Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Cinebench: Mac Mini i7 Dual and i7 Server.

H

HarryPalmer

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Oct 24, 2011
4
0
London
Hi all.

I wondered if anyone had the Cinebench 11.5 Open GL AND CPU results for the above and / or were using C4D regualrly on a Mini and how they were getting on with it.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
2011 mac mini server with 8gb corsair ram on 10.7.1:

Gcyfh.jpg
 
interesting and surprising, i ran cinebench on my 2008 macpro

My early 2008 mac pro has 10gb of ram and compared to indg 2011 mac mini the server the raw numbers are pretty similar. so if i upgrade to a 2011 mini server what performance improvements will i notice?

2008 macpro 10gb ram .jpg
 
singlemanhk said:
My early 2008 mac pro has 10gb of ram and compared to indg 2011 mac mini the server the raw numbers are pretty similar. so if i upgrade to a 2011 mini server what performance improvements will i notice?

View attachment 310531
Click to expand...

Sorry my first reply missed that Cinbench had the CPU numbers ran too. Also for reference, my Server Mini gets the same numbers essentially so that is an accurate representation provided by indg.

Obviously, if performance is your concern, you shouldn't upgrade to a 2011 Mini Server. Your CPU & GPU marked better, and you have more RAM than you would likely want to install in a mini (8GB is what is affordable).

Therefore, I'd suggest you wait. Perhaps, maybe next year's mini will best your machine, but it looks like you're still going strong indeed. Unless you needed to reduce the physical size of your computer. :) Even if the Server was a tiny bit better than your Pro, it wouldn't be worth it, and indeed, your machine is still faster!
 
Last edited:
HarryPalmer said:
Hi all.

I wondered if anyone had the Cinebench 11.5 Open GL AND CPU results for the above and / or were using C4D regualrly on a Mini and how they were getting on with it.

Thanks
Click to expand...


I hope someone posts the i7 Dual with discreet graphics test as you requested too. It would be nice to compare it to the Server.
 
Thanks a lot for the info guys: these figures are surprisingly hard to find. I'm not usually that hung up on the numbers but without actually trying them all and 'testing them to destruction' so to speak it's good to have at least something to go on.

From what I have gathered so far (from piecing bits together) the i7 + AMD come in at around 24.9 FPS and 3.1 CPU. It would appear that the discreet card doubles the frame rate (with the standard RAM and HDD).

Personally I'm after processing 'grunt' (rendering with 4 cores/8 threads) in C4D where GPU is almost solely used for screen refresh and open GL preview features (according the Maxon anyway) I can put up with waiting a few moments for a screen to redraw (I was until recently using a 2007 MBP which any of the Minis would now beat hands down I guess).

I'd be interested to hear of any C4D (or FCPX / After Effects / Motion) users' experiences with these models.

What can't they just make a quad + graphics it would make my life so much easier!

I want...I want etc.

Thanks again.
 
Thanks HarryPalmer,

I don't know how I managed to have three macs with the same GPU performance in Cinebench. ha-ha. This mini server, my 2007 iMac with discreet pro graphics and 2010 air all score nearly the same. ha-ha. Actually, the 4.25 year old iMac wins by a couple FPS.

Now, my two 9400 M machines score HALF these other units, around 6-7fps.


Yes, a discreet GPU in the server would have been nice, but I doubt they'll ever put one in the "server." The best you'll get is that eventually they might put a lower end Quad in the consumer Mini, which could be the closest we get to both of best worlds, but then we might not have the dual HDDs. Apple seems to have never given "servers" much in terms of GPU.

However, I'm actually happy enough how it is now.

Nevertheless, next year, if the next intel integrated does jump 1.5-2.0x, that would put you close to a low end discreet graphics as is in the mid-Mini now.

I didn't want to wait on the server longer and being in the U.S., $999 or less is a really good deal. Therefore, I got it now. If next year's is so tempting in processor or integrated GPU improvements, I will sell and buy again.

Otherwise, this is obviously my quickest Mac yet.

I'm going to try some 1866 RAM this weekend maybe, if it changes the cinebench any on GPU test, I'll post back.
 
I agree.

The server looks like very neat bit of kit, everyone seems very happy with it. I was swinging between the two (Server and i7 Dual + AMD) but I'm pretty convinced the Quad is the way ahead for me.

I could always hold out for a TB Graphics card when they eventually come along - although I'm not going to hold my breath and wait!

The US prices are always very good - it's £849 over here ($1350)

I would be very interested to hear how the faster RAM modules work out - I've seen a lot of post and those who have installed do say there is an uplift in response. I would also go down that route if I thought it would make a difference. and maybe and SSD later (when they are more affordable)

Thanks again for the info.

HP.
 
i don't think the 1866 RAM will affect the cinebench score since it only tests CPU. however, it will affect the geekbench score.

that's why the mac pro's 8-core xeon scores higher in cinebench, but lower in geekbench. since the mini has faster ram (1333 in mini vs 800 in mac pro), it can take advantage of the cpu better.

if you need expandability, better gpu (you can upgrade to faster graphics card right?), more ram slots (and cheaper too maybe), optical drive, and maybe quieter (mac pro has larger fans), i'd stick with the pro.

if you want to save space, use less electricity, need hdmi port, faster cpu, then get the mini.
 
1866MHz RAM should improve the integrated graphics performance by 5% minimum. The Intel HD 3000 is not that bad, but it relies on much slower main system memory vs fast graphics DDR5.
 
My 2011 mini with Core i7 2.7 GHz, 8 GB 1333, OSX 10.7.2 scored 25.21 on OpenGL and 2.85 on CPU.
 
HarryPalmer said:
.....
What can't they just make a quad + graphics it would make my life so much easier!

I want...I want etc.

Thanks again.
Click to expand...

the power supply is too small. you need a brick. or back to the future. It is a shame. they can make a mac mini with a killer gpu and a killer cpu and bluray dvd player. they just won't .

You need a brick and you need the unit to be 1/4 inch taller. this would give you all that you would need in a compact machine. they will never give a brick and they will never give a blu ray player. oh well
 
My Cinebench OpenGL test improved 4.1 percent with 8GB 1866 RAM instead of 8GB 1333 RAM. (13.15fps up from 12.63fps) pretty negligible.

CPU improvement was less than 1 percent in Cinebench which puts it purely down to the variances in the test.
 
powerbook911 said:
My Cinebench OpenGL test improved 4.1 percent with 8GB 1866 RAM instead of 8GB 1333 RAM. (13.15fps up from 12.63fps) pretty negligible.

CPU improvement was less than 1 percent in Cinebench which puts it purely down to the variances in the test.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

I have heard of people saying the machine was 'snappier' after installing the faster ram (not very scientific I know). Does anyone agree?
 
HarryPalmer said:
Interesting.

I have heard of people saying the machine was 'snappier' after installing the faster ram (not very scientific I know). Does anyone agree?
Click to expand...

The animations in Lion were better after installing 1866MHz memory in a 2011 Mac Mini Server.
 
question..

Guys,

is it because the "server" is "quad" and the "dual i7" is only "dual" why the result of the "cpu" on the server is high compared to the dual?
 
keema said:
Guys,

is it because the "server" is "quad" and the "dual i7" is only "dual" why the result of the "cpu" on the server is high compared to the dual?
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone was wondering that. Everyone expects the server to score higher on the CPU because, yes, it's quad-core (8 threads) vs. dual-core (4 threads). The question was how much faster it was since its, while having more cores, they're clocked slower. And then just how much slower its 3D video was.

Anyone run a single thread test on the server? I'm curious on the difference between the server's 2 GHz and the discrete's. My 2.7 i7's single thread CPU score was 1.28.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back