Entry Level i3 vs. Moderate Config i7

[CurtisBilly]

I've now owned two 2018 Mac mini computers.

1) Returned: Custom order that I returned to Apple after realizing spending over $1800 on a Mac mini wasn't for me.
$1599 for Mac mini from Apple
- 3.2GHz i7 6-core with hyperthreading and turbo up to 4.6GHz
- 512GB storage (the storage is so fast)
- 10 GBE (because why not - I might eventually need it)
$269 for 32GB of Corsair RAM that I installed. Sale prices are cheaper, but I just returned this. I only need 16GB.

2) Recently purchased via Black Friday Sales:
$699 Entry level i3 ($799 from Apple, $699 from Adorama with AppleInsider code)
- 3.6GHz i3 4-core
- 128GB storage (boot drive and apps only)
$109 for 16GB of G.Skill RAM that I installed.
$169 for Samsung T5 1TB external (for my Lightroom library).

I saved about $900 and I'm not sure I will really notice much of a difference for the work I do (Lightroom Perpetual 6.14). The i3 definitely runs cooler when pushed. I can't get it to hit Tjunction=100 degC.

I feel like I really got wrapped up in wanting to have "the best" whereas, for me, the entry level i3 will be just fine.
[doublepost=1543463449][/doublepost]Screenshot of trying to get the i3 to throttle/hit Tjunction=100 degC.
1) yes command running to keep the CPU pegged.
2) Cinebench OpenGL running to keep the Intel 630 GPU generating heat.
Note: I can't get above ~48 watts total power and 93 deg C temperature. While the i3-8100B and i7-8700B are both "TDP=65W", they aren't really equivalent thermally.

[doublepost=1543464235][/doublepost]Attached are two more screenshots of trying to build up heat with consecutive Cinebench CPU runs. First screenshot is first two runs from an idle temp of ~40 deg C. Second screenshot is after 5 runs.

Notice the i3-8100B CPU alone will only peg out ~38 watts of power and I can't get the Mac mini to break 90 deg C with just the CPU taxed. The slight dips from 3.6 GHz are just the Cinebench run finishing before I can launch another run.

 

[F-Train]

For me, this is very interesting. Two questions:

Which G. Skill RAM product (code?) are you using, and have you had any issues with it?

Is the i3 working well with Lightroom? The version that you have is pretty up to date, less than a year old. Are you using it with RAW or .jpeg images? Do you do any Lightroom batch processing, or is it image by image? Assuming that you tested Lightroom processing with the i7, do you see any differences between it and the i3?

Thanks

 

[CurtisBilly]

For me, this is very interesting. Two questions:

Which G. Skill RAM product (code?) are you using, and have you had any issues with it?

Is the i3 working well with Lightroom? The version that you have is pretty up to date, less than a year old. Are you using it with RAW or .jpeg images? Do you do any Lightroom batch processing, or is it image by image? Do you see any difference in Lightroom processing between the i3 and the i7?

Thanks

G.Skill RAM is F4-2666C18D-16GRS. No issues with the RAM so far. Shows up as 2667 MHz in System Information. $109.99 at NewEgg.

Lightroom - I am on the last perpetual version (don't have to pay every month for CC). It works well with RAW images from my 42mp A7RIII. I am just running image by image for now. I just got the i3 up and running. The i3 with the Catalog and Smart Previews on the Samsung T5 is not quite as ridiculously snappy as running off of the i7 with 512GB internal but it's still pretty snappy.

 

[emboahora]

G.Skill RAM is F4-2666C18D-16GRS. No issues with the RAM so far. Shows up as 2667 MHz in System Information. $109.99 at NewEgg.

Lightroom - I am on the last perpetual version (don't have to pay every month for CC). It works well with RAW images from my 42mp A7RIII. I am just running image by image for now. I just got the i3 up and running. The i3 with the Catalog and Smart Previews on the Samsung T5 is not quite as ridiculously snappy as running off of the i7 with 512GB internal but it's still pretty snappy.

That’s pretty impressive considering the 512SSD is faster than the 128SSD, meaning if both had 512SSD the difference in performance could be even less noticeable in this scenario.

 

[Mannaerts]

But in Lightroom there is a noticable difference in loading speed?

 

[Spectrum]

Good choice. Regarding your results, they make sense if essentially the CPUs are more or less the same silicon just with 2 cores disabled (lower yielding parts) and with/without turbo/hyper threading enabled (only for the best performing parts perhaps).

So in those terms you should indeed be seeing 4cores at 3.6Ghz be lower wattage than 6 cores at 3.0 or 3.2 GHz.
Other results also show, though, that if you have a more threaded workload, the i5 and i7 will complete the task in 2/3 of the time due to the additional cores, and also the potential to boost up to 4+ GHz even with six cores loaded.

Ultimately, even the i3 is a massive boost for anyone coming from a dual core system, and also even for those coming from a top spec 4-core 2012 Mac mini.

But for me, since the 2011 quad-core has lasted me 7 years...I decided to go for the i7 to see if it can also last that long into the future. Even with 1TB disk and 32GB RAM, that is only about $1 per working day...

 

[Acronyc]

Looks like you really got a nice config there that works well with your workflow. I also think the i3 will be just fine for a lot of people now and down the road. It’s a big jump from what was previously in the mini and the deal you got on it for $699 makes it even better.

For me, I actually initially ordered the i3 mini but canceled it and changed to an i5. I live in Switzerland and prices are more expensive here (base i3 starts at $999), and when I ordered an i3 with a 256GB drive (this was minimum for my needs) and 16GB of RAM it was just about $100 difference than the i5. So I got the i5 but upped the internal storage to 512GB. It was more than I wanted to pay for a mini but if it can last as long as my 2012 mini it’ll be worth it. I’ll toss in some more RAM later but I actually don’t need it right now.

I think any config of the mini will work well for most and last a while. In my experience with owning two minis over a long period they are solid machines.

 

[CurtisBilly]

But in Lightroom there is a noticable difference in loading speed?

Going from memory, navigating through Lightroom, the i7 was a little snappier as compared to the i3. But the i3 does not feel sluggish. It's actually quite responsive.
[doublepost=1543689425][/doublepost]

Good choice. Regarding your results, they make sense if essentially the CPUs are more or less the same silicon just with 2 cores disabled (lower yielding parts) and with/without turbo/hyper threading enabled (only for the best performing parts perhaps).

I bet you are right about how Intel is probably sorting the same silicon into the different i3/i5/i7 parts.

Good choice.
But for me, since the 2011 quad-core has lasted me 7 years...I decided to go for the i7 to see if it can also last that long into the future. Even with 1TB disk and 32GB RAM, that is only about $1 per working day...

Your i7 2018 mini should last you 7 years just like you're 2011! Enjoy
[doublepost=1543689571][/doublepost]

I think any config of the mini will work well for most and last a while. In my experience with owning two minis over a long period they are solid machines.

Considering the 2018 Mac mini i3 is quite comparable to the processor you would get in the current 2017 $1799 base 27" Retina iMac, I agree any config mini will work well for most and last awhile.
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/414/Intel_Core_i3_i3-8100_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-7500.html

 

[Juggar]

Going from memory, navigating through Lightroom, the i7 was a little snappier as compared to the i3. But the i3 does not feel sluggish. It's actually quite responsive.
[doublepost=1543689425][/doublepost]
I bet you are right about how Intel is probably sorting the same silicon into the different i3/i5/i7 parts.

Your i7 2018 mini should last you 7 years just like you're 2011! Enjoy
[doublepost=1543689571][/doublepost]
Considering the 2018 Mac mini i3 is quite comparable to the processor you would get in the current 2017 $1799 base 27" Retina iMac, I agree any config mini will work well for most and last awhile.
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/414/Intel_Core_i3_i3-8100_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-7500.html

I think a lot of people forget that the i3 now = the i5 of the last generation. Both are the same quad core chips.

Mac people are also not familiar with i3 nomenclature so they automatically scoff at it (perhaps unknowingly or subconsciously) , even if its literally the same silicon as the i5-7500 just rebranded.

If Apple named the base model as "i5-7500, 8GB RAM, 128GB SSD" I feel like more people would have bought it vs the i3 naming scheme.

Plenty of professionals used the very expensive 5K iMacs with the i5, they'll be fine with the i3 (aka i5-7500) as well. The fact that you can upgrade the memory makes the base mode the most lucrative, since it will do anything the i5 and i7 will do, just taking a bit longer in some cases. It is by no means a slouch.

 

[FilmIndustryGuy]

I've now owned two 2018 Mac mini computers.

1) Returned: Custom order that I returned to Apple after realizing spending over $1800 on a Mac mini wasn't for me.
$1599 for Mac mini from Apple
- 3.2GHz i7 6-core with hyperthreading and turbo up to 4.6GHz
- 512GB storage (the storage is so fast)
- 10 GBE (because why not - I might eventually need it)
$269 for 32GB of Corsair RAM that I installed. Sale prices are cheaper, but I just returned this. I only need 16GB.

2) Recently purchased via Black Friday Sales:
$699 Entry level i3 ($799 from Apple, $699 from Adorama with AppleInsider code)
- 3.6GHz i3 4-core
- 128GB storage (boot drive and apps only)
$109 for 16GB of G.Skill RAM that I installed.
$169 for Samsung T5 1TB external (for my Lightroom library).

I saved about $900 and I'm not sure I will really notice much of a difference for the work I do (Lightroom Perpetual 6.14). The i3 definitely runs cooler when pushed. I can't get it to hit Tjunction=100 degC.

I feel like I really got wrapped up in wanting to have "the best" whereas, for me, the entry level i3 will be just fine.
[doublepost=1543463449][/doublepost]Screenshot of trying to get the i3 to throttle/hit Tjunction=100 degC.
1) yes command running to keep the CPU pegged.
2) Cinebench OpenGL running to keep the Intel 630 GPU generating heat.
Note: I can't get above ~48 watts total power and 93 deg C temperature. While the i3-8100B and i7-8700B are both "TDP=65W", they aren't really equivalent thermally.

[doublepost=1543464235][/doublepost]Attached are two more screenshots of trying to build up heat with consecutive Cinebench CPU runs. First screenshot is first two runs from an idle temp of ~40 deg C. Second screenshot is after 5 runs.

Notice the i3-8100B CPU alone will only peg out ~38 watts of power and I can't get the Mac mini to break 90 deg C with just the CPU taxed. The slight dips from 3.6 GHz are just the Cinebench run finishing before I can launch another run.

How did you save $100 off the i3? was it with AppleCare add in? is this deal still on and if so what's the promo code?

 

[Juggar]

How did you save $100 off the i3? was it with AppleCare add in? is this deal still on and if so what's the promo code?

Its over now. its was a black friday deal.

 

[CurtisBilly]

Its over now. its was a black friday deal.

The $100 off of the base config i3 is over now.
But B&H are selling the i3 and i5 base configs for $50 off:
https://prices.appleinsider.com/mac-mini-late-2018

 

[Saurav Shrestha ⚡️]

Costco has the base i3 for $760

 

[ashleykaryl]

My father bought an i3 not long ago and after setting it up for him I realised it was far faster than I had expected. My first impression was that it felt twice as fast as my old Mac Pro in general use. After returning home I looked at the benchmark results online and on single core processes the i3 mini is significantly faster than my Mac Pro. For multicore tasks like exporting from handbrake it is only be about 5% slower and this is from the entry level mini compared to an 8 Core Mac Pro with an SSD.

If you look further at benchmark results the i7 is definitely faster but it comes at the cost of higher temperatures and quite a bit more financial expense, so if you can get over the i3 label, it's not half bad if you are just looking for a good value computer that can handle most tasks quietly and efficiently.

 

[Saurav Shrestha ⚡️]

I got the i3 from micro center for $740. Honestly it’s blown my expectations. Like someone else said — the current gen i3 is equivalent in performance to prev gen i5. It is that good.

The Mac is smooth and fast. My pictures load and export quickly. Apps are seamless. And the mini is quiet because there is no turbo boost. So the base clock of 3.6 which btw is higher than that of i5 and i7 runs cooler than when turbo boost is active.

I’m not too knowledgeable on the whole turbo boost and hyper threading topics but I feel there is a certain amount of marketing magic involved in selling those technologies.If you only look at things from the consumer standpoint the i3 mini w it’s 3.6 ghz base far exceeds expectations. And I guess it’s sustainable at that speed whereas turbo boost is not (?).

And hyper threading is good for apps which utilize multiple cores but I think that segment of apps is confined in video production and certain types of computationally intensive tasks.
Most of the normal everyday tasks can be done reliably and snappily by apps written for single core.
So really, hashing out extra $300+ dollars for possible future proofing is just a form of FOMO while the truth is the i3 base is more than enough for most needs.


Good thing is the ram is user upgradable.
As you can tell, I love my i3.

 

[Nymunariya]

I got the i3 about a month ago, and I'm super happy with it. I specifically wanted it because it should run quiet (it does) and cool (it does). For my work, and light gaming this is perfect.

 

[Saurav Shrestha ⚡️]

I got the i3 about a month ago, and I'm super happy with it. I specifically wanted it because it should run quiet (it does) and cool (it does). For my work, and light gaming this is perfect.

What kind of light gaming? I’ve been wondering about the same but never really tried anything assuming nothing will run properly

 

[Nymunariya]

Diablo 2, World of Warcraft 5.4.8 (Mists of Pandaria on a private server), OpenMW (open source engine recreation of Morrowind), Sims Medival, Runescape runs well, Warcraft III (the original, not the remake), and older games on gog.

 

[Boyd01]

Like someone else said — the current gen i3 is equivalent in performance to prev gen i5. It is that good.

The "previous generation" (2014) Mini had three different i5 options - 1.4ghz, 2.6ghz and 2.8ghz. These were all pretty slow (I have a 1.4 and a 2.8). So perhaps you are thinking of the 2014 3.0ghz i7 Mini? That was no speed demon either, and in fact the 2012 (quad-core) i7 Mini was about 50% faster than top-spec 2014 i7 Mini.

I suspect the comparison you're thinking of is the 2018 i3 Mini vs the 2012 i7 2.6ghz quad, which was the fastest available Mini until 2018. The 2018 i3 has about the same Geekbench rating as the 2012 quad, however other changes in the 2018 architecture make it even faster for many things.