Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Is the 2.6GHz processor worth the $100

Personally, I've nearly always bumped the spec on my mac's higher that objectively I probably need but never regretted it.

The one time I didn't (a base 2010 11" macbook air) I did regret it. Read into that what you may!
 
I render audio a lot...
On a 5 minute song a 10% increase in speed (10% decrease in time to render ) may save me 6 seconds. No big deal. After doing this 1000 times that is 6000 seconds or 100 minutes. 10,000 times = 16+hours. For a video exercise this is probably a factor of 10 too low. Allowing that everything you do is that fraction faster I for one feel $100 for as much speed as I can get is pretty much always worth it! If you count the internal SSD upgrade and external SSD drive I got with this machine I have spent as much on drives as i did on the machine!

The probably better question is what is $100 worth to you!
 
propower said:
I render audio a lot...
On a 5 minute song a 10% increase in speed (10% decrease in time to render ) may save me 6 seconds. No big deal. After doing this 1000 times that is 6000 seconds or 100 minutes. 10,000 times = 16+hours. For a video exercise this is probably a factor of 10 too low. Allowing that everything you do is that fraction faster I for one feel $100 for as much speed as I can get is pretty much always worth it! If you count the internal SSD upgrade and external SSD drive I got with this machine I have spent as much on drives as i did on the machine!

The probably better question is what is $100 worth to you!
Click to expand...

The OP doesn't render anything.
 
I don't agree with the point of view that in 3 years the extra Mhz will be worth it. To me the useful life of the 2.3Ghz and the 2.6Ghz will be the same. So its what benefit you get during those 3 years that should be considered.

If you're not at the maximum spend on your budget, then I'd go for it as its only $100.

For me I pushed things from the base mini to the mid level as the extra £180 was worth it for quad core and 2x the storage space. I couldn't go the extra £80.
 
$100 for a speed bump from 2.3 to 2.6? Yep. Now the rMBP for a 2.6 to 2.7 for $225? Nope. Depends on your budget. But I went for a high performance mini. I would wonder what the extra performance would be worth to me if I had not ordered it. Now, I don't think about it with the 2.6.
 
dasx said:
Mmm...



So you'd go and buy a brand new Audi A4 from 2008?
Click to expand...

People buy used cars all the time. Yes I would buy an Audi A4 from 2008. Again a 2008 vehicle with "reasonable" mileage (meaning 12-15K per year) is still a completely reasonable vehicle to buy. A computer from 2008 is generally not worth buying is it?
 
paulrbeers said:
People buy used cars all the time. Yes I would buy an Audi A4 from 2008. Again a 2008 vehicle with "reasonable" mileage (meaning 12-15K per year) is still a completely reasonable vehicle to buy. A computer from 2008 is generally not worth buying is it?
Click to expand...

Got tired. You win.
 
I went for the faster CPU since its one of the parts you are stuck with and cant upgrade. I can upgrade my RAM and HDD as and when I need to.
Plus I guess I like to spec things up as much as my wallet will allow at the time!
 
Ngorkes said:
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.
Click to expand...
Here's an example with some numbers. It doesn't correspond to your usage, but it illustrates the biggest difference we can expect with a processor-intensive task.

Exporting JPEGs from Lightroom depends on RAM and the processor. Assume 3 seconds per photo with the 2.3 processor. At the nominal 13% greater speed of the 2.6, each export would take about 2.7 seconds. Not a perceivable difference, and the actual difference would probably be less.

Export 300 photos. The 2.3 would need 15 minutes. The 2.6, 13.5 minutes. I guess if someone does that a lot, it could matter. Or, they could get the 2.3 and use that minute and a half for some quiet meditation.

One interesting fact is that Intel's posted price for the 2.3 is the same as for the 2.6.

Jeff
 
What kind of difference are we looking at with Handbrake encodes? I want a Handbrake machine that can rip 2 hour 1080p Blu-rays as quickly as possible.
 
kobyh15 said:
What kind of difference are we looking at with Handbrake encodes? I want a Handbrake machine that can rip 2 hour 1080p Blu-rays as quickly as possible.
Click to expand...
I found this review at Macworld. The section on the 15 inch MacBook Pro includes a Handbrake comparison of the 2.3 vs. the 2.6. The 2.6 completed the task in 0.96 the time of the 2.3. For an hour encode, that would be 57.8 minutes vs. 60.
 
Jeff Charles said:
I found this review at Macworld. The section on the 15 inch MacBook Pro includes a Handbrake comparison of the 2.3 vs. the 2.6. The 2.6 completed the task in 0.96 the time of the 2.3. For an hour encode, that would be 57.8 minutes vs. 60.
Click to expand...

Nice work! Don't know if the 2.6 is worth it. That would be its sole purpose for me, though. I guess if you do a bunch of rips it could end up adding up to a lot of time saved. It's probably going to depend on what shows up in the refurb store over the next couple months.
 
tears2040 said:
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.
Click to expand...

There must be some other reason for your video tearing. The HD 4000 graphics in the new Minis is as fast as a fairly high end gaming card from ~2009, and I'm sure there were people doing HD video editing in 2009.

----------
Ifti said:
I went for the faster CPU since its one of the parts you are stuck with and cant upgrade. I can upgrade my RAM and HDD as and when I need to.
Plus I guess I like to spec things up as much as my wallet will allow at the time!
Click to expand...

You must be poor.

----------
Jeff Charles said:
How did you get 25%? I get around 18% difference from the cpubenchmark tests, but geekbench tests are about 10%.
Click to expand...

Most people just use one core (web pages, etc.) and the maximum turbo speed for the chips is 3.3 and 3.6 respectively. So it's less than a 10% difference unless you are doing some CPU-intensive multithreaded work.
 
Jeff Charles said:
How did you get 25%? I get around 18% difference from the cpubenchmark tests, but geekbench tests are about 10%.
Click to expand...

paulrbeers said:
Stats not in OSX means not applicable. 10% I geek each in OSX and 13% in straight up
Clock speed. 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!?!?
Click to expand...

dasx said:
I got the number from the other poster, lol



Ohhh. A benchmark no run in OSX isn't applicable? OK then… 🙄




Of course they are good. Pretty good. They're not high end anymore, but they're still good. I had a 2010 Mini with a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo and it was doing pretty fine. Yes, I prefer 1 minute and 37 seconds of encoding (2012 Mini) than 7 minutes and 45 seconds (2010 Mini), but that just means the 2012 is better.

That 2010 Mini was still a good machine. There are now better ones, but that doesn't make that one a bad machine. Not at all. And if instead of the 2.4GHz I would've got the 2.6GHz one, it would be less away from actual machines. Not a lot? Probably, but still a little bit.

As I usually upgrade my computer every 2 years, I didn't think it wasn't worth it. If the OP plans to keep it 3+ years (4, 5, 6 that is) YES, I'd do it. You wouldn't? Fine with me, but AFAIK he didn't just ask for your opinion.




Yes, new math. Calculated in the world of Pandora.
Click to expand...


Since I am the OP of that post, and since you seem not to be so computer savy, those benchamarks have somehow magically risen from the point I posted them.

When I posted them the cpu benchmark for the 3615QM was around 6800, somehow it rose to 7300

by the time I posted it it was 25% difference
but way to go to bash someone in accordance with your ignorance

EDIT:

Btw someone talked about geekbench scores and how it is an "around 10% difference"

2.3 mini http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1276756 10761
2.6 mini http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1279219 12677

I know there are higher scores in both models but those are with bumped up memory

so the difference between them in geekbench scores is around 18%

I know 2.6 minis with ssds and 16gb mem go above 13000, (there is a relevant thread about it)

is the 100$ worth it? Yes if you can afford it, no if you can't
Is it more "future proof" than the 2.3? No it is not I believe in 2 years time you ll probably want to upgrade
Will you see a big speed difference? No probably not, will it be best for cpu dependant programs? yes it will

If you are on the fence about it, I d say upgrade it, if not spend that cash on an ssd, it is much more prefferable to go for an ssd with the 2.3 than go for the 2.6 with an hdd

and of course if your needs are just web browsing, watch a movie (xbmc, plex) and mild video processing-audio editing, you do not even need the quad core model
 
Last edited:
mystic man said:
Since I am the OP of that post, and since you seem not to be so computer savy, those benchamarks have somehow magically risen from the point I posted them.

When I posted them the cpu benchmark for the 3615QM was around 6800, somehow it rose to 7300

by the time I posted it it was 25% difference
but way to go to bash someone in accordance with your ignorance
Click to expand...

If it has truly gone up 500 points, then it is because you linked to benchmarks that didn't have a large enough sample size to be accurate. If you go to a good hardware review site, they benchmark processors multiple times to get a true number for their benchmarks. The reason this must be done, is that any little thing can cause a drop in speed. At the time you posted these, there must have only been a couple of runs and since then it has been run 14 times on the 2.3ghz quad core. This is the problem with using Passmark or Geekbench for that matter. If the sample size is too small the numbers do not mean anything. It also points to the fact you (as a poster) need to understand whether the data you are providing has been completely vetted. If it isn't accurate, then it comes back later to bite you..... Fact of the matter is whether the statement you made about 25% was true then, it is because the data set was not large enough at the time to be accurate which is your fail not mine.
 
motrek said:
There must be some other reason for your video tearing. The HD 4000 graphics in the new Minis is as fast as a fairly high end gaming card from ~2009, and I'm sure there were people doing HD video editing in 2009.
Click to expand...




Nothing like a Discrete graphics card. No reason in the world for me to make these tests up. I currently own a 13" MBP with a HD4000 that's less than half the speed of my 2011 base model iMac. The Mac Mini caused screen tearing with HD Videos, I edit professionally.

It's a poor substitute and I would not purchase.
 
Ok, without analyzing this to much -

2.3GHz with 16GB ram (about $80.00 for the ram upgrade?)

vs

2.6 GHz with the stock 4GB ram

Which would perform better?

The stock 2.3GHz with 4 GB will blow the 5 year old Dell that I'm using out of the water so I'll see a huge increase no matter which one I go with.
 
iMas70 said:
Ok, without analyzing this to much -

2.3GHz with 16GB ram (about $80.00 for the ram upgrade?)

vs

2.6 GHz with the stock 4GB ram

Which would perform better?

The stock 2.3GHz with 4 GB will blow the 5 year old Dell that I'm using out of the water so I'll see a huge increase no matter which one I go with.
Click to expand...

I'd go 2.3 and RAM. You'd only see the difference with the 2.6 when doing multicore processor intensive stuff. You'll notice the RAM upgrade doing everything you do on a daily basis.
 
Ngorkes said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah right (not) - Latest version of OS X is supported only up to how many versions back and how much support is there in OS X for older hardware?

Apple's gear has build in obsolence and is geared to that you replace your hardware every three years. Warranty runs out => gear breaks down.

On top of that you can not run the higher speed CPU continously at 100% since it overheats and then throttles back. I am waiting for the Haswell CPU.
 
Don't even consider paying apple for a ram upgrade. It's cheap and easy to do that yourself. Storage is more troublesome, but if you are good with machines, it will not be a problem either. The CPU is permanent, but the difference in 2.3 and 2.6 is next to nothing in real world performance. Apple just puts that up there so spec-nerds won't bitch as much when they see a Dell with a higher clockspeed.

I suggest a fusion drive. The weakest point on a mac mini has always been the hard drive. Of course, add more ram too, but order it from otherworldcomputing or newegg and install it yourself.

TL;DR - The slowest part on the mini is the hard drive. Attack that first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back