First Geekbench scores up for new mini!

flatfoot99

Guest
Original poster
Aug 4, 2010
521
0
http://9to5mac.com/2012/10/24/new-mac-minis-get-first-tear-down-and-geekbench-scores/

Apple’s refreshed Mac mini lineup has already received some nice RAM upgrade options from OWC this morning, but now we get a look at the insides of the updated Macs courtesy of a tear down from Mac Mini Vault. The site has also published Geekbench scores for the device showing some impressive performance increases over the 2011 models.

First off it found minimal changes to packaging and the positioning of the new mini’s internals:

The overall packaging size was unchanged, however marketing specs have been updated and the inside organization has been optimized… Under the hood only minor differences are visible. Most notable are the fan design, Hitachi hard drive, and connections for the antennas. (2012 on left – 2011 on right)

As for Geekbench, the new stock minis were able to record a score of 7433 running 10.8.1 out of the box. In comparison, Mac Mini Vault had a 2011 Mac mini running 10.8.2 clocked at 6583. Mac Mini Vault also noted it will begin testing alternative OS options for the new Mac mini server edition next week:
 

Poki

macrumors 65816
Mar 21, 2012
1,317
903
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.
 

LostSoul80

macrumors 68020
Jan 25, 2009
2,136
7
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.
 

Mojo1

macrumors 65816
Jul 26, 2011
1,236
13
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
 

Poki

macrumors 65816
Mar 21, 2012
1,317
903
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
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.
 

jshbckr

macrumors 6502
Apr 20, 2007
421
1
Minneapolis, MN
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.
 

TrollToddington

macrumors 6502
Feb 27, 2011
312
0
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.
 

Poki

macrumors 65816
Mar 21, 2012
1,317
903
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.
 
it may finally be a good computer for a 46 or 50 inch tv. streaming net surfing. etc.
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.
 

philipma1957

macrumors 603
Apr 13, 2010
6,272
192
Howell, New Jersey

CausticPuppy

macrumors 65816
May 1, 2012
1,483
18
This latest batch is showing some serious muscle. The 2.6GHz BTO option will score just shy of 13,000. :eek:
 

blanka

macrumors 68000
Jul 30, 2012
1,549
3
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?
 

fig

macrumors 6502a
Jun 13, 2012
916
70
Austin, TX
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.
 

Similar threads

  • MaskedCarrot
1
Replies
1
Views
31
  • noggin2k1
2
Replies
2
Views
126
  • paddylaz
3
Replies
3
Views
184
  • ragamoffyn
1
Replies
1
Views
188
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.