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 Feb 26, 2013, 07:03 AM   #1
here2rock
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Australia
Difference between 2.3GHz and 2.6GHZ i7?

I am wondering whether there is much of a difference between 2.3GHz and 2.6BHz 2012 Mac Mini Quad Core i7?

I am thinking save $120 and use those on upgrading the RAM and accessories for it.
here2rock is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2013, 07:06 AM   #2
AlbertEinstein
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
If you are doing very CPU heavy tasks i recommend the extra 300 MHz. Otherwise you would be well off with an i5.
AlbertEinstein is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2013, 07:06 AM   #3
benwiggy
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
The difference is 0.3 !!

You can see benchmark scores such as Geekbench to get some idea.

It's probably not that noticeable, unless you're doing very heavy processing that maxes out the CPU, in which case you might get a slightly quicker time when using app like Handbrake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlbertEinstein View Post
If you are doing very CPU heavy tasks i recommend the extra 300 MHz. Otherwise you would be well off with an i5.
The 2.3 GHz is an i7, and that's definitely going to be a noticeable improvement on many tasks over the 2.5 GHz i5 base model.
benwiggy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2013, 07:12 AM   #4
AlbertEinstein
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwiggy View Post
snip
I meant the i5. If he isn't going to do CPU intensive tasks there will be no need for a better processor.
AlbertEinstein is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2013, 07:13 AM   #5
McCaffers
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Depends on what your doing. I don't think it's worth the $120 price tag in my opinion. Unless your going to be doing CPU heavy tasks, say rending movies or doing data analysis/visualization (matlab) I would stick with the 2.3GHz. It'll run like a dream, the i7's are great!
__________________
Me
McCaffers is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2013, 07:16 AM   #6
here2rock
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Australia
Initially I was looking at the base i5 but i7 seems a safer bet with occasional gaming with the RAM boosted to 16GB. Hopefully this can last me for the next 3-5 years.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by benwiggy View Post
The difference is 0.3 !!
Good one, lol.

Does it translate to anything in real life or Apple is just getting me to spend more? I won't be doing any video encoding using Handbrake but will be using Photoshop, Premier and casual gaming.
here2rock is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2013, 07:35 AM   #7
benwiggy
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
There are certainly advantages in having the i7 CPU over the i5.

That having been said, computers are getting more powerful at a much faster rate than processing tasks are increasing in complexity.

Moderate usage of anything should be easily handled by any modern computer. Unless you're talking about "Pro" apps.

But these days, Photoshop isn't really a CPU-intensive task, unless you're a special breed of photographer. I've been using PS since version 2.5 on Macs with 30 MHz CPUs, and watched progress bars chug away for 30 seconds while a Blur filter was applied. Photos might have got bigger, and PS has bloated with features, but its need haven't developed at the same rate as raw hardware power.

If you are looking at BTO options, I would recommend the Fusion drive. It's very clever and gives you SSD speed with HDD storage.

A 2012 Mini should easily last you 3-5 years. My last iMac lasted over six years. My 2009 MacBook is still in daily use running 10.8.
benwiggy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2013, 07:44 AM   #8
hamkor04
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwiggy View Post
The difference is 0.3 !!

The 2.3 GHz is an i7, and that's definitely going to be a noticeable improvement on many tasks over the 2.5 GHz i5 base model.
I think, he is asking about 2.3GHz i7 and 2.6GHz i7. (not base model)

----------

get 2.3 and upgrade ram and SSD, you won't be disappointed
__________________
“All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.”
hamkor04 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2013, 07:53 AM   #9
here2rock
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by hamkor04 View Post
I think, he is asking about 2.3GHz i7 and 2.6GHz i7. (not base model)

----------

get 2.3 and upgrade ram and SSD, you won't be disappointed
Exactly! i7 gives me a bit more power. I'm not sure whether I'm going to get a significant boost going from 2.3GHz to 2.6 GHz.

Fusion drive is a good option but I will be installing a SSD to boot and run apps.
here2rock is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2013, 07:56 AM   #10
paulrbeers
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by here2rock View Post
I am wondering whether there is much of a difference between 2.3GHz and 2.6BHz 2012 Mac Mini Quad Core i7?

I am thinking save $120 and use those on upgrading the RAM and accessories for it.
As everyone has said, go with the 2.3ghz. If for no other reason, than you can find those on sale (sometimes) from other resellers since they are a "standard" offering. Even the resellers who offer BTO models, do not offer any real savings than buying from Apple directly. The difference is about 10% in high CPU tasks, but virtually nothing in day to day "normal" tasks (internet, documents, etc. etc.).
__________________
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 offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2013, 08:00 AM   #11
here2rock
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Australia
I think you are right. Do you know any retailers who might have it on special? What is the model number for the latest model? I see if I can find one on eBay.
here2rock is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2013, 08:56 AM   #12
hamkor04
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by here2rock View Post
Exactly! i7 gives me a bit more power. I'm not sure whether I'm going to get a significant boost going from 2.3GHz to 2.6 GHz.

Fusion drive is a good option but I will be installing a SSD to boot and run apps.
I don't think you will notice the difference (in your usage). I got 2.3 and im happy, anyway CPU will be idle because of your light tasks and other slow (HDD or Fusion) speed. if you need a storage setup a Fusion with good SSD and get decent 16GB RAM.
You will be OK for couple of years
__________________
“All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.”
hamkor04 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2013, 09:28 AM   #13
kobyh15
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by here2rock View Post
I think you are right. Do you know any retailers who might have it on special? What is the model number for the latest model? I see if I can find one on eBay.
You can get free shipping and escape sales tax with some retailers. J&R and Amazon are good places to look. B&H photo usually has good deals on the base model, or if you're looking to get AppleCare they usually offer a heavy discount if you buy with a new Mac. If you have a Discover card, J&R is a ShopDiscover retailer, so there is 5% cashback if you go through Discover's website. Apple refurbs are always a good way to go to save some cash as well.
kobyh15 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2013, 09:45 AM   #14
eternlgladiator
macrumors 68000
 
eternlgladiator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Twin Cities
Quote:
Originally Posted by here2rock View Post
I think you are right. Do you know any retailers who might have it on special? What is the model number for the latest model? I see if I can find one on eBay.
bhphotovideo.com has it for 771 and unless you live in the wrong state you won't be charged sales tax. They also are giving away a free copy of software and you can get applecare for half price. Killer deal.
__________________
2011 MacBook Air 1.8 i7
iPhone 5 White 32GB
iPad Mini White 32GB Wifi
eternlgladiator is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2013, 10:45 AM   #15
Mojo1
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwiggy View Post
I've been using PS since version 2.5 on Macs with 30 MHz CPUs, and watched progress bars chug away for 30 seconds while a Blur filter was applied.
Photoshop CS6 and earlier versions use GPU acceleration to speed up certain operations and Blur is on the list. (The affected operations vary depending on the Photoshop version; there are details at the Adobe website.)

If you use Iris Blur on a 2012 Mac Mini you will wait a lot longer than 30 seconds: http://www.barefeats.com/minivim.html.

Photographers who utilize Photoshop features that take advantage of GPU acceleration on a regular basis will experience huge speed increases by using a computer with a discrete graphics card that supports the Mercury Graphics Engine.
Mojo1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2013, 11:10 AM   #16
benwiggy
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo1 View Post
If you use Iris Blur on a 2012 Mac Mini you will wait a lot longer than 30 seconds: http://www.barefeats.com/minivim.html.
212 seconds? How big's the image?
An A4 RGB image @ 300dpi takes under 4 seconds to do an Iris Blur on my 2.6 Mini -- whether you use the GPU or if you turn it off and let the CPU do it in Photoshop's prefs.
A 150Mpx image takes c. 10 seconds.

If performing Iris Blurs was my main job, then maybe I would go for different Mac. Maybe not.
benwiggy is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2013, 03:00 PM   #17
here2rock
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by kobyh15 View Post
You can get free shipping and escape sales tax with some retailers. J&R and Amazon are good places to look. B&H photo usually has good deals
Thank you.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by eternlgladiator View Post
bhphotovideo.com has it for 771 and unless you live in the wrong state you won't be charged sales tax. They also are giving away a free copy of software and you can get applecare for half price. Killer deal.
That is a good price!
here2rock is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2013, 12:34 PM   #18
Mojo1
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwiggy View Post
212 seconds? How big's the image?
An A4 RGB image @ 300dpi takes under 4 seconds to do an Iris Blur on my 2.6 Mini -- whether you use the GPU or if you turn it off and let the CPU do it in Photoshop's prefs.
A 150Mpx image takes c. 10 seconds.

If performing Iris Blurs was my main job, then maybe I would go for different Mac. Maybe not.
Here is the response from Rob at Barefeats.com:

In our iris blur test, we use 500px blur and zoom in on a certain window of a 169GB (6096x4558) TIFF image. (see attached screen shot). It takes 15 seconds on an iMac with 680mx and 25 seconds on a Retina MacBook Pro.

The Mac mini lacks OpenCL support -- which is the point I was making by showing the 212 second time it took to render the same setup.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	iris_blur_email.png
Views:	31
Size:	215.1 KB
ID:	399666  
Mojo1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2013, 05:22 AM   #19
benwiggy
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo1 View Post
169GB (6096x4558) TIFF image.
A 6096 x 4558 image is only 80 Mpx, and makes an 80 Mb TIFF file, which is less than the sizes I quoted in my tests.
If the TIFF file really is 169 Gb in size, then that's a ridiculously vast image, well beyond almost everyone's normal usage (and possibly too large for PS to handle).
As I showed above, doing Iris Blurs on regular and even large images is well within more acceptable time limits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo1 View Post
The Mac mini lacks OpenCL support -- which is the point I was making.
And the point I'm making is that it doesn't really matter for real-world usage.

Last edited by benwiggy; Feb 28, 2013 at 05:29 AM.
benwiggy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2013, 10:49 AM   #20
Mojo1
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwiggy View Post
A 6096 x 4558 image is only 80 Mpx, and makes an 80 Mb TIFF file, which is less than the sizes I quoted in my tests.
If the TIFF file really is 169 Gb in size, then that's a ridiculously vast image, well beyond almost everyone's normal usage (and possibly too large for PS to handle).
As I showed above, doing Iris Blurs on regular and even large images is well within more acceptable time limits.


And the point I'm making is that it doesn't really matter for real-world usage.
I didn't catch it but I think that he obviously meant MB not GB...

And depending on your "real world" usage the lack of graphics acceleration can make a significant difference. There is lots of info available at the Adobe website and elsewhere about the subject.
Mojo1 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
UI lag difference between 2.3ghz and 2.6ghz 15" retina Eriatarka MacBook Pro 28 Apr 27, 2013 04:17 PM
rMBP- 2.3Ghz vs 2.6Ghz vs 2.7Ghz AlexBass MacBook Pro 11 Jul 27, 2012 05:53 PM
2.3GHz or 2.6GHz cMBP r.egan MacBook Pro 7 Jul 21, 2012 07:38 PM
2.3GHz or 2.6GHz Phazonite MacBook Pro 22 Jul 13, 2012 12:23 PM
2.3ghz vs 2.6ghz superx MacBook Pro 0 Jun 11, 2012 02:54 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:30 AM.

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

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