3.0GHz i7 vs. 2.8GHz i5 - any significant difference

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by xraydoc, Nov 4, 2014.

  1. xraydoc macrumors 604

    xraydoc

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    192.168.1.1
    #1
    I know performance vs. value is a subjective judgement, so for some the $200 price difference may not be worth it, and for others it will be very much so.

    But... in the 2014 Mini, is there any significant difference between the BTO 3.0GHz i7 processor versus the 2.8GHz i5?

    At one point, certain versions of the i5's didn't have hyperthreading while al of the i7's did. But it sounds like the i5's in the mini all have hyperthreading. So other than the 200MHz clock difference, are there any other benefits of the i7?

    I'm thinking (again) about a new Mac mini. I frequently use a Windows 8.1 VM, so a little performance boost may be worth the $200. I'm already resigned to maxing out the RAM to 16GB and ordering the 256GB SSD.
     
  2. cypriot macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    #2
    I second this question. And how can we compare these two? One must have both.
     
  3. sicariis macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    #3
    Here's a good site to compare CPU differences. In this case the 2.8GHz i5 and the 3.0GHz i7:

    http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-4578U-vs-Intel-4308U

    The other substantial difference besides the clock speed is the L3 cache, 3MB in the Core i5 vs 4MB in the Core i7.
     
  4. paulrbeers macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #4
    Pretty sure Macrumors already covered this one.....

    http://www.macrumors.com/2014/10/31/mac-mini-buy-which/
     
  5. CausticPuppy macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    #5
    Negligible difference. Not worth the $200.

    I kind of wish I had saved $200 and didn't upgrade my rMBP 13" the the i7 either.
     
  6. crazzapple Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    #6
    In the US it costs $300 to upgrade the mid tier mini to i7. CRAZY.

    Note the 2012 mid-tier came with i7 quad-core by default. You didn't even have to BTO it.
     
  7. MRrainer macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Location:
    Zurich, Switzerland
    #7
    The really crazy thing:

    http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks


    My 2012 2.3 GHz i7 has 11697 points.
    The entry level Retina iMac has ... 12143!
    I was looking at the iMac in the Store - and it is nice - but my SSD-only setup vs. the Fusion drive probably wins at the end.

    In true Mac-zealot tradition, we can blame it on Intel this time, for neutering their entry-level chipsets so they don't take quad-core CPUs anymore....
    ;-)
     
  8. crazzapple Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    #8
    Yep, the 2012 quad-core really holds its own. Absolutely stomps the most expensive 2014. Even the 2011 quad-core beats the best 2014. Sad.
     
  9. J232022 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2014
    #9
    I agree , not worth it save your money .
     
  10. xraydoc thread starter macrumors 604

    xraydoc

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    192.168.1.1
    #10
    So torn. Don't know what to do.
    New mini would be ideal but performance is lackluster. iMac isn't a good option (not free to change monitors, restricted by lack of multiple inputs, etc.).


    May just get a new mini with the expectation I'll have to upgrade/replace sooner.
     
  11. ZipZilla macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    #11
    Do what I did, buy a brand new 2012 and enjoy many years of great service!
     
  12. J232022 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2014
    #12
    Good advice , I agree . Just a question can you get apple care on the 2012 minis if they are brand new ?
     
  13. cinealta macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    #13
    Yes. AFAIK you have up to one year to enroll in Apple Care from date of purchase.
     

Share This Page