Is the 2.6 GHz i7 upgrade worth the cost? (2012 Mac mini)

[motrek]

YOu don't get an upgrade like this for average utilization. You get it so when you're processing something in Photoshop and running a VM the machine is still usable, if marginally so. My CPU cores hover around 25%, but every once in a while when doing something intense they get pegged at 100%. That's when you want an upgraded CPU.

While there are exceptions, it is generally the case that new software has new features that need more cycles. Snow Leopard is one of those exceptions. Nonetheless, it's essentially a 10% increase in performance for a 12.5% increase in price.

It's worth it to some, not to others. for me @ $100 it's a no brainer. Especially in light of all the stupid crap I spend well over $100 a month on...

Well, I'm obviously not going to argue that a slower CPU is better than a faster CPU, but it's misguided to think that 10% is going to be the difference between "sluggish" and "responsive" or "obsolete" and "futureproof."

If your Mini is under enough load to the point where it's sluggish and it takes 1 second to, say, switch from app A to app B, I frankly don't think it will make a lot of difference in your life if it took 1.1 seconds instead. You might not even notice the difference. (And again, just because you are doing some "processing" in Photoshop and running a VM doesn't mean your Mini will be under a lot of load... I'm running a VM right now and it's taking less than 5% of the CPU power of a single core.)

I will freely admit that in some situations it makes a lot of sense to get the upgrade. For example, my friend works at a software company that uses Minis as build machines and it can take a couple hours to finish a build. If the build finishes 10% faster, that means that several developers each potentially gain an extra 12 minutes of productivity. Definitely worth the upgrade at twice the price. But if you just have a hazy notion that you might do some "processing" in the future, then for god's sake, save your money.

Of course, this is the MacRumors message board, where almost everybody here thinks that if somebody has any money left over in his bank account, it's because he didn't buy enough upgrades. Sure, the upgrade is "only" $100, but surely you can think of something better to do with that $100 than spend it on an almost trivial CPU upgrade that you won't take advantage of 99% of the time and might not even notice or appreciate for the other 1%. I can think of a dozen other things I'd rather spend $100 on right off the top of my head, and even if I couldn't, I'd be better off with that $100 in my retirement account.

 

[here2rock]

I don't really feel that the upgrade is worthwhile unless you don't care about money. If we were talking about $100 difference and 2.4GHz V 3.2GHz, most will say it is well worth upgrading. This is especially in Australia where the base 2.4GHz is $899 and 2.6GHz is $1019.

 

[UltraInstinct]

I bought the base Mini yesterday, going to be upgrading the RAM to 16gb next month though. Otherwise for my light photoshop and word use plus internet/streaming/itunes it's perfect, even with the 4gb RAM.

 

[Woosie]

I Must be an Idiot

Most of the responses to this post explain why an upgrade from 2.3 to 2.6 GHz does not make sense, unless you are a full time power user. I get that thinking, especially the comment about 'is it worth spending $110 for 1.1 seconds, for switching from one application to another'.

What I know happens to me is, as time moves forward, software upgrades gobble up processing time, such that, in some cases, the computer's ball just swirls and swirls. Naturally, this happens when I'm in a hurry, so I get frustrated with the "slowness" of the machine! I know this is pretty shortsighted but it's how I feel, and Apple is taking an additional $100 from me, so be it.

As many responses have stated, the cost differential is dependent upon how often you upgrade. In my case, I don't like to upgrade ever, and will keep the machine running as long as possible. The new purchase was driven primarily by older technology for the wireless network AND part failures in the MBP; I'm lamenting the loss of a terrific first generation Time Capsule, who's only problem is it's slower wireless transceiver rate, which makes watching multiple HD videos wirelessly impossible.

I will end up selling the old parts for $50-200 each, so I'll recoup some of the investment cost, certainly enough for the processor speed and RAM upgrades.

 

[motrek]

Most of the responses to this post explain why an upgrade from 2.3 to 2.6 GHz does not make sense, unless you are a full time power user. I get that thinking, especially the comment about 'is it worth spending $110 for 1.1 seconds, for switching from one application to another'.

What I know happens to me is, as time moves forward, software upgrades gobble up processing time, such that, in some cases, the computer's ball just swirls and swirls. Naturally, this happens when I'm in a hurry, so I get frustrated with the "slowness" of the machine! I know this is pretty shortsighted but it's how I feel, and Apple is taking an additional $100 from me, so be it.

As many responses have stated, the cost differential is dependent upon how often you upgrade. In my case, I don't like to upgrade ever, and will keep the machine running as long as possible. The new purchase was driven primarily by older technology for the wireless network AND part failures in the MBP; I'm lamenting the loss of a terrific first generation Time Capsule, who's only problem is it's slower wireless transceiver rate, which makes watching multiple HD videos wirelessly impossible.

I will end up selling the old parts for $50-200 each, so I'll recoup some of the investment cost, certainly enough for the processor speed and RAM upgrades.

If you don't like beach balls, I hope you will be buying an SSD for your new computer. Now THAT is a worthwhile upgrade for any computer user.

 

[paulrbeers]

What I know happens to me is, as time moves forward, software upgrades gobble up processing time, such that, in some cases, the computer's ball just swirls and swirls. Naturally, this happens when I'm in a hurry, so I get frustrated with the "slowness" of the machine! I know this is pretty shortsighted but it's how I feel, and Apple is taking an additional $100 from me, so be it.

But what you are missing, is that when the 2.3ghz quad core is no longer enough (i.e outdated), the slightly faster 2.6ghz will be outdated as well. When the 2.3ghz quad core is no longer enough, we will be (at least) 3-4 processor generations ahead of where we are now and what is 10% today will be a fraction of a percentage of what the processors can do then.

For example Geekbench score of the 2.3 is 11000 and the 2.6 is something like 12300. In 3-4 generations geekbench scores could be 20,000 (or better) so comparing the 2.3 and the 2.6 to the future processors equates to a 11,000 / 20000 = 55% and 12300 / 20000 = 61.5%. So really when the 2.3 ghz is "no longer good enough", the 2.6ghz processor really won't be good enough either because the processor will only equate to maybe 6% more of the future processors.

Another example is in 2009 the base Mini's had 2.26ghz Core2duo processors and the upgraded specs were 2.53ghz core2duo. Guess what? Both are pathetic by today's standards. That's not to say that you can't do day to day tasks by either of them, but no "power user" would consider either adequate. All you did will spend extra on something you may or may not have gotten any use of.

 

[motrek]

But what you are missing, is that when the 2.3ghz quad core is no longer enough (i.e outdated), the slightly faster 2.6ghz will be outdated as well. When the 2.3ghz quad core is no longer enough, we will be (at least) 3-4 processor generations ahead of where we are now and what is 10% today will be a fraction of a percentage of what the processors can do then. ...

Well put. Add to that the fact that people only think they need or want the 2.6GHz upgrade because it's something that Apple happens to sell, and it has nothing to do with what they actually need.

So far I haven't heard one single person say they need, for example, a 2.9GHz Mac Mini. If so many people have decided they need 2.6GHz, you'd think that a large number of people would also "need" 2.7GHz, 2.8GHz, 2.9GHz, etc.

But no, nobody does. This is a pure "buyer psychology" play on Apple's part.

 

[Woosie]

If you don't like beach balls, I hope you will be buying an SSD for your new computer. Now THAT is a worthwhile upgrade for any computer user.

Ooh, I imagine the machine I purchased will scream by comparison to its predecessor; I did purchase the 256 Gb SSD HD. I've no regrets ,regardless of whether I make use of the additional 10% of processor speed or not. In my case, I'm pretty sure it'll be non-value added. I know I'm not a gamer nor high end audio or video person...just a consumer who manages a home network for two gamer boys, a near 20 yr old girl, a wife and mom-in-law, all of whom expect 24/7 high speed wireless connectivity.

If Apple starts to implement a software strategy similar to Windows, then I'll pay a lot of attention to picking the "sweet spot" of processor, RAM and HD speeds and technology. It's not terribly complicated. Thanks for the kind words and advise.

 

[jburrows500]

wait... macmall sells pretty much any configuration

i plan on getting a 2.6 i7, fusion, 4gb ram and upgrade to 16 myself. they sell that config.

granted they'll all be only around 50 bucks cheaper than the apple store but you're never going to find bigger discounts on new machines till they are replaced and being blown out

I wonder if Macmall buys those mac mini's from Apple as configured, or do they add their own SSD's and RAM upgrades.. Upgrade-king on eBay does that.. I would feel better buying a factory modified mac-mini.. not an "upgraded" one..

----------

But what you are missing, is that when the 2.3ghz quad core is no longer enough (i.e outdated), the slightly faster 2.6ghz will be outdated as well. When the 2.3ghz quad core is no longer enough, we will be (at least) 3-4 processor generations ahead of where we are now and what is 10% today will be a fraction of a percentage of what the processors can do then.

For example Geekbench score of the 2.3 is 11000 and the 2.6 is something like 12300. In 3-4 generations geekbench scores could be 20,000 (or better) so comparing the 2.3 and the 2.6 to the future processors equates to a 11,000 / 20000 = 55% and 12300 / 20000 = 61.5%. So really when the 2.3 ghz is "no longer good enough", the 2.6ghz processor really won't be good enough either because the processor will only equate to maybe 6% more of the future processors.

Another example is in 2009 the base Mini's had 2.26ghz Core2duo processors and the upgraded specs were 2.53ghz core2duo. Guess what? Both are pathetic by today's standards. That's not to say that you can't do day to day tasks by either of them, but no "power user" would consider either adequate. All you did will spend extra on something you may or may not have gotten any use of.

I think its the software developers driving the upgrade path. Lightroom adds more capabilities in each upgrade. My 5-6 year old Q6600 quad would fly with LR 1.. now with LR4 it slows to a crawl when I take out the adjustment brush.