Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac mini

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 10, 2012, 02:08 PM   #1
HappyIslander
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Mac mini dual-core vs quad-core

I'm planning on buying a Mac mini. Is there much difference in performance between the 2.5 GHz dual-core i5 and the more expensive 2.3 GHz quad-core i7?
HappyIslander is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 08:10 PM   #2
dasx
macrumors 65816
 
dasx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Barcelona
It'd be useful to know what you plan to use the computer for.
Web browsing? Then no need for the i7. Handbrake 24/7? Hell yes.
__________________
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 10, 2012, 08:59 PM   #3
LeandrodaFL
macrumors 6502a
 
LeandrodaFL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Go for Quad-core with Fusion drive. I really dont see why one would not make this configuration
LeandrodaFL is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 09:31 PM   #4
Snowcake
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeandrodaFL View Post
Go for Quad-core with Fusion drive. I really dont see why one would not make this configuration
The Quadcore is 45W and the Dualcore is 35W.

The average temps of the quadcore on full load = -+98C.
Others have seen temperatures of 105C and then the cpu begins to throttle(lower speed) to lower the temps. And... The cpu's in the 2012 Mac Mini line have all a TJUNCTION of 105C...

I would choose the Dual, but only because of the high temps of the quadcore and you save money too.

The cpus:

Dual-core spec: http://ark.intel.com/products/67355/...-3_10-GHz-rPGA

Quad-core spec: http://ark.intel.com/products/64900/...up-to-3_30-GHz

For social media, browsing, iTunes and watching movies the Dualcore is more than enough.
Snowcake is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 12:01 AM   #5
Malte.
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Sweden
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeandrodaFL View Post
Go for Quad-core with Fusion drive. I really dont see why one would not make this configuration
Personally i would go for the quad, but obviously everyone doesn't have as much money as some people in here to trow at a computer.
Take a look at this, swedish prices translated to US dollar for the mac minis..

Dualcore no option: 859$
Quad with fusion: 1520$

Almost twice as expensive, but of course much more power.
Malte. is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 02:54 AM   #6
OldSchoolMacGuy
macrumors 6502a
 
OldSchoolMacGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowcake View Post
The Quadcore is 45W and the Dualcore is 35W.

The average temps of the quadcore on full load = -+98C.
Others have seen temperatures of 105C and then the cpu begins to throttle(lower speed) to lower the temps. And... The cpu's in the 2012 Mac Mini line have all a TJUNCTION of 105C...

I would choose the Dual, but only because of the high temps of the quadcore and you save money too.

The cpus:

Dual-core spec: http://ark.intel.com/products/67355/...-3_10-GHz-rPGA

Quad-core spec: http://ark.intel.com/products/64900/...up-to-3_30-GHz

For social media, browsing, iTunes and watching movies the Dualcore is more than enough.
Picking a machine based on temp is just stupid. That's like picking a car based on thermostat opening temp.
OldSchoolMacGuy is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 05:41 AM   #7
stu.h
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: West Midlands, England.
I bought the i7 2.6 and I only use it for basic stuff, and I added my own 16gb of Crucial memory and a 256gb Samsung 530 SSD.
The option is there now however should I choose to use it for other things.
Plus resale value.
stu.h is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 10:10 AM   #8
HappyIslander
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Thanks for the replies! All really useful. I am only planning on using it for web coding and nothing intensive.

Thanks again.
HappyIslander is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 12:37 PM   #9
Yanwoo
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
My usage is pretty 'gentle' too but I'm going for the 2.6GHz i7 with 256gb ssd. I like my machines to be super snappy across the board and it gives me some comfort that if I need the extra grunt in the future it's there. I've never regretted bumping up the spec but have regretted not doing so... (I got the base 11" macbook air in 2010 and wish I'd gone for more ram)
Yanwoo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 12:57 PM   #10
iMas70
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Yup, kind of like with a car, you usually don't need to use all of it's horsepower but there are those times when you merge into traffic and 500 horsepower gets you there a lot easier than 150. Especially when there is a big truck coming at you!

I thought about getting the dual core for a few seconds then decided that the base quad will be a nice mid-range option. I rather have to much than to little. Basic web stuff and some photo management. Nothing heavy at all.
__________________
iPhone 5 (32GB), iPad 4 (32GB), Apple TV, 2.3 GHz i7 Mac Mini - 16 GB RAM!
iMas70 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 01:25 PM   #11
fa8362
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
If you're only using it for web coding, I doubt you need the quad core. Moreover, you should be wary of people advising you to spend hundreds of dollars more than you need to spend. You'll never get that money back, even if you resell the computer. The vast majority of people who buy used are motivated by price, not sizzle, so the extras will have little value to them.
fa8362 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 05:40 PM   #12
Snowcake
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSchoolMacGuy View Post
Picking a machine based on temp is just stupid. That's like picking a car based on thermostat opening temp.
Sigh... If you live in a environment where it is 35C or more. Than you have to be stupid to go for the 45W quadcore version since it use 10W more than the dualcore. Hell, it can easily go to 105c or more.

Also Apple let the cpu getting too hot and that is bad for the lifespan.
Hot laptops and pc always die much sooner than cool laptops/pc's.

Apple just want to make money if your Mac fails. That is how it works.

It is much more likely that your cpu fails at high temps then at low temps.

So not stupid at all, you clearly have no insight at the failure rates for pc's or laptops. (And the reasons)

Apple and overheating are pretty common. Apple thinks design is more important than heat.
Snowcake is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 06:28 PM   #13
FlotationDevice
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowcake View Post
Sigh... If you live in a environment where it is 35C or more. Than you have to be stupid to go for the 45W quadcore version since it use 10W more than the dualcore. Hell, it can easily go to 105c or more.

Also Apple let the cpu getting too hot and that is bad for the lifespan.
Hot laptops and pc always die much sooner than cool laptops/pc's.

Apple just want to make money if your Mac fails. That is how it works.

It is much more likely that your cpu fails at high temps then at low temps.

So not stupid at all, you clearly have no insight at the failure rates for pc's or laptops. (And the reasons)

Apple and overheating are pretty common. Apple thinks design is more important than heat.
Sorry to be flip (you can see from my history that I haven't been), but the solution to the referenced climate issue is AIR CONDITIONING.

I agree on the money / CPU capacity trade-off; buy the base dual-core if you're doing basic tasks (which are broad nowadays--web, office, light photo work)--don't spend extra if you're computing needs don't require it. Likewise, I guess if you're using a machine in an unairconditioned warm environment temperature might play a role; but I don't understand why no one in the tropics should buy a quad-core.

I am the first to resent gear-heads who think they need every last toy for thir machine even when they never need the power (e.g., heavy graphics, etc.) Myself aside from a lot of RAM for a Windows VM I don't need that much power although on the balance enjoy the 2011 server quad-core at home (for the record, I may need to insource some SAS routines shortly that make this worthwhile). But I agree--I can't see why temperature should guide a purchase decision absent exceptional circumstances.
FlotationDevice is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 06:49 PM   #14
Snowcake
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlotationDevice View Post
Sorry to be flip (you can see from my history that I haven't been), but the solution to the referenced climate issue is AIR CONDITIONING.

I agree on the money / CPU capacity trade-off; buy the base dual-core if you're doing basic tasks (which are broad nowadays--web, office, light photo work)--don't spend extra if you're computing needs don't require it. Likewise, I guess if you're using a machine in an unairconditioned warm environment temperature might play a role; but I don't understand why no one in the tropics should buy a quad-core.

I am the first to resent gear-heads who think they need every last toy for thir machine even when they never need the power (e.g., heavy graphics, etc.) Myself aside from a lot of RAM for a Windows VM I don't need that much power although on the balance enjoy the 2011 server quad-core at home (for the record, I may need to insource some SAS routines shortly that make this worthwhile). But I agree--I can't see why temperature should guide a purchase decision absent exceptional circumstances.
Simply: Because of much higher failure-rates if the cpu is used heavy due to high temps. But if you can live with that go for the quad.
Snowcake is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 03:31 AM   #15
motrek
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowcake View Post
Simply: Because of much higher failure-rates if the cpu is used heavy due to high temps. But if you can live with that go for the quad.
Do you have any evidence that this is a problem for the Mini or any other Apple computer?

I know philipma1957 got a defective Mini and wrote about 34252345723 posts about it but so far I haven't read about any other Minis overheating and it's not clear to me if philipma1957's Mini was failing because of heat or simply because he happened to be running a stress test on it when a non-heat-related failure occurred.
motrek is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 04:16 AM   #16
spammerhamster
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
I canceled my Dual Core and went for a Quad instead. Simply because I plan to use it for more than 3 years. (like how my intel Q6600 served me for more than 5 years)
I did not need to processing power that much, especially in the beginning. But recent years there were time the extra CPU came in handy (for instance the higher resolution video that is now standard).

History repeats itself I'd think. I have no need for a faster CPU than a dualcore now, but what about 2-3 years?
spammerhamster is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 07:08 AM   #17
philipma1957
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by motrek View Post
Do you have any evidence that this is a problem for the Mini or any other Apple computer?

I know philipma1957 got a defective Mini and wrote about 34252345723 posts about it but so far I haven't read about any other Minis overheating and it's not clear to me if philipma1957's Mini was failing because of heat or simply because he happened to be running a stress test on it when a non-heat-related failure occurred.
only 100 posts. LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by spammerhamster View Post
I canceled my Dual Core and went for a Quad instead. Simply because I plan to use it for more than 3 years. (like how my intel Q6600 served me for more than 5 years)
I did not need to processing power that much, especially in the beginning. But recent years there were time the extra CPU came in handy (for instance the higher resolution video that is now standard).

History repeats itself I'd think. I have no need for a faster CPU than a dualcore now, but what about 2-3 years?


i suggest you buy istat menus 3 to monitor your temps. and set a more aggressive fan speed for cooling if you run hot a lot.





here is the bottom line ;

pushing the dual core to the max and running your fans at 3000rpm the cpu temps go to 180f.

room temp was 83f and I am not running ac in nov in New Jersey.

on my bad quad pushing it to the max with the fans at 5500rpm the temps went to 217f and the cpu

failed in under 2 hours. house temp was 78f.

I will get a replacement quad on Sat or Mon. I will re test it. It will be a lot hotter then the dual. I just

hope it does not fail.
philipma1957 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 11:34 AM   #18
Mojo1
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
You keep your house quite warm; your heating bills must be enormous!
Mojo1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 12:23 PM   #19
philipma1957
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo1 View Post
You keep your house quite warm; your heating bills must be enormous!
no it was 70f yesterday in new jersey and my home is crazy monster insulated
[diy all walls with dow great stuff]

and i was slow cooking ribs in the oven. so the house was hot.
philipma1957 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 12:24 PM   #20
Snowcake
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by motrek View Post
Do you have any evidence that this is a problem for the Mini or any other Apple computer?

I know philipma1957 got a defective Mini and wrote about 34252345723 posts about it but so far I haven't read about any other Minis overheating and it's not clear to me if philipma1957's Mini was failing because of heat or simply because he happened to be running a stress test on it when a non-heat-related failure occurred.
Mac Mini has the same hardware as pc's. Pc's/laptops who always run hot have always higher failure rates.

All the quadcore Mac Mini's under full load have max temperatures of 98c-105c+ and the Tjuction for the Ivy Bridge processors in the Mac Mini is 105C. They are running at their limit. Never read about it? Link> http://igtfy.com/?q=mac+mini+overheating

The temperatures of the defective cpu from philipma1957 are the same in comparison to other similar Mac Mini's, even if it has some miscalculations. It can't be that if a cpu has some miscalculations that it wil run much hotter because of that. If that was the case, you couldn't even start the Mac Mini. Like i said: Another similar (good) Mac Mini is going to have the same temperatures under the same circumstances as the faulty Mac Mini from philipma1957.

The heat that philipma expirienced during the test should be good. Because Apple says specific that the Mac Mini can operate correctly in environments where the temperature is as high as 35c max. The room temperature in the room of philipma was 27/28c. His cpu never got warmer as the tjuction of 105c afaik. So The cpu should be operating correctly under heavy load and high temperatures. Some people like to run folding home or other intensive tasks.

non-heat-related failure? If the cpu show errors it will likely also give errors if the cpu is under load cooled under 40c. The problem is obvious the cpu.

Last edited by Snowcake; Nov 13, 2012 at 12:43 PM.
Snowcake is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 12:40 PM   #21
Snowcake
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by philipma1957 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo1 View Post
You keep your house quite warm; your heating bills must be enormous!
no it was 70f yesterday in new jersey and my home is crazy monster insulated
[diy all walls with dow great stuff]

and i was slow cooking ribs in the oven. so the house was hot.
Whatever, maybe you lived in Africa.
Snowcake is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 01:34 PM   #22
motrek
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowcake View Post
Mac Mini has the same hardware as pc's. Pc's/laptops who always run hot have always higher failure rates.

All the quadcore Mac Mini's under full load have max temperatures of 98c-105c+ and the Tjuction for the Ivy Bridge processors in the Mac Mini is 105C. They are running at their limit. Never read about it? Link> http://igtfy.com/?q=mac+mini+overheating
I don't know that hot PCs/laptops have higher failure rates. People used to think that running a hard drive hot was bad but then Google published empirical data about how hard drives last longest if they are between 35-40C which was previously thought much too hot.

While I don't *like* the idea of running a CPU at its temperature limit, I'm not convinced it's a bad thing. Chip specifications are sort of like guarantees. If Intel says the chip will run at 105C then that means they are confident that the chip will run for a million hours straight at that temperature and still work correctly. Plus, all modern CPUs have failsafes to protect themselves from overheating--they will either slow down or turn off completely. So I am not worried about the CPU overheating but I would be interested to know if a hot CPU puts undue stress on, for example, the board it's mounted on.
motrek is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 01:59 PM   #23
philipma1957
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by motrek View Post
I don't know that hot PCs/laptops have higher failure rates. People used to think that running a hard drive hot was bad but then Google published empirical data about how hard drives last longest if they are between 35-40C which was previously thought much too hot.

While I don't *like* the idea of running a CPU at its temperature limit, I'm not convinced it's a bad thing. Chip specifications are sort of like guarantees. If Intel says the chip will run at 105C then that means they are confident that the chip will run for a million hours straight at that temperature and still work correctly. Plus, all modern CPUs have failsafes to protect themselves from overheating--they will either slow down or turn off completely. So I am not worried about the CPU overheating but I would be interested to know if a hot CPU puts undue stress on, for example, the board it's mounted on.
Bingo My major concern is the mobo's cpu socket.

for all I know my failed quad cpu is fine and it is just a case of the solder job to the mobo socket. still when I get the replacement. I will run the torture test in such a way that the cpu maxes at 190 to 200 f.
philipma1957 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 02:21 PM   #24
propower
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
I have 4 days left on my 14 day evaluation of the 2.6 mini quad and I am leaning towards getting the extended Applecare and keep it....

I am a recovering engineer (did power supply design for 25 years) and know these thermal issues very well! Much as I would prefer this unit had much better heatsinking I think it will work for me. I generally run a constant load (40% max probably) and under my test cases the CPUA temp hovers around the low 90's (just letting the built in fan do what it wants - hitting around 4000rpm by itself). Hot for sure but 10degC+ under limit.

Adding a 120mm Silenx 18dBA fan - pretty darned quiet) blowing on the back left of the mini (where the proc is) and running a constant 50% load gets me CPUA ~91degC and internal fan ~ 2750rpm.

Other reasons I have are
1) In three years (applecare) it will either fail and i get a new one or at the end of the three years I will want a new one anyway!
2) There are many methods I can use to aid the cooling if I really want to.
3) The alternative of a MacPro (I am selling my 2009 MP) is just way too big a price tag and footprint to warrant going that way for me.

I feel for the serious handbrake and video users! That is a different story for sure!
__________________
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 13, 2012, 03:01 PM   #25
MrXiro
macrumors 68020
 
MrXiro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Hyperthreading in i7 Quad Mini?

I'm a little confused. Not sure if I've got this wrong or not.
Does the 2.3Ghz i7 Quad Mini have Turbo Boast and Hyperthreading or is it just a Quad Core with Turbo Boost?

I thought it had Hyperthreading based on the verbiage on the Mac Mini page.

Quote:
When you’re using processor-intensive applications, Turbo Boost 2.0 increases the clock speed up to 3.6GHz. Hyper-Threading lets each core run two threads, so OS X multitasks even more efficiently. And an integrated memory controller connects fast 1600MHz memory directly to the processor, so it gets right to work on your data. In short, Mac mini is a little box of vroom.
Can anyone clear this up for me?
Thanks!
__________________
Whole lotta Apples, very little $.
MrXiro 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
Dual or quad core mac mini? gadgetgirl85 Buying Tips and Advice 5 Mar 22, 2013 02:59 PM
Mac Mini (2012) Dual Core vs Quad Core as a media center CeratixD Buying Tips and Advice 14 Feb 20, 2013 12:32 AM
Mac mini 2012 Dual-Core or Quad-Core? jmine83 Mac mini 15 Feb 6, 2013 08:51 PM
One core, dual core, quad core? Whats A6? Sensamic iPhone 49 Sep 13, 2012 03:59 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:38 AM.

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

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