Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac mini

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 11, 2012, 01:43 PM   #26
Yanwoo
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
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!
Yanwoo is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 02:29 PM   #27
fa8362
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
I wouldn't spend $100 for a 10% increase in speed.
fa8362 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 02:44 PM   #28
propower
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
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!
__________________
2011 MBA 11", 1.7GHz i5, Mountain Lion
iphone5, ipad Rmini, Apple TV, 24" LED
Late 2013 27" imac, 3.5GHz i7, 256 SSD, GTX775M 2G
Blackmagic Multidock - PT11HD HD Native TB AVID 16x16
propower is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 02:53 PM   #29
dasx
macrumors 65816
 
dasx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Barcelona
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulrbeers View Post
Your analogy fails.
Mmm...

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulrbeers View Post
You aren't going to go out and buy one anymore would you?
So you'd go and buy a brand new Audi A4 from 2008?
__________________
Grey computer which does complicated stuff.
Cell phone that can talk to me. (Seriously).
"Fancy quote from dead guy"
dasx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 03:49 PM   #30
fa8362
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by propower View Post
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!
The OP doesn't render anything.
fa8362 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 04:33 PM   #31
KrisLord
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Northumberland, UK
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.
KrisLord is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 07:37 PM   #32
lcseds
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NC, USA
$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.
__________________
Mid 2012 15" rMBP, 128GB iPad Air, 64GB iPhone 5 (iPhone 6+ 128 SG on order), 2012 mac Mini, Apple TV (x2), Pissed wife.
lcseds is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 09:12 PM   #33
paulrbeers
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasx View Post
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?
__________________
rMBP 11,2 15" 2.0Ghz w/ 256GB SSD
MBA 6,2 13" 1.7Ghz w/ 256GB SSD
Mac Mini 6,2 2.3ghz w/ 240GB SSD + 1TB
Mac Pro 1,1 w/ 8 cores @ 2.66 w/ 240GB SSD
paulrbeers is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 05:24 AM   #34
dasx
macrumors 65816
 
dasx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Barcelona
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulrbeers View Post
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?
Got tired. You win.
__________________
Grey computer which does complicated stuff.
Cell phone that can talk to me. (Seriously).
"Fancy quote from dead guy"
dasx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 08:06 AM   #35
Ifti
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
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!
__________________
See my YouTube Channel for reviews & tech tips!
2012 Mac Mini Server / 2.6 Quad i7/8GB/2x1TB HDD
2013 MBA11 1.7 Dual i7/8/256 - 2013 rMBP15 2.6 Quad i7/16/1TB/750m
iPhone 6+ / TC / Lacie TB2 20TB
Ifti is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:53 AM   #36
Jeff Charles
macrumors member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ngorkes View Post
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.
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
Jeff Charles is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 10:22 AM   #37
kobyh15
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
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 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 03:36 PM   #38
Mr. Retrofire
macrumors 601
 
Mr. Retrofire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: www.emiliana.cl
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasx View Post
Got tired. You win.
No, i win. Always. ;-)
__________________

“Only the dead have seen the end of the war.”
-- Plato --
Mr. Retrofire is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 03:57 PM   #39
dasx
macrumors 65816
 
dasx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Barcelona
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Retrofire View Post
No, i win. Always. ;-)
OK, you win too. lol
__________________
Grey computer which does complicated stuff.
Cell phone that can talk to me. (Seriously).
"Fancy quote from dead guy"
dasx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 06:27 PM   #40
Jeff Charles
macrumors member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by kobyh15 View Post
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.
Jeff Charles is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 07:23 PM   #41
kobyh15
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Charles View Post
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.
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.
kobyh15 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 04:52 AM   #42
motrek
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by tears2040 View Post
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.
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.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ifti View Post
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!
You must be poor.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Charles View Post
How did you get 25%? I get around 18% difference from the cpubenchmark tests, but geekbench tests are about 10%.
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.
motrek is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 07:57 AM   #43
mystic man
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Athens, Greece
Send a message via MSN to mystic man Send a message via Skype™ to mystic man
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Charles View Post
How did you get 25%? I get around 18% difference from the cpubenchmark tests, but geekbench tests are about 10%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulrbeers View Post
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!?!?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasx View Post
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

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 by mystic man; Nov 13, 2012 at 08:22 AM.
mystic man is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 08:08 AM   #44
paulrbeers
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by mystic man View Post
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
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.
__________________
rMBP 11,2 15" 2.0Ghz w/ 256GB SSD
MBA 6,2 13" 1.7Ghz w/ 256GB SSD
Mac Mini 6,2 2.3ghz w/ 240GB SSD + 1TB
Mac Pro 1,1 w/ 8 cores @ 2.66 w/ 240GB SSD
paulrbeers is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 12:25 AM   #45
tears2040
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by motrek View Post
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.[COLOR="#808080"]


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.
tears2040 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 01:04 AM   #46
iMas70
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
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.
__________________
iPhone 6 (128GB), iPad 4 (32GB), Apple TV, 2.3 GHz i7 Mac Mini - 16 GB RAM
iMas70 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 01:22 AM   #47
kobyh15
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMas70 View Post
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'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.
kobyh15 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 02:05 AM   #48
MJL
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ngorkes View Post
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.
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.
MJL is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 02:21 AM   #49
mentaluproar
macrumors 68000
 
mentaluproar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
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.
__________________
Powered by OSX 10.9 Ocelot
Will someone please make a safari extension that gives us back the downvote button?
mentaluproar is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac mini

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is 2.6GHz i5 upgrade worth it? pk314 MacBook Pro 35 May 20, 2014 12:30 PM
Old Power Mac G5 1.6ghz for 30 dollars worth it? exiag335 Mac Pro 3 Sep 21, 2013 11:19 PM
13" rMBP... Uprgrade to 3GHz from 2.6GHz worth it? VirtualRain MacBook Pro 14 Feb 16, 2013 11:15 AM
$225 Price Difference From 2.6ghz vs 2.7ghz Macbook Pro. Worth it? VideoNewbie MacBook Pro 33 Sep 4, 2012 11:55 AM
Is the $100 2.6GHz CPU upgrade worth it (over the stock 2.3GHz) on the rMBP? pgharavi MacBook Pro 46 Aug 6, 2012 10:45 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:28 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC