2012 quad core i7 mini falls to $560

[grcar]

A reputable and frequent eBay seller of Apple hardware recently auctioned five stock 2012 quad core i7 mac minis. This model is the gold standard configuration.

Low price was $535, high price $580, average price $559.

The valuation is a huge a drop from about $680 early in 2016 and $730 in 2015. The drop suggests to me buyers anticipate new models soon, which makes them unwilling to pay premium prices for the 2012 models at least until they know the specs on the 2016 models.

 

[Kaida]

The drop suggests that those that already wants it badly already paid high prices for it. maybe a couple years back too. The drop now probably means those that are still sitting on the fence are being tempted with lower price to pull the trigger.

 

[grcar]

The drop now probably means those that are still sitting on the fence are being tempted with lower price to pull the trigger.

Yes, prices go down when other people choose not to buy.

 

[BenTrovato]

I bought an i5 recently as they are priced better. The quad core prices were too high. They should come down a bit.

 

[Altis]

It's also a year older. Computers tend to lose their value over time.

 

[Andres Cantu]

At some point, the dual-cores will catch up to the quad-cores in terms of performance. Disappointing, yes, but it'll happen sooner or later.

 

[grcar]

At some point, the dual-cores will catch up to the quad-cores in terms of performance.

New dual cores running at much faster clock speeds will certainly catch up to the old quad cores, but with the same clock speed, four cores are always faster than two.

 

[Andres Cantu]

New dual cores running at much faster clock speeds will certainly catch up to the old quad cores, but with the same clock speed, four cores are always faster than two.

That seems kind of odd. Would the same thing apply to the first quad-core Snapdragon chip vs. the A9? I thought architecture also played a big role?

 

[grcar]

That seems kind of odd. Would the same thing apply to the first quad-core Snapdragon chip vs. the A9? I thought architecture also played a big role?

What is odd?

I am not an expert on these chips, but ...

Looking at the specs, the snapdragon 82x is about 1.8 GHz and is dual core each capable of 2 threads, so 4 threads in all. The a9 is also about 1.8 GHz with dual cores. I could not find out if the cores are capable of multiple threads. Based on this, I would say they are about the same for general heavy computing even if the a9 cores cannot run two threads because two threads on one core do interfere with each another. Both chips are really made only to run mobile phones.

In contrast the latest i7 runs at upwards of 4.0 GHz and has four cores and they are double threaded. Much faster altogether.

 

[Andres Cantu]

What is odd?

I am not an expert on these chips, but ...

Looking at the specs, the snapdragon 82x is about 1.8 GHz and is dual core each capable of 2 threads, so 4 threads in all. The a9 is also about 1.8 GHz with dual cores. I could not find out if the cores are capable of multiple threads. Based on this, I would say they are about the same for general heavy computing even if the a9 cores cannot run two threads because two threads on one core do interfere with one another. Both chips are really made only to run mobile phones.

In contrast the latest i7 runs at upwards of 4.0 GHz and has four cores and they are double threaded. Much faster altogether.

Yeah I agree with that logic. But for example, a quad-core Snapdragon S4 is not faster than a dual-core A9 due to the newer architecture of the A9. So similarly, wouldn't a dual-core 6th-gen Intel chip be close to a quad-core 3rd-gen chip, since at some point the quad-core chip would become too old to compete, even with more cores?

If that's the case, I would bet the benchmarks for the new Mac mini would be close to the 2012 quad-core model, or at least the 2011 one.

 

[grcar]

So similarly, wouldn't a dual-core 6th-gen Intel chip be close to a quad-core 3rd-gen chip, since at some point the quad-core chip would become too old to compete, even with more cores?

I am not sure what the generations refer to. Intel used to do a tick-tock development process in which new logic architecture is implemented by an old silicon process (tock), and old logic is implemented on a new, shrunk silicon process (tick). Not clear there is all that much to be gained from new architecture because how much more is left to get from tweaking branch prediction and so on? These chips are all built for hand-held devices, so, the real improvements have been in trying to save battery power. In terms of compute power you should be asking about the Xeon chips and the like for heavy hardware.

 

[Andres Cantu]

I am not sure what the generations refer to. Intel used to do a tick-tock development process in which new logic architecture is implemented by an old silicon process (tock), and old logic is implemented on a new, shrunk silicon process (tick). Not clear there is all that much to be gained from new architecture because how much more is left to get from tweaking branch prediction and so on? These chips are all built for hand-held devices, so, the real improvements have been in trying to save battery power. In terms of compute power you should be asking about the Xeon chips and the like for heavy hardware.

Just Ivy Bridge for the 3rd-gen and Skylake for the 6th. I guess I'm just curious just how far the dual-cores can go

 

[grcar]

Just Ivy Bridge for the 3rd-gen and Skylake for the 6th. I guess I'm just curious just how far the dual-cores can go

Again I am not an expert, but, the quoted core count is the least part of it. Even the so-called dual core chips have integrated graphics processors with around six cores, meaning the quoted core count is a little misleading. The evaluation is more straightforward for Xeon and like chips because they are just for computing.