by the desire to take adva…

They had mobile processors.

Its very unlikely the TDP differences would prevent a design with an m2 SSD if Apple wanted it. TDP is 65 watts vs the 45 in the models with two relatively enormous 2.5 inch drives. This might vary depending on spec, but nowhere near enough to prevent an m2. We are talking about modern CPUs fabricated on more efficient processes vs those from 2012.

This is a choice, not a hard engineering limitation. An m2 SSD is tiny even compared to a single 2.5” drive.

Re: Mac mini Late 2018 Teardown

#177

Post by jessewmc »

andrewvc wrote: post #123
rz2k wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think holding Apple to higher standards for its environmental impact has a lot to do with why they innovate in this respect, and I think that it is appropriate, given their size as a manufacturer and their positioning as a premium product. Tightly integrated hardware, and efforts to develop software that improves performance of long-discontinued products does a lot to explain why Apple products are used much longer…

OK, sure, but why do they need to manufacture everything out of CNC'd billets of aluminum? That seems extremely wasteful.

This is one of the least wasteful things they do. The cuttings are recycled, and aluminum is one of the few materials that is more energy efficient to recycle than to mine/manufacture from scratch.

Re: Mac mini Late 2018 Teardown

#178

Post by voltagex_ »

sneak wrote: post #35
sanketskasar wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more because of the PCIe interface, and access control and encryption through the T2 chip. The PCIe interfaces SSDs that Apple's been using allow really fast speeds of upto 3Gbps, which is almost double those offered by other interfaces like M2 or even more faster than SATA. What's disappointing is the base storage. 128GB in 2019 is so ridiculous. I would't otherwise mind a soldered SSD when I can just u…

That’s not what necessity means. I think most users of this device will be fine with 128gb. I think you underestimate cloud usage for this machine’s target market.

I'll bite. My parents have got a ~2014 Macbook Pro and 1 megabit upload on ADSL. They're just starting to use "cloud" services like OneDrive. If a large upload starts, no one else in the house can use the 'net. I'm dealing with ~100GB of photos that only have one backup now and it's a nightmare.

Re: Mac mini Late 2018 Teardown

#179

Post by ricardobeat »

winter_blue wrote: post #175
ricardobeat wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's impressive about it? That's a mobile CPU, ~20% slower than the Mini base model. Slower RAM (2400 vs 2666). Two USB3.1 ports vs four in the mini, no Thunderbolt (10gbps vs 40gbps). Weaker GPU, can't output 4K. To top it off, it doesn't come with RAM (+€80 8gb) or an SSD (+€50 128GB). Total cost €680 vs €899 for the Mac Mini - it actually makes the mini look like an incredible deal.

Those are fairly good points. I upvoted you. Yes graphics is better — the GPU on the Mac Mini is the Intel UHD 630 vs the UHD 620 on the Gigabyte Brix. With regard to the CPU, the Gigabyte’s i7-8550U is slightly faster[1] than the i3 in the Mac Mini, but slower than the i5 and i7 offered on the Mac Mini. The lower TDP might be something that people who plan to run a server on it might care about. I have a desktop wit…

When I looked at userbenchmark.org the i3 came out ahead. Apple’s SSDs are top notch, crossing 3Gbps. RAM is upgradeable on the mini so you can save a couple hundred, plus OSX memory management is so much better than windows you’ll only feel any difference if doing heavy video/audio/3D workloads.

For some reason a TB3 NVMe enclosure is dirt cheap, around €40, and gives you full speed access to whatever SSD you like!

I just got a mini for myself - main driver being the OS, I can’t be productive on my windows pc. Got the i5 and 256gb for ~$1200, which gives me same power as a high end 15”MBP at a quarter of the price. Mac OS is worth the €200 markup alone.

Re: Mac mini Late 2018 Teardown

#180

Post by stephenr »

Sephr wrote: post #149
stephenr wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So use a tb3 enclosure with an nvme inside.

There are no bus-powered TB3 M.2 PCIe enclosures, and there never will be any[1]. This means you will have to buy a huge bulky externally-powered TB3 PCIe dock costing hundreds of dollars to accomplish this. 1. https://twitter.com/sephr/status/817883011165233152?s=19

No, it says there won’t be any that are sold unbundled.
Post reply on HN