First Geekbench scores up for new mini!

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by flatfoot99, Oct 24, 2012.

  1. flatfoot99 Guest

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    #1
    http://9to5mac.com/2012/10/24/new-mac-minis-get-first-tear-down-and-geekbench-scores/

     
  2. TetheredHeart macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
  3. Poki macrumors 6502a

    Poki

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    #3
    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.
     
  4. LostSoul80 macrumors 68020

    LostSoul80

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    #4
    That's very, very arguable. In fact, I'd say the exact opposite.
     
  5. hugodrax macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    #5
    LOL my Mac pro 2006 is 5287 on the Geekbench and consumes over 400 watts.
     
  6. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #6
    it may finally be a good computer for a 46 or 50 inch tv. streaming net surfing. etc.
     
  7. fig macrumors 6502a

    fig

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #7
    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.
     
  8. Mojo1 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    #8
    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... :D
     
  9. Poki macrumors 6502a

    Poki

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    #9
    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.
     
  10. Poki macrumors 6502a

    Poki

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    #11
  11. jshbckr macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #12
    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.
     
  12. TrollToddington macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    #13
    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.
     
  13. Poki macrumors 6502a

    Poki

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    #14
    My MacBook Pro scores "only" 3400 points, so 11.000 should be a noticeable upgrade I think.
     
  14. flatfoot99, Oct 24, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2012

    flatfoot99 thread starter Guest

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
  15. Poki macrumors 6502a

    Poki

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    #16
  16. flatfoot99 thread starter Guest

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    #17
    you're right... thanks
     
  17. IronWaffle macrumors 6502

    IronWaffle

    #18
    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.
     
  18. flatfoot99 thread starter Guest

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    #19
  19. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #20
    I own a 46 and a 50 your 55 should be fine.
     
  20. CausticPuppy macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    #21
    This latest batch is showing some serious muscle. The 2.6GHz BTO option will score just shy of 13,000. :eek:
     
  21. blanka macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    #22
    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?
     
  22. fig macrumors 6502a

    fig

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #23
    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.
     

Share This Page