Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Late 2014 Mac Mini Benchmarks Indicate Decreased Multi-Core Performance

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,481
30,711



The newly refreshed Mac mini is seeing improved single-core performance over the previous models, but decreased multi-core performance, according to a newly released GeekBench benchmark. John Poole of Primate Labs says that the upper tier Late 2012 Mac minis, which had quad-core Ivy Bridge processors, saw better multi-core performance than the new Late 2014 models, which have dual-core Haswell processors.

macmini2014.png
Unlike single-core performance multi-core performance has decreased significantly. The "Good" model (which has a dual-core processor in both lineups) is down 7%. The other models (which have a dual-core processor in the "Late 2014" lineup but a quad-core processor in the "Late 2012" lineup) is down from 70% to 80%.
Click to expand...
Poole notes that Apple may have switched to dual-core processors in some Late 2014 Mac minis because Haswell dual-core processors use one socket to connect the logic board and processor while Haswell quad-core processors use different sockets. This would mean Apple would have to design and build two separate logic boards specifically for the Mac mini, while other Macs use the same logic boards across its individual line.

This trade-off didn't exist with Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge processors because both of its dual-core and quad-core processors used the same socket. Another option, according to Poole, is that Apple could have went quad-core across its new Mac mini line, but it would have made it difficult for Apple to hit the $499 price point.

Despite the decreased quad-core performance, the single-core performance of the new Mac mini is in line with other Macs' performance jumps from Ivy Bridge to Haswell.

Base configurations for the Mac mini are currently available for purchase on Apple's online store with pricing starting at $499 and will ship in one to three days. Custom configurations ship within three to five days.

Article Link: Late 2014 Mac Mini Benchmarks Indicate Decreased Multi-Core Performance
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/10/19/mac-mini-2014-benchmark/
F

farewelwilliams

Suspended
Jun 18, 2014
4,966
18,041
soldered on ram
slower multi-core
dual-core only
server option removed (no 2tb)

does anyone else think that Apple was supposed to release a redesigned Mac Mini but because broadwell got delayed and Apple ended up just releasing a revised edition at the very last minute?
 
NOV

NOV

macrumors 6502
Mar 27, 2004
406
158
The Netherlands
Shows their priorities: 2 logic boards for a headless mac is too cumbersome. The (semi-)professional user will be hit hard by Apple in forthcoming years as Apple is quietly drawing back from this market.
 
AlecZ

AlecZ

macrumors 65816
Sep 11, 2014
1,173
123
Berkeley, CA
Those people who complained about Apple Computer becoming Apple have been correct thus far about their predictions. Also, sorry, just being picky:
Another option, according to Poole, is that Apple could have went quad-core across its new Mac mini line, but it would have made it difficult for Apple to hit the $499 price point.
Click to expand...
 
F

formerapplefan

macrumors member
Sep 9, 2014
78
102
Woohoo Apple innovates again.

I will skip this generation and wait for the one with the single core Pentium CPU.
 
Dilster3k

Dilster3k

macrumors 6502a
Jul 20, 2014
790
3,206
That is a significant drop in performance. Especially under working to display all those pixels, very disappointing especially under that high price. I'm just wondering why they opted for lower tier processors in this new generation. (3720qm to 4578u?)
 
Riot Nrrrd

Riot Nrrrd

macrumors 6502
Feb 23, 2011
258
139
Lost Androideles
"This would mean Apple would have to design and build two separate logic boards specifically for the Mac mini, while other Macs use the same logic boards across their individual line."

Heaven forbid a company with $100 billion in cash have to spend a little extra money for a separate logic board to avoid crippling a product line. :rolleyes:
 
L

Lazy

macrumors 6502
May 27, 2003
305
335
Silicon Valley
Well if this is the reason that's some reassurance that maybe Apple doesn't just simply hate the mini. (It's very clear they don't like it and want everyone to buy an iMac instead, but they had at least seemed Ok with offering it for those who insisted.)

Perhaps if the next generation processor uses the same socket for both dual and quad core there will quad core options again. Especially if everyone continues to complain about it, so please carry on! :)
 
Lucky736

Lucky736

macrumors 6502a
Jan 18, 2004
994
662
US
NOV said:
Shows their priorities: 2 logic boards for a headless mac is too cumbersome. The (semi-)professional user will be hit hard by Apple in forthcoming years as Apple is quietly drawing back from this market.
Click to expand...

A "(semi-) professional" should pony up for the model that allows them to best do their job. At no time, other than the Server model, has Apple ever indicated that these were ideal for many of the uses people ended up finding for them, they just happened to be able to handle them.

It has RARELY been billed as anything but an entry into the Apple Ecosystem.

That having been said if my opinion is asked for, I definitely don't care for the lack of being able to upgrade the basics of the machine however I do understand their position as well on doing it this way.

Also, for everyone that thinks Quad everything would have been a solution, please put the pipe down. They are not going to cannibalize the sales of the lower end of the iMac by doing that.
 
supersalo

supersalo

macrumors 6502
May 14, 2010
385
137
So everyone that's clamoring for Apple to lower prices is surprised when the low-end, $499 computer is slower?

Got it.
 
K

KPOM

macrumors P6
Oct 23, 2010
18,024
7,867
No offense, but this is an apples to oranges comparison. How do the new dual-core models compare to the 2012 dual-core models? Of course, since the leap from Sandy/Ivy Bridge to Haswell was relatively small, a quad-core Sandy/Ivy Bridge will outperform a dual-core Haswell on multi-core benchmarks.

It's more appropriate to say that Apple discontinued the quad-core Mac Mini models, and updated the dual-core models to Haswell. Yes, it's too bad for those who really wanted a quad-core, but that doesn't appear to be the core market for the Mac Mini (at least not big enough for Apple to update it).
 
K

KPOM

macrumors P6
Oct 23, 2010
18,024
7,867
Dilster3k said:
That is a significant drop in performance. Especially under working to display all those pixels, very disappointing especially under that high price. I'm just wondering why they opted for lower tier processors in this new generation. (3720qm to 4578u?)
Click to expand...

It will be the GPU, not the CPU driving all those pixels. It's more correct to say that Apple discontinued the quad-core Mac Mini lineup, and updated the dual-core, rather than to say that the dual-core "replaced" the quad-core.
 
M

MacDarcy

macrumors 65816
Jul 21, 2011
1,011
819
I guess it's not year of the mini. Both the Mac mini and the iPad mini saw meh updates. I'm still shocked that Apple didn't change a thing on the iPad mini except add Touch ID and a gold color option. No A8 chip means I'm staying with my iPad mini first gen another year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom