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

Geekbench test on new Mac Mini Server with 8GB ram

deafgoose

deafgoose

macrumors regular
Original poster
Oct 20, 2011
232
4
I exchanged my base model 2.3Ghz dual core i5 mini for the 2.0Ghz quad core i7 server today.

I had originally installed 8GB of ram and a 128GB SSD on my base model mini and my bench test results were lack luster.

64 bit results of mini server with 8GB ram on OSX Lion:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/507994
 
Last edited:
I love that you got 400 extra points by simply using the 1867Mhz Ram!

I am currently setting up the server with Raid 0. I wonder if my test results will be improved. :D
 
Mine is scoring about 9700 as well, I have 16GB in mine.

Your results will not be improved, GeekBench isn't testing the disk.
 
calderone said:
Mine is scoring about 9700 as well, I have 16GB in mine.

Your results will not be improved, GeekBench isn't testing the disk.
Click to expand...

If 16GB of 1333MHz is also getting you to 9700, then there is benefit to 8GBs of RAM for daily use. Basically, quantity of RAM will only affect Geekbench scores if the systems does not have enough memory to begin with. I could test Geekbench's assertion with my 2010 27" iMac with 32GB. Hmmmmm
 
shortcut3d said:
If 16GB of 1333MHz is also getting you to 9700, then there is benefit to 8GBs of RAM for daily use. Basically, quantity of RAM will only affect Geekbench scores if the systems does not have enough memory to begin with. I could test Geekbench's assertion with my 2010 27" iMac with 32GB. Hmmmmm
Click to expand...

I didn't expect it to improve results. I need 16GB for my VM setup.
 
shortcut3d said:
Could be spotlight running. Give it time to index. Then try again.
Click to expand...

I panicked so I decided to do a fresh format and reinstall OSX. This time it was downloaded from Apple and I got version 10.7.2 instead of the 10.7 that was installed out of the box.

I lost 527 points. :(

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/508244

The only difference is I am now running RAID 0 and the newer OS X 10.7.2.

Do you guys think its the OS or the RAID that is causing the drop in performance?
 
2011 Mac Mini 2.7 GHz i7
8GB RAM 1333MHz
OCZ Vertex 3 MAX IOPS 240GB
WD Scorpio Black 750GB
Windows 7 x86 (64-bit)

64-bit GeekBench Score:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/491465

Its not an apples to apples comparison, but it appear that quantity of memory does have a positive effect on GeekBench scores. The GeekBench FAQ states that quantity of memory installed does not impact the scores once you have "enough" memory. Looking at the results 16GB 1333MHz yields similar performance to 8GB 1600/1866MHz. However, a memory hungry application such as Photoshop.
 
This new mini server does not "feel" any faster than my my base model mini with 4GB ram and 128GB SSD

Where is the bottle-neck in this system?

I use photoshop, dreamweaver, iMovie and it all feels the same.
 
Last edited:
I ditched the RAID 0 and decided to install an OCZ Solid 3 128GB SSD. :)

Let's see if I notice a difference in performance.
 
Last edited:
deafgoose said:
This new mini server does not "feel" any faster than my my base model mini with 4GB ram and 128GB SSD

Where is the bottle-neck in this system?

I use photoshop, dreamweaver, iMovie and it all feels the same.
Click to expand...


The base mini is not a slow computer, combined with a SSD, it would be quite nice indeed.

Therefore, it would be hard to "feel," the difference.

If you did video encoding, you could see the FPS get munched on, quite a bit quicker with the quad though.
 
sascha h-k said:
thank you.

just plenty of "air" .. , the 8gb 1600 feel realy faster.

but, why apple has'nt build the server with gc from the normal i7 ?!
Click to expand...

Well, there are certainly some of us who would want that computer.

However, there are a few reasons. First, if truly used as a "server," you don't need the GPU. Second, some suspect there could be some concerns of having the dual 7200 RPM drives alongside the quad processor, alongside the discreet GPU. Maybe just too much for the little thing in terms of heat and power consumption (what the power supply can handle)?

The machine would also likely start at $1200 if a stock configuration was offered server & gpu.
 
powerbook911 said:
Well, there are certainly some of us who would want that computer.

However, there are a few reasons. First, if truly used as a "server," you don't need the GPU. Second, some suspect there could be some concerns of having the dual 7200 RPM drives alongside the quad processor, alongside the discreet GPU. Maybe just too much for the little thing in terms of heat and power consumption (what the power supply can handle)?

The machine would also likely start at $1200 if a stock configuration was offered server & gpu.
Click to expand...

the internal mac mini psu is 85 watts. you need more for the quad and the gpu. the easy way to fix it is go back to a brick (110 watts). the chance of that happening is about as likely as me becoming the next: steve jobs!
 
Ok....

In the past week I have tried out the stock 4GB of 1333 RAM, aftermarket 8GB of 1333 ram, and 1867 8GB RAM.

The upgrade to 1866 8GB over regular 8GB seems to gain 2.3 percent performance in Geek Bench in 64 BIT.


The big difference is what it does to 32 bit test, any RAM upgrades.

Factory 4GB ram scores only around 8620 with 32-bit test, whereas 8GB of 1866 ram jumps it to 9389! 8.9 percent improvement! Half of that was made by just going to 8GB and the other half going to 1866.


Therefore, you seem to gain the most performance in 32-bit mode when adding more and faster memory.

64 Bit improves too, but a lower percentage for whatever reason. About 4.5 percent total from 4GB 1333 to 8GB 1866. Again, about half of the improvement made by the extra memory and half made by the faster speed.


Overall, 8GB of RAM is of course worth it, as many of us need at least this much RAM. However, I am not sure the upgrade to 1866 is worth it. It does improve things, especially the results on the 32-bit test, but how much benefit does it really offer us when it costs $120 instead of $40? Not sure. Computer does "feel" faster, but that could be in my head.
 
Last edited:
powerbook911 said:
I like those numbers for a discreet graphics mini. Nice indeed!

Does the 16GB make a big difference in how it feels?
Click to expand...

What I'd wonder is how it feels when running something that can make full use of 16GB of ram. ;) Anything feels slow if you hit a point of experiencing pageouts.
 
Guess I should get more ram for my Mini server. :eek:

activity copy.jpg
 
which brand of 1866mhz of ram?

Looking for a 2 4gb's of ram for my friends mac mini base model 2011

which brand to go? links please...


thanks..
 
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