Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by flatfoot99, Oct 24, 2012.
Only for the i5 model
Yep, the i5 model is the least interesting out of the bunch. However, nice to see it's a noticeable improvement over the previous entry level Mac.
That's very, very arguable. In fact, I'd say the exact opposite.
LOL my Mac pro 2006 is 5287 on the Geekbench and consumes over 400 watts.
it may finally be a good computer for a 46 or 50 inch tv. streaming net surfing. etc.
I'd argue with your argument. But really, it all just depends what you're looking at a Mini for.
More benchmarks up on the front page for the other models and they're pretty freakin' impressive.
The i5 is plenty of Mac for a lot of people. I debated with myself for a couple of hours before going with the $799 Mini. But the i5 would probably be fine for me too...
Oh, I almost forgot the Mini is a entry level computer, now that it has just as much power as a high-end iMac (except the graphics, of course). For me, as a absolute power user (daily usage of Aperture, FCP X, Motion, ...) the dual core model of course doesn't matter.
Uhhh is this the quad-core i7?
Wow - if this benchmark is true, it's at least 1000 points over my expectations! :O
Also, looks like the 2.3 quad has the same 6mb L3 cache as the 2.6ghz quad... I'm tempted to jump up to the 2.3ghz quad, but don't think I'll pay the $100 for the extra .3ghz
If I'm seeing correctly... Looks like last year's Mac Mini got ~8800 on Geekbench:
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geek..."Intel Core i7-2635QM" frequency:2000 bits:32
So if the new one really scores 11697 and it's not faked or a different computer... That's pretty incredible.
My 2010 i3 21.5" iMac just cored 5761 in 32 bit mode. This means the new base mini is just 30% faster (not taking into account the slower HDD). It's not much of an incentive to upgrade (not that I'm considering upgrading any sooner than 2014). But it's a good result for a machine which is 1/6th the size of my iMac
The midrange quad-core is completely another story. I think that $200 over the base model would be well spent.
My MacBook Pro scores "only" 3400 points, so 11.000 should be a noticeable upgrade I think.
anyone know why the server would outperform the mid level if they have the same specs???
I think the 6.3 is measured with the 2,6 GHz i7.
you're right... thanks
Just curious about those sizes and how you come to them. I have a 55" LCD HDTV that I want to use with this Mini. Granted, the goal is to be pretty much an iTunes server and I will likely add RAM. My Apple TV and my Blu Ray player will handle most of my video needs.
I own a 46 and a 50 your 55 should be fine.
This latest batch is showing some serious muscle. The 2.6GHz BTO option will score just shy of 13,000.
I wonder what the quads do on OpenGL in Cinebench?
The dual cores with HD4000 in the MBPro's get 17fps, where my Radeon 6630 does 23fps.
My 5.2 mini does 7200 on GB, that is just shy off the 7400 posted here. Would putting 1600mhz RAM in mine help?
I'd wager that with Cinebench you're going to see less boost from the faster CPU and more from the dedicated video card. Overall the mini's will be nice and quick but are going to get beat out on a few of the OpenGL/GPU heavy tests.