Difference between 2.3GHz and 2.6GHZ i7?

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by here2rock, Feb 26, 2013.

  1. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2012
    Location:
    Australia
    #1
    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.
     
  2. macrumors regular

    AlbertEinstein

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2013
    #2
    If you are doing very CPU heavy tasks i recommend the extra 300 MHz. Otherwise you would be well off with an i5.:apple:
     
  3. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    #3
    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.

    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.
     
  4. macrumors regular

    AlbertEinstein

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2013
    #4
    I meant the i5. If he isn't going to do CPU intensive tasks there will be no need for a better processor.:apple:
     
  5. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2012
    #5
    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!
     
  6. thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2012
    Location:
    Australia
    #6
    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.

    ----------

    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.
     
  7. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    #7
    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.
     
  8. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    #8
    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
     
  9. thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2012
    Location:
    Australia
    #9
    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.
     
  10. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #10
    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.).
     
  11. thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2012
    Location:
    Australia
    #11
    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.
     
  12. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    #12
    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
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2011
    #13
    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.
     
  14. macrumors 68000

    eternlgladiator

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Location:
    Twin Cities
    #14
    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.
     
  15. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    #15
    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.
     
  16. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    #16
    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.
     
  17. thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2012
    Location:
    Australia
    #17
    Thank you.

    ----------

    That is a good price!
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    #18
    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 Files:

  19. benwiggy, Feb 28, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2013

    macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    #19
    :confused: 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.
     
  20. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    #20
    I didn't catch it but I think that he obviously meant MB not GB... :rolleyes:

    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.
     

Share This Page