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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 25, 2012, 12:39 AM   #1
cocacolakid
macrumors 65816
 
cocacolakid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago
2012 Mac mini Geekbench scores showing up

Primatelab's website is showing the first few 2012 mini's that have run Geekbench, very interesting. I don't the see the 2.6 i7 yet, but look at how much higher the 2.3 i7 is scoring compared to the 2.5 i5:

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekb...&q=Macmini6%2C

i5 - 6646-6755 range so far

2.3Ghz i7 - 10,484-11,697.

Using the low scores, the i7 is 60% higher GB score than the base i5.

The 11,641 score is on a 2.3Ghz i7 with 16GB of RAM on 10.8.2, while the 11,697 has the stock 4GB of RAM and 10.8.1.

Very curious to see what the scores are with the 2.6Ghz CPU.
__________________
2012 Mini 2.3 i7 Samsung 840 250 GB SSD 16GB RAM
2012 13" MBP Samsung SSD, 16GB RAM
TBD, iPad 4, iPhone 4S

Last edited by cocacolakid; Oct 25, 2012 at 01:51 AM.
cocacolakid is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2012, 08:25 AM   #2
MM123
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: CE
Quote:
Originally Posted by cocacolakid View Post
Primatelab's website is showing the first few 2012 mini's that have run Geekbench, very interesting. I don't the see the 2.6 i7 yet, but look at how much higher the 2.3 i7 is scoring compared to the 2.5 i5:

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekb...&q=Macmini6%2C

i5 - 6646-6755 range so far

2.3Ghz i7 - 10,484-11,697.

Using the low scores, the i7 is 60% higher GB score than the base i5.

The 11,641 score is on a 2.3Ghz i7 with 16GB of RAM on 10.8.2, while the 11,697 has the stock 4GB of RAM and 10.8.1.

Very curious to see what the scores are with the 2.6Ghz CPU.
Very impressive indeed
__________________
MM 2012 i7 2,6GHz,16GB RAM, Sams 840 250GB SSD + 1,5 TB Toshiba HDD, i7 3770 Hackintosh (build as my own MM), HK SoundStick II; iP 4S 32GB, iPad 4, and G4 DP 1,25 GHz - using as noise check
MM123 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2012, 08:31 AM   #3
philipma1957
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
the 2011 mid mini quad core has higher geekbench then the base 2012 mac pro.


If you need a good cpu this is it.

The bto should be marginally higher 11300 vs 13000 would be my guess. The value buy is the mid 2.3 . Add 8gb or 16gb ram on your own.


the really interesting option is the fusion setup. If it works well it may be worthwhile. I got a 2012 mid level I have it on hand. I am waiting for my 8gb ram. I will also use an external ssd via t-bolt.
philipma1957 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2012, 09:17 AM   #4
MM123
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: CE
Quote:
Originally Posted by philipma1957 View Post
the 2011 mid mini quad core has higher geekbench then the base 2012 mac pro.


If you need a good cpu this is it.

The bto should be marginally higher 11300 vs 13000 would be my guess. The value buy is the mid 2.3 . Add 8gb or 16gb ram on your own.


the really interesting option is the fusion setup. If it works well it may be worthwhile. I got a 2012 mid level I have it on hand. I am waiting for my 8gb ram. I will also use an external ssd via t-bolt.
The i7 2,6GHz CPU could reach,or even break 13000 pt., that's almost exactly like my i7 3770 DT CPU in my Hack, which is really impressive for the new MM.
__________________
MM 2012 i7 2,6GHz,16GB RAM, Sams 840 250GB SSD + 1,5 TB Toshiba HDD, i7 3770 Hackintosh (build as my own MM), HK SoundStick II; iP 4S 32GB, iPad 4, and G4 DP 1,25 GHz - using as noise check
MM123 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2012, 09:30 AM   #5
palmharbor
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Exclamation Reliabilty?

It seems everyone is obsessed with faster, faster, faster. I got a NEW mac mini from the Tampa Apple Store and withing 24 hours it failed and I had to re-install the OS, it took about 4 hours on the phone to get things right as other things such as mail, desktop picture etc were not working right.All this speed and specs are MEANINGLESS... if the computer is NOT reliable.
palmharbor is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2012, 09:32 AM   #6
fa8362
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by palmharbor View Post
It seems everyone is obsessed with faster, faster, faster. I got a NEW mac mini from the Tampa Apple Store and withing 24 hours it failed and I had to re-install the OS, it took about 4 hours on the phone to get things right as other things such as mail, desktop picture etc were not working right.All this speed and specs are MEANINGLESS... if the computer is NOT reliable.
What do you mean it failed? If it had really failed, you wouldn't have been able to do anything to it because it would have been dead.
fa8362 is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2012, 09:44 AM   #7
iamthedudeman
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by MM123 View Post
The i7 2,6GHz CPU could reach,or even break 13000 pt., that's almost exactly like my i7 3770 DT CPU in my Hack, which is really impressive for the new MM.
It can.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1198797
iamthedudeman is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2012, 10:02 AM   #8
vastoholic
macrumors 68000
 
vastoholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Tulsa, OK
Quote:
Originally Posted by palmharbor View Post
It seems everyone is obsessed with faster, faster, faster. I got a NEW mac mini from the Tampa Apple Store and withing 24 hours it failed and I had to re-install the OS, it took about 4 hours on the phone to get things right as other things such as mail, desktop picture etc were not working right.All this speed and specs are MEANINGLESS... if the computer is NOT reliable.
Angry poster is angry. No need for the yelling. A few bad computers does not make an entire line a failrure or unreliable. Is this your first mini? I've had nothing but great experiences with my past mini's. Just have apple look into it for a possible fix or even replacement.
__________________
View my flickr sets....if you want. They're not too exciting.
vastoholic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2012, 12:16 PM   #9
xheathen
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by philipma1957 View Post
the 2011 mid mini quad core has higher geekbench then the base 2012 mac pro.


If you need a good cpu this is it.

The bto should be marginally higher 11300 vs 13000 would be my guess. The value buy is the mid 2.3 . Add 8gb or 16gb ram on your own.


the really interesting option is the fusion setup. If it works well it may be worthwhile. I got a 2012 mid level I have it on hand. I am waiting for my 8gb ram. I will also use an external ssd via t-bolt.

Does this mean you have a mid with the fusion in it? That's the main thing I'm waiting to find out before pulling the trigger. If fusion is as good as advertised I'd do that rather than buy the ssd.
xheathen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2012, 12:21 PM   #10
philipma1957
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by xheathen View Post
Does this mean you have a mid with the fusion in it? That's the main thing I'm waiting to find out before pulling the trigger. If fusion is as good as advertised I'd do that rather than buy the ssd.
no I won't buy new tech like this. I will wait for it to prove itself. I will also try to find out if the tech can be done in a new mini with my own ssd and the stock hdd.

I have the mid with a lacie little big disk that has 2x 512gb ssds in it. so I have a 1tb ssd external as the booter and a 1tb oem hdd inside as the backup.
philipma1957 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2012, 12:33 PM   #11
rkahl
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by palmharbor View Post
It seems everyone is obsessed with faster, faster, faster. I got a NEW mac mini from the Tampa Apple Store and withing 24 hours it failed and I had to re-install the OS, it took about 4 hours on the phone to get things right as other things such as mail, desktop picture etc were not working right.All this speed and specs are MEANINGLESS... if the computer is NOT reliable.
Calm down, you'll get a new one.
__________________
Too much!
rkahl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2012, 01:17 PM   #12
fig
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Houston, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by philipma1957 View Post
no I won't buy new tech like this. I will wait for it to prove itself. I will also try to find out if the tech can be done in a new mini with my own ssd and the stock hdd.
Bingo. I love the Fusion drive in concept but I don't plan on being a guinea pig
__________________
figdigital | @figdigital | dribbble
fig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2012, 01:25 PM   #13
NewbieCanada
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by fa8362 View Post
What do you mean it failed? If it had really failed, you wouldn't have been able to do anything to it because it would have been dead.
I think he meant it turned all his text bold.
__________________
nMP 6-core, D500, 32 GB, 1 TB rMBP 13" '13 2.4 gHz, 256 GB, 8GB iPhone 6 Plus 128GB Silver iPhone 5 64GB iPad Air 128
NewbieCanada is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2012, 01:55 PM   #14
dasx
macrumors 65816
 
dasx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Barcelona
Quote:
Originally Posted by cocacolakid View Post
The 11,641 score is on a 2.3Ghz i7 with 16GB of RAM on 10.8.2, while the 11,697 has the stock 4GB of RAM and 10.8.1.
Mmm... how's that even possible? Does 10.8.1 outperform 10.8.2? Even with 1/4 RAM?
__________________
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 Oct 27, 2012, 02:02 PM   #15
cocacolakid
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
cocacolakid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasx View Post
Mmm... how's that even possible? Does 10.8.1 outperform 10.8.2? Even with 1/4 RAM?
I don't know, but it could be the 10.8.1 had been upgraded to an SSD by the user, I suppose. I don't see anything in the Geekbench scores to indicate what hard drives people are using. When I first started this thread there were only 6 Geekbench scores, now it's 150 or more, and a lot of them appear to be Hackintosh's and not actually Mac mini's. If it shows a 3.5 GHz CPU then it's a Hackintosh.
__________________
2012 Mini 2.3 i7 Samsung 840 250 GB SSD 16GB RAM
2012 13" MBP Samsung SSD, 16GB RAM
TBD, iPad 4, iPhone 4S
cocacolakid is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2012, 02:36 PM   #16
Hessel
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Renkum
Send a message via AIM to Hessel Send a message via MSN to Hessel
Quote:
Originally Posted by palmharbor View Post
It seems everyone is obsessed with faster, faster, faster. I got a NEW mac mini from the Tampa Apple Store and withing 24 hours it failed and I had to re-install the OS, it took about 4 hours on the phone to get things right as other things such as mail, desktop picture etc were not working right.All this speed and specs are MEANINGLESS... if the computer is NOT reliable.
what this teaches us, is that it's best to buy your Mac (or any Apple device) from a PHYSICAL Store! that way you can return your Mac, get it swapped, repaired, or simply get back your money back for ''buyers remorse''.

save yourself the trouble & don't buy online.
Hessel is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2012, 02:49 PM   #17
dasx
macrumors 65816
 
dasx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Barcelona
Quote:
Originally Posted by cocacolakid View Post
I don't know, but it could be the 10.8.1 had been upgraded to an SSD by the user, I suppose. I don't see anything in the Geekbench scores to indicate what hard drives people are using. When I first started this thread there were only 6 Geekbench scores, now it's 150 or more, and a lot of them appear to be Hackintosh's and not actually Mac mini's. If it shows a 3.5 GHz CPU then it's a Hackintosh.
As there are no 2.6Ghz Mini benchmarks yet, I looked at the 15" MBP ones.
(2.6 GHz ones, 2.3GHz ones)
Took 10 pages of each and put them into two sepparate plain txt files. Did some "magic" on terminal and the averages are these:

2.3GHZ: 10884.5
2.6GHZ: 11795.3

Of course there are some which have 4GB or RAM and some which have 16GB, some with HDDs and some with SSDs... but I think in 10 pages the thing's gotta be pretty accurate. (247 of 2.3GHz results and 249 of the 2.6GHz one)
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Captura de pantalla 2012-10-27 a la(s) 21.49.01.png
Views:	116
Size:	69.4 KB
ID:	372756  
__________________
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 Oct 27, 2012, 03:07 PM   #18
cocacolakid
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
cocacolakid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasx View Post
As there are no 2.6Ghz Mini benchmarks yet, I looked at the 15" MBP ones.
(2.6 GHz ones, 2.3GHz ones)
Took 10 pages of each and put them into two sepparate plain txt files. Did some "magic" on terminal and the averages are these:

2.3GHZ: 10884.5
2.6GHZ: 11795.3

Of course there are some which have 4GB or RAM and some which have 16GB, some with HDDs and some with SSDs... but I think in 10 pages the thing's gotta be pretty accurate. (247 of 2.3GHz results and 249 of the 2.6GHz one)
Nice work.
__________________
2012 Mini 2.3 i7 Samsung 840 250 GB SSD 16GB RAM
2012 13" MBP Samsung SSD, 16GB RAM
TBD, iPad 4, iPhone 4S
cocacolakid is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2012, 03:43 PM   #19
Whackman
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
So just to be sure. A quad core 2.6 with 16GB of Ram and a SSd will be GLORIOUS to work on, right? How does the fusion drive stack up compared to the SSD?... cause it's cheaper amd 1TB.
Whackman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2012, 03:51 PM   #20
philipma1957
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whackman View Post
So just to be sure. A quad core 2.6 with 16GB of Ram and a SSd will be GLORIOUS to work on, right? How does the fusion drive stack up compared to the SSD?... cause it's cheaper amd 1TB.
fusion might be great or it might stink you should wait to see if there are bugs. you don't need the 2.6 unless your tasks are very cpu intense . i am running the 2.3 quad and it flys. runs cool and quiet for the most part.

If you are going to rush and buy.

I would say buy the 2.3 and 16gb ram along with this.


http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10599

while I have a lacie little big disk with 2x 512gb ssd in it I am an unusual user in that I create killer setups talk about them on this site plus sell a few of them for power users.

very few users need the 2.6 quad.
philipma1957 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2012, 04:16 PM   #21
cocacolakid
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
cocacolakid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by philipma1957 View Post
fusion might be great or it might stink you should wait to see if there are bugs. you don't need the 2.6 unless your tasks are very cpu intense . i am running the 2.3 quad and it flys. runs cool and quiet for the most part.

If you are going to rush and buy.

I would say buy the 2.3 and 16gb ram along with this.


http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10599

while I have a lacie little big disk with 2x 512gb ssd in it I am an unusual user in that I create killer setups talk about them on this site plus sell a few of them for power users.

very few users need the 2.6 quad.

Did you get everything worked out so the 2012 is booting fine now on the external drive?
UPDATE: I see in your thread you've got it fixed now. Good.
__________________
2012 Mini 2.3 i7 Samsung 840 250 GB SSD 16GB RAM
2012 13" MBP Samsung SSD, 16GB RAM
TBD, iPad 4, iPhone 4S

Last edited by cocacolakid; Oct 27, 2012 at 04:55 PM.
cocacolakid is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2012, 04:31 PM   #22
Whackman
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by philipma1957 View Post
fusion might be great or it might stink you should wait to see if there are bugs. you don't need the 2.6 unless your tasks are very cpu intense . i am running the 2.3 quad and it flys. runs cool and quiet for the most part.

If you are going to rush and buy.

I would say buy the 2.3 and 16gb ram along with this.


http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10599

while I have a lacie little big disk with 2x 512gb ssd in it I am an unusual user in that I create killer setups talk about them on this site plus sell a few of them for power users.

very few users need the 2.6 quad.
Thanx. Yeah i guess the 2.3 will be fine. Thanx.

Do you think it's wiser to order stock and buy ram and a ssd myself?
Whackman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2012, 04:54 PM   #23
cocacolakid
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
cocacolakid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whackman View Post
Thanx. Yeah i guess the 2.3 will be fine. Thanx.

Do you think it's wiser to order stock and buy ram and a ssd myself?
Definitely buy the RAM yourself. You'll save over $200.

As for the SSD. Many of us have put our own SSD's in mini's and MacBooks without problems. That said, a Mountain Lion update turned off trim on third party SSD's, although an update to Trim Enabler fixed it again. It appears Apple doesn't like us installing our own SSD's. If you buy the Apple SSD you're paying $100-150 more, but you will have an SSD that will work without tinkering with it if/when Apple kills third party trim support once again.

Some people don't use trim. I've noticed after upgrading to ML that my Samsung 830 was showing the wrong free space available. I re-enabled trim again and it seems to be fine, but that is something to consider. Many people aren't hands on and wouldn't want to mess with that, but it doesn't bother me (or any of the tinkerers on this board).

When I ordered my 2012 I just ordered the FusionDrive. I'm curious how that will work out. If it feels significantly slower than my Samsung I'll just return the mini and get one with a traditional hard drive and buy a larger SSD. But the potential of a 1TB HD that acts supposedly similar to an SSD without the 1TB SSD price was too much to pass up.
__________________
2012 Mini 2.3 i7 Samsung 840 250 GB SSD 16GB RAM
2012 13" MBP Samsung SSD, 16GB RAM
TBD, iPad 4, iPhone 4S
cocacolakid is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2012, 06:39 PM   #24
raysfan81
macrumors 6502a
 
raysfan81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North Carolina
Quote:
Originally Posted by cocacolakid View Post
Definitely buy the RAM yourself. You'll save over $200.
THIS. Apple cost=$300 OWC cost=$115. That really is a no brainer.
__________________
Broken Ipod Touch 1st gen 16gb & Zune HD 64gb
eMac 1.42 ghz,80gb hd & 500mhz Snow iMac g3, 2ghz Unibody MB
400 mhz G4 "Sawtooth", Dual 1.42 ghz MDD, 17" 1.83 ghz C2D iMac
raysfan81 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2012, 07:03 PM   #25
cocacolakid
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
cocacolakid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by raysfan81 View Post
THIS. Apple cost=$300 OWC cost=$115. That really is a no brainer.
And Crucial is $82, so the range of savings is huge and a chimp could upgrade the ram on the 2010/11/12 mini's.
__________________
2012 Mini 2.3 i7 Samsung 840 250 GB SSD 16GB RAM
2012 13" MBP Samsung SSD, 16GB RAM
TBD, iPad 4, iPhone 4S
cocacolakid is offline   2 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
iPad Mini: iPad mini with Retina Display Geekbench 3 scores. JUiCEJamie iPad 10 Oct 31, 2013 03:34 AM
2012 iMac Geekbench scores 21.5" vs. 27" StephenCampbell iMac 2 Sep 27, 2013 01:30 AM
2012 iMac 3.4 ; Why The Unimpressive Geekbench Scores? 2.3Ghz=11,100; 3.4Ghz=13,100 Ahheck01 iMac 18 Dec 17, 2012 05:54 AM
First Geekbench scores up for new mini! flatfoot99 Mac mini 22 Oct 29, 2012 10:19 AM
2012 Mac mini can run 32GB of RAM? Look at this Geekbench score cocacolakid Mac mini 5 Oct 27, 2012 11:44 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:33 AM.

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

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