2014 Mac Mini CPU performance specs

[hipnetic]

OK, so this isn't confirmed 100% (I tried a chat with an Apple rep online and he said that they didn't have the specs yet), but I found specific CPU models for *some* of the new models listed on this Chinese website:
http://www.cool3c.com/article/86096

Below, I'm also posting the PassMark scores for these chips from this website:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

2012 Mac Mini dual-core i5
MD387LL/A
I5-3210M
PassMark: 3,804

2012 Mac Mini quad-core i7
MD388LL/A
i7-3615QM
PassMark: 7,344

***

2014 base Mac Mini - dual-core i5 @ 1.4GHz (turbo boost to 2.7GHz)
i5-4260U
PassMark: 3,651

2014 dual-core i5 @ 2.6GHz (turbo boost to 3.1GHz)
i5-4288U
PassMark: 4,590

2014 dual-core i5 @ 2.8GHz (turbo boost to 3.3GHz)
i5-4308U
* no scores listed on cpubenchmark.net

2014 dual-core i7 @ 3.0GHz (turbo boost to 3.5GHz)
specific CPU uncertain - possibly i7-4578U
PassMark: 5,204

***

For comparison, these are the numbers from a now somewhat ancient HP tower PC I use as a video server in my house.
HPE-577C quad-core i7 @ 3.4GHz (turbo boost to 3.8GHz)
i7-2600
PassMark: 8,281

For those interested, this page on the Plex website states the following:

Very roughly speaking, for a single full-transcode of a video, the following PassMark scores are a good guideline for a requirement:
- 1080p/10Mbps: 2000 PassMark
- 720p/4Mbps: 1500 PassMark
...
Basically, if you think you may be needing to handle 4 simultaneous content streams and they might all be 1080p content that requires transcoding, then you would take the base guideline (2000) and multiply it by the number of simultaneous streams (4) to get your rough requirement, which would be a PassMark score of 8000 in this case.

I'll update my OP once the specifics get confirmed.

 

[RayMac]

About the high-end Late 2014 Mac mini 3.0 GHz dual-core Intel Core i7 (Turbo Boost up to 3.5GHz) with 4MB on-chip shared L3 cache. It looks like it's the Intel Core i7-4578U Processor (4M Cache, up to 3.50 GHz). More details here: http://ark.intel.com/products/83506

I found it on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i7_microprocessors

High-end Late 2012 Mac mini 2.6 GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 (I7-3720QM): http://ark.intel.com/products/64891/Intel-Core-i7-3720QM-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz (source: http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_mini/specs/mac-mini-core-i7-2.6-late-2012-specs.html)

CPU Benchmark Comparison (PassMark): http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2345&cmp[]=895

Another comparison: http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/27...M_(PGA)_vs_Intel_Core_i7_Mobile_i7-4578U.html

And one more: http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/inde...2-core-3-0ghz-vs-core-i7-3720qm-4-core-2-6ghz

 

[icanhazapple]

hilarious. I'm almost ready to give up on Apple at this point. Win 8.1 on decent hardware is fine.

 

[hipnetic]

About the 3.0GHz dual-core Intel Core i7 (Turbo Boost up to 3.5GHz) with 4MB on-chip shared L3 cache. It looks like it's the Intel Core i7-4578U Processor (4M Cache, up to 3.50 GHz). More details here: http://ark.intel.com/products/83506

Yeah, I updated my original post with the *tentative* i7 specs (until officially confirmed). FYI, it looks like several of your links aren't working.

Looking at all of these numbers, the interesting thing to me is that the base model may not be a bad choice as an "end unit" for home theater use. The newer GPU possibly handles 24Hz video playback better than the old models. The PassMark score is a bit lower, but not dramatically so (still, it's disappointing to not see the numbers go *UP* on a model 2 years newer).

The disappointing ones are the top-end models. If you want a video server (e.g., Plex) that will be transcoding video for you to serve up to your iPads, iPhones, Apple TVs around the house, the older quad-core i7 model looks like a much better choice.

 

[skierbri10]

hilarious. I'm almost ready to give up on Apple at this point. Win 8.1 on decent hardware is fine.

Not giving up per say, but a hackintosh is in my future.

 

[usarioclave]

Not giving up per say, but a hackintosh is in my future.

I myself am going to replace my i5 mini with an old Mac Pro, which are surprisingly cost-effective...though huge.

 

[skierbri10]

I myself am going to replace my i5 mini with an old Mac Pro, which are surprisingly cost-effective...though huge.

Yeah that was the other option I was looking at.

 

[poematik13]

I myself am going to replace my i5 mini with an old Mac Pro, which are surprisingly cost-effective...though huge.

Not a good call though for future relevance...you're stuck with USB 2.0, no thunderbolt, and firewire 800 ports everywhere. You can get modern IO ports via PCI cards but reliability can be an issue with those.

 

[Salty Air]

 

[mojolicious]

2014 base Mac Mini - dual-core i5 @ 1.4GHz (turbo boost to 2.7GHz)
i5-4260U
PassMark: 3,651

cf the Sandy Bridge 2415M dual core i5 2.3GHz in my base mid 2011 mini, with a PassMark of 3215.

Obviously CPU performance is only part of the equation (and I've no idea how closely those ratings translate to real life user experience) but an increase of barely 10% in three and a half years shows just how slowly things are changing these days...

 

[barkmonster]

Not a good call though for future relevance...you're stuck with USB 2.0, no thunderbolt, and firewire 800 ports everywhere. You can get modern IO ports via PCI cards but reliability can be an issue with those.

You do realise that Thunderbolt peripherals that aren't an overpriced alternative to PCIe or USB 3.0 equivalents (if USB 3.0 fits the purpose) are non-existent?

Also, that system offers adequate internal expansion to add up to 4 internal PCIe cards so a little research beforehand can get a compatible USB 3.0 card and a SATA 6Gb/s card with an onboard slot for an SSD and 2 internal SATA 6Gb/s ports.

I'd get a used 8-core Mac Pro over the current Mac Mini. Even a 2008 model is much faster than the fastest BTO 2014 Mac Mini and with used prices over £200 less, that more than covers the cost of additional PCIe cards to add USB 3.0, SATA 6Gb/s and an SSD boot drive.

 

[waveboreale]

So in 2 years, Apple manage to cripple the mid level Mac Mini by a factor 2 when multiple core are solicited, bravo !!

I am just gutted

 

[ColdCase]

You do realise that Thunderbolt peripherals that aren't an overpriced alternative to PCIe or USB 3.0 equivalents (if USB 3.0 fits the purpose) are non-existent?

Currently not so overpriced. Low cost USB3 for drives has proven to be an abomination in anything other than portable consumer use. So many quirks and reliability issues where TB, eSATA, and PCIe are solid.

The more reliable USB2 seems to work well for just about any peripheral, albeit slow in some applications.

 

[EvilEvil]

USB 2 abysmally slow. I don't understand why it took so long with Apple to implement USB 3.

 

[barkmonster]

Currently not so overpriced. Low cost USB3 for drives has proven to be an abomination in anything other than portable consumer use. So many quirks and reliability issues where TB, eSATA, and PCIe are solid.

The more reliable USB2 seems to work well for just about any peripheral, albeit slow in some applications.

USB 2.0 is garbage. It's slow to the point of barely catching up with Firewire 400, it has CPU overhead and it lacks the simultaneous read/write I/O of every competing connection standard including USB 3.0.

Sweet water did extensive testing with USB 3.0 for use with Pro Tools systems and it was as rock solid as any internal SATA drive regardless of if it was via onboard or PCIe controller cards.

Thunderbolt enclosures are nothing but criminally expensive multi-channel PCIe SATA 6Gb/s adapters in an case with mounting brackets and power. They're also obsessed with pre-configured systems too so buying anything other than a dual drive enclosure at most means having to pay through the nose for their choice of internal drives.

 

[Altis]

You know, I was pretty bummed about the CPU performance being worse than the previous two year old model.

Then I saw my desktop Intel Q6600 Quad core (mind you, 7 years old) 105w...

2987

So even the i5 is half again more than what I use now, which holds up pretty well even in music, video, and image production. Mind you, it has physical quad core which no doubt helps in those areas.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1038&cmp[]=2074&cmp[]=2345

 

[weaverra]

People, it's not like Apple went in and put Celerons in the Mac Mini. They haven't "crippled" the mini. Quite honestly the iMac sales probably outweigh the Mac Mini quad sales. If I'm going to spend close to grand I might as well go with the low end i5 quad core iMac. People that finance these machines are not going to be likely to finance a thousand dollar mac mini when they can finance a more powerful iMac with the screen for a few dollars more a month.

 

[mojolicious]

They haven't "crippled" the mini.

l'm pretty sure you'll find that they have.

 

[milo]

USB 2 abysmally slow. I don't understand why it took so long with Apple to implement USB 3.

Didn't the mini already have usb 3 for a while? Only the mac pro was really late to get usb 3.

People, it's not like Apple went in and put Celerons in the Mac Mini. They haven't "crippled" the mini.

The new lineup looks to be about 25% slower on the high end if the benchmarks here are representative. And at about the same price if not a bit higher. You really expect people to just bend over and happily accept that?

 

[rrl]

People, it's not like Apple went in and put Celerons in the Mac Mini. They haven't "crippled" the mini. Quite honestly the iMac sales probably outweigh the Mac Mini quad sales. If I'm going to spend close to grand I might as well go with the low end i5 quad core iMac. People that finance these machines are not going to be likely to finance a thousand dollar mac mini when they can finance a more powerful iMac with the screen for a few dollars more a month.

I think you took a wrong turn somewhere. This is a Mac Mini thread, and if you haven't noticed, most of us couldn't care less about iMacs. Apple has all three of the latest quad core i7 Iris Pro chips as options for the MacBook Pro, so please explain to us how Apple wasn't able to make these work for the Mac Mini. Otherwise, stop trying to tell us that Apple didn't cripple the Mini.

 

[762999]

Geekbench scores for:

the 1.4 64 bit scores:
single core :2670 Multi-Core: 5041

the i5 2.6 64bit scores
SC: 3091 MC: 6634

i5 2.8 64bit
SC: 3288 MC: 6999

i7 3.0 64 bit
sc: 3521 MC: 7397

PREVIOUS 2012 QuadCore
SC: 3312 MC: 12960


The graphic chipset is a lot faster but definitely not a big crunching machine.. should be enough for most people. To be honest I run plex from a Linux box with a i3-530 and it's more than enough. I stream to 2-3 clients in full 1080p and it's working perfectly.

----------

l'm pretty sure you'll find that they have.

Quad core is useful when you do transcoding or heavy compression but with traditional web browsing and gaming, the four cores are not even used to their potential. A better single core score and a better GPU will give a good user experience. I would have love to get quad cores but these machines are still perfect for a lot of people.

Kinda sucks for those using them for web hosting!

 

[weaverra]

I think you took a wrong turn somewhere. This is a Mac Mini thread, and if you haven't noticed, most of us couldn't care less about iMacs. Apple has all three of the latest quad core i7 Iris Pro chips as options for the MacBook Pro, so please explain to us how Apple wasn't able to make these work for the Mac Mini. Otherwise, stop trying to tell us that Apple didn't cripple the Mini.

Crippling the mac mini would have been using the last gen processor and only offering the dual core version. The single process performance is FASTER than the last gen. The true crippling feature of the mac mini is the GPU. The mac mini is not and has never been marketed for the professional. All you 20 crybaby mac mini enthusiast mad over Apple not including the quad core option is quite silly. Apple doesn't offer computers so you can play with your hobby. They make computers to make P-R-O-F-I-T-S. I'm still using a dual quad Mac Pro from 2006! The lowest end 2014 Mac Mini would blow that thing out of the water especially on single processes.

 

[milo]

Crippling the mac mini would have been using the last gen processor and only offering the dual core version.

25% drop in performance on the high end. Frankly, I don't consider any drop in performance in a product update to be acceptable, and this is a huge one.

The single process performance is FASTER than the last gen.

Congratulations on only running software that uses one core. But that's useless to the rest of us trying to get real work done (which was possible on the previous mini).

The mac mini is not and has never been marketed for the professional.

"You're holding it wrong."

All you 20 crybaby mac mini enthusiast mad over Apple not including the quad core option is quite silly.

25% drop in performance on the high end.

Seriously, you're going to be the sycophant who defends that? And just look at the pricing on the high end for that drop in performance.

They make computers to make P-R-O-F-I-T-S.

Yes, and to make profits, people actually have to buy those computers. The strategy of worse product for higher price only works if people are big enough suckers to buy them.

I'm still using a dual quad Mac Pro from 2006! The lowest end 2014 Mac Mini would blow that thing out of the water especially on single processes.

Gee, can you set the bar any lower?

 

[rrl]

All you 20 crybaby mac mini enthusiast mad over Apple not including the quad core option is quite silly. Apple doesn't offer computers so you can play with your hobby. They make computers to make P-R-O-F-I-T-S.

Uh oh, I think he's going Turbo on us. Next I'm guessing we'll hear about our mother's basements and our neck beards. Can't wait!

 

[0092762]

Passmark tests are perfectly parallelizable, threaded workloads, which don't exist in real life.
Single core speed is also important, and it's 1500 vs. 2000. (for the 699 model) So for daily use the new mini is going to feel faster and more responsive than the old quad.