Your analogy fails.
You aren't going to go out and buy one anymore would you?
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!
Mmm...
So you'd go and buy a brand new Audi A4 from 2008?
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?
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.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 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.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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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!?!?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.