I am ordering the Mac mini and I am wondering should I spend the $100 of the 2.6ghz i7. My uses are just minecraft, web surfing and homwork.
I have the 2.3 model and I'm very happy with it. Its plenty fast enough for me and I use it for HD video editing. In a few years time when it starts becoming out of date I don't see that another .3 on the processor speed will make me want to keep it longer. Save your money and buy 16GB of RAM with it.
Don't know how you're doing hd editing when I just took my Mac mini back today. Screen tearing and flickering was very bad, also compared to my 2011 iMac the graphics card is not even half as fast.
For certain plugins you need a graphics card and the Mac mini while having an excellent cpu is being bottlenecked by it's gpu.
What program are you using for your editing? I am thinking about getting a mini and I would hate to see it unable to work on something.
Don't know how you're doing hd editing when I just took my Mac mini back today. Screen tearing and flickering was very bad,
I want this computer to last 5-6 years. So I'm going to spend the money on 16gb of ram and a fusion drive.
I am ordering the Mac mini and I am wondering should I spend the $100 of the 2.6ghz i7. My uses are just minecraft, web surfing and homwork.
I'd go for it if you plan to keep the machine for 3+ years. That's the only customizable part you can't upgrade on your own later on.
I am ordering the Mac mini and I am wondering should I spend the $100 of the 2.6ghz i7. My uses are just minecraft, web surfing and homwork.
This is always some of the worst advice people give on these forums. How would inceasing the overall speed by maybe 10% really make a difference 3 years later? For example my base MacBook Pro 2009 came with a 2.26ghz core2duo or I could have upgraded it to a 2.53ghz core2duo. Guess what? 3 years later neither of them could hold a candle to even the dual core i5 in the base mini. What my point? Neither will be much better than the other in 3 years because we will be 3 processor families more advanced which will put ANY processor of today to shame....
How did you get 25%? I get around 18% difference from the cpubenchmark tests, but geekbench tests are about 10%.
How did you get 25%? I get around 18% difference from the cpubenchmark tests, but geekbench tests are about 10%.
Stats not in OSX means not applicable. 10% I geek each in OSX and 13% in straight up
Even if you want to go with 25%, then compare a core2duo 2.0ghz to 2.53ghz. Neither are "good" processors by today's standards are they? They were pretty standard in 2009 were grey not? Either way they will not future proof you if you upgrade and neither processor will be "good" in 3 years. I stand by my comments.
If you need max power them spend the 100, but don't do it because in 3 years you think it will make your computer any more relevant!
Edit: 8566 / 7269 = 117.8%
17.8 does not equal 25.... Is that some kind of new math!?!?
I got the number from the other poster, lol.
So what you are saying is that you blindly regergatate what you read on Internet forums without doing some basic checking....
And my point was that no core2duo is a good processor anymore stands. Can they do basic functions? Sure. But they aren't good processors. You aren't going to go out and buy one anymore would you?
Following your logic, a 2008 Audi A4 isn't a good car because you are not gonna buy one at any Audi retailer, .