choosing 2012 over 2014

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by Ics1974, Oct 29, 2014.

  1. Ics1974, Oct 29, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2014

    Ics1974 macrumors member

    Oct 25, 2014
    Yes I know it would be nice to have quad core and update the ram but is it really worth sacrificing slower single core performance and using a slower graphics card? increased graphics and single core preformace vs better multi core and upgradability.
    I really can't decide between the mid model 2014 or a 2012 quad core 2.3 GHz.
    Also I would have to upgrade the ram in the 2012 model to at least 8GB so that adds to the cost.
  2. majkom macrumors 65816

    May 3, 2011
  3. cinealta macrumors 6502

    Dec 9, 2012
    What are your needs? General use (email, web browsing, word processing) just get a 2014. Heck a 2009 Mini will work fine for that. If you're using any software that can take advantage of multiple cores (eg digital audio, video, photography, rendering etc) the 2 additional cores on the 2012 will help. Not to mention you can add RAM long in the future if you can't afford to max it out today.
  4. Ics1974 thread starter macrumors member

    Oct 25, 2014
    You have one?


    Email, surfing the web, plex media, watching movies. Also light HD video editing. I.e combining video files or making dvd's
    I would also like to use garage band to record my music
  5. majkom macrumors 65816

    May 3, 2011
    not yet.. but will get one later, have to sell my macbook air first:)
  6. cocacolakid macrumors 65816


    Dec 18, 2010
    2012 all the way. Why would anyone want to buy a 2014 mini? I can only see that selling to people who have no idea what a crippled, slow POS they are getting.

    The 2014 is 70% slower than the 2012. RAM is soldered in place, so is the CPU (not that the 2nd one matters to most users). And the slot for the 2nd hard drive is intentionally closed.

    The 2012 mini is better in every way, and it's less expensive.
  7. Acronyc macrumors 6502a

    Jan 24, 2011
    Just curious but where did you get this figure? I know that the 1.4 would likely be slower, but if you compare the 2.6 and 2.8 models to the 2012 dual cores, are they really 70% slower? Even comparing the 2012 quad core models to the 2014 dual core, 2.8 models, 70% seems like a rather huge number. I haven't researched it much so I'm just wondering.
  8. VDhightower macrumors newbie

    Oct 16, 2014
    I think the 70% is referring to multi-core performance (and that too worst case i.e. between 2.6Ghz i7 and base 2014 CPU) and as best I have read it comes from this primate labs estimation of performance based on the CPU's in the 2012 and 2014 lineup.
  9. Acronyc macrumors 6502a

    Jan 24, 2011
    Thanks for the link, interesting read. Comparing the worst 2014 mini to the best 2012 mini definitely shows a big potential difference, though it'll be interesting to see when real benchmarks are available. The best 2012 multi core is still a bit better than the best 2014, so I guess if you need multi core the 2012 looks to be better, as that article mentioned.
  10. majkom macrumors 65816

    May 3, 2011
    2014 is better in single core performance.. and for majority, this is more important than number of cores. If you do not plan to cut ultra HD videos or launch server business:) than middle 2014 mini is better than any 2012 mini.. funny how 2012 fanboys do not mention crippled intel HD 4000, old generation wifi...
  11. mcnallym macrumors 6502a

    Oct 28, 2008
    I like a lot of people am still using a 2009 mini, admittedly upgraded with SSD and 8Gb of RAM.

    It is used for

    EyeTV Recording System
    iTunes Server
    Web Browsing
    Media Storage is on a DroboPro

    When my current Storage on the DroboPro fills up then will look at getting a newer mini with a newer Drobo. (Currently at 53% used so could be some time)

    At the moment then would buy a middle 2014 model and pack out with RAM.
    Looking at one of the Sonnet Docks to add the Optical Bay and also allows installation of an SSD that would use as a Boot Disk, rather then pay the cost of the Apple SSD's.

    For my actual needs as opposed to benchmarks then the 2014 makes way more sense. Can put my Dock and Monitor on one TB2 connector and the 24"ACD on the other. Theres nothing in my usage that needs the quad in the mini.

    I have a 2010 MacPro for where need more CPU/RAM/GPU etc.

    However I would say that probably find a 2012 quad more useful for what the OP said looking to do.
  12. VDhightower macrumors newbie

    Oct 16, 2014
    I think you are correct in that the 2014 holds the edge over 2012 in single core performance. The graphics too is better but the comparison with the INtel GPU is dependant on the CPU speed. The problem is that it has been hard to find some tech site that has quantified or done a performance comparison including graphics (I mean we all want numbers to throw around in these threads like 10% better or 50% worse :)
  13. magbarn, Oct 31, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2014

    magbarn macrumors 68000

    Oct 25, 2008
    Well the Iris and HD5000 is the crippled version of the Iris Pro (which IMHO is the ONLY Intel igpu out right now capable of decent frame rates at 1080P with most eye candy turned on) and I don't give rip about AC wifi when I have gigabit ethernet all over my house anyway... I have both a HD4000 and a Iris equipped rMBP 13's in my household and there's no difference in regular OS X usage - web browsing etc... and that's pushing a retina screen mind you...
  14. majkom macrumors 65816

    May 3, 2011
    if u dont see difference between rmbp with HD4000 and iris, than I would say, you have some serious problem, HD4000 means laggy interface (expose, spaces transtion, etc..), iris is less laggy (yes, i had retina mbpr at home as well).

    if you dont care about ac wifi, thats fine, many users dont care about multi core performance as they dont need that, many users will appreciate faster wifi as they do not want to install cables "all over their house"...

Share This Page