2012 Mac mini Geekbench scores showing up

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by cocacolakid, Oct 24, 2012.

  1. cocacolakid, Oct 24, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2012

    macrumors 65816

    cocacolakid

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Location:
    Chicago
    #1
    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/geekbench2/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&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.
     
  2. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Location:
    CE
    #2
    Very impressive indeed
     
  3. macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #3
    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.
     
  4. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Location:
    CE
    #4
    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.
     
  5. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    #5
    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.:mad:
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    #6
    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.
     
  7. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    #7
  8. macrumors 68000

    vastoholic

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa, OK
    #8
    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.
     
  9. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #9

    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.
     
  10. macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #10
    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.
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    #11
    Calm down, you'll get a new one.
     
  12. fig
    macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #12
    Bingo. I love the Fusion drive in concept but I don't plan on being a guinea pig :)
     
  13. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    #13
    I think he meant it turned all his text bold.
     
  14. macrumors 65816

    dasx

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Location:
    Barcelona
    #14
    Mmm... how's that even possible? Does 10.8.1 outperform 10.8.2? Even with 1/4 RAM?
     
  15. thread starter macrumors 65816

    cocacolakid

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Location:
    Chicago
    #15
    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.
     
  16. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2011
    Location:
    Renkum
    #16
    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.
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    dasx

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Location:
    Barcelona
    #17
    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 Files:

  18. thread starter macrumors 65816

    cocacolakid

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Location:
    Chicago
    #18
    Nice work.
     
  19. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    #19
    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.
     
  20. macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #20
    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.
     
  21. cocacolakid, Oct 27, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2012

    thread starter macrumors 65816

    cocacolakid

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Location:
    Chicago
    #21

    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.
     
  22. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    #22
    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?
     
  23. thread starter macrumors 65816

    cocacolakid

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Location:
    Chicago
    #23
    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.
     
  24. macrumors 6502a

    raysfan81

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #24
    THIS. Apple cost=$300 OWC cost=$115. That really is a no brainer.
     
  25. thread starter macrumors 65816

    cocacolakid

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Location:
    Chicago
    #25
    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. :)
     

Share This Page