i5 or i7?

[tedson]

But I’m not sure whether to get the i5 or the i7.

The single-core Geekbench scores for the I5 vs the I7 can be attributed to the 12% higher Turbo Boost speed of the I7, 4.1GHz vs 4.6GHz. The multi-cored scores seems to mostly reflect the higher Turbo Boost clock with only a very small benefit from Hyper Threading. (insert usual disclaimer about the artificially of synthetic bench marks)

As others have mentioned, the I7 does open you up to hyper-threading exploits (although this is extremely unlikely)

 

[Jamers99]

About to order my Custom Mac Mini. I'm having serious seconds thoughts on going with the i7. I see alot of recent news on Side Channel Vulnerability for attacks on Intel's Hyperthreading. I think I may be safer with the i5. What do you guys thinks?

 

[rmdeluca]

About to order my Custom Mac Mini. I'm having serious seconds thoughts on going with the i7. I see alot of recent news on Side Channel Vulnerability for attacks on Intel's Hyperthreading. I think I may be safer with the i5. What do you guys thinks?

Don't sweat it for even a moment. These vulnerabilities are not going to affect you.

 

[Ice Dragon]

Reading this thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mac-mini-i5-tests.2153750/

Does the i5 really run that hot? What if I'm not putting it through a heavy workload?

I ran my custom config through Apple's website and the i5 comes out to $100 more than the i3 but if the i5 runs significantly hotter than the i3, I'll go with the i3. I'm coming from a dual-core i5 on my 2014 Mac mini that I got two years ago so the quad i3 would be a decent upgrade at minimum over the dual i5. I was hoping for the hex i5 however.

 

[Cashmonee]

Reading this thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mac-mini-i5-tests.2153750/

Does the i5 really run that hot? What if I'm not putting it through a heavy workload?

I ran my custom config through Apple's website and the i5 comes out to $100 more than the i3 but if the i5 runs significantly hotter than the i3, I'll go with the i3. I'm coming from a dual-core i5 on my 2014 Mac mini that I got two years ago so the quad i3 would be a decent upgrade at minimum over the dual i5. I was hoping for the hex i5 however.

Why would that cause you to go i3? The i5, even running hotter will outperform the i3.

 

[Ice Dragon]

Why would that cause you to go i3? The i5, even running hotter will outperform the i3.

I don't want it to overheat.

 

[rigbricker]

I don't want it to overheat.

You can always reduce the throttling temperature to something you're comfortable with. That's what I intend to do with my i7 when it gets here. I don't have sustained multicore workloads but still want optimal turbo for short bursts like opening websites and compiling my personal projects. And in the rare cases where the box needs to crunch multicore for longer periods and the throttling would make a difference, I'll just increase the fan RPM manually.

 

[PJivan]

I don't want it to overheat.

There is no such overheating, intel processor slow down above stabled working temperature (up to 100c).

 

[Ice Dragon]

Thanks guys. I appreciate it.

 

[Cashmonee]

I don't want it to overheat.

Ah. I don't think I would be at all concerned about that. I think a lot of people are overreacting to the temps of these processors in this forum. First, all indications are that all of the chips are performing as intended. Second, Apple and Intel aren't going to knowingly put out something that will fail, and if it does, you have a warranty. This happens every time something is released. I cannot see getting a slower processor because the faster ones run close to or at their top acceptable temps when they are being pegged by a program designed to test limits.

 

[PJivan]

Thanks guys. I appreciate it.

The only concern I see is throttling, so for instance if i7 benefit compared to i5 are heavily nerfed by throttling, is it even worth it then? But between i3 and i5 i think it’s a pretty safe choice.

 

[Dr. Dr. Evil]

The only concern I see is throttling, so for instance if i7 benefit compared to i5 are heavily nerfed by throttling, is it even worth it then? But between i3 and i5 i think it’s a pretty safe choice.

Same idea here

 

[MacNeal]

I mostly use my Mac mini for the Web (Chrome & Firefox), for writing (LibreOffice), for some infrequent light design work (Adobe CS5), and for playing music via iTunes & Internet radio. And that's about it. Since my present mini is 8 years old and badly needing replacing, I plan to get a new 2018 mini.

Having read through this thread and related ones, I've concluded that the i7 is overkill for my needs, but the i3 is underkill, as I want my next mini to last a good while without needing to upgrade it. Here's my plan, any feedback is welcome.

3.0GHz 6‑core 8th‑generation Intel Core i5
32GB 2666MHz DDR4
1T SSD storage
Gigabit Ethernet

I realize that that amount of RAM is paying Apple's premium prices, same with the 1T SSD. But I'm willing to just do it upfront, as I don't see myself adding RAM on my own and if the storage is not upgradable, I might as well load up at the beginning. If you can talk me down to 16GB RAM, please do so and save me $400!

I'm new here and may not understand the fine points of etiquette, so I hope this isn't considered hijacking the thread. Thanks.

 

[F-Train]

I mostly use my Mac mini for the Web (Chrome & Firefox), for writing (LibreOffice), for some infrequent light design work (Adobe CS5), and for playing music via iTunes & Internet radio. And that's about it. Since my present mini is 8 years old and badly needing replacing, I plan to get a new 2018 mini.

Having read through this thread and related ones, I've concluded that the i7 is overkill for my needs, but the i3 is underkill, as I want my next mini to last a good while without needing to upgrade it. Here's my plan, any feedback is welcome.

3.0GHz 6‑core 8th‑generation Intel Core i5
32GB 2666MHz DDR4
1T SSD storage
Gigabit Ethernet

I realize that that amount of RAM is paying Apple's premium prices, same with the 1T SSD. But I'm willing to just do it upfront, as I don't see myself adding RAM on my own and if the storage is not upgradable, I might as well load up at the beginning. If you can talk me down to 16GB RAM, please do so and save me $400!

I'm new here and may not understand the fine points of etiquette, so I hope this isn't considered hijacking the thread. Thanks.

Based on how you intend to use this computer, there is no reason whatever for you to purchase more than 16GB of RAM. In the event that there's a dramatic, unexpected change in your needs, you can always purchase more.

The purchase of 1TB of flash storage suggests that you have a lot of data, or expect to have a lot of data, and want to keep it all on your computer instead of on external drives. That's a personal decision. Just realise that internal flash storage is much more expensive than external storage, especially if that external storage doesn't need to be high speed. Plus, purchasing 1TB of flash drive doesn't change the fact that you need external storage, or at the very least cloud storage, for backup.

You aren't highjacking anything

 

[MacNeal]

Based on how you intend to use this computer, there is no reason whatever for you to purchase more than 16GB of RAM. In the event that there's a dramatic, unexpected change in your needs, you can always purchase more.

The purchase of 1TB of flash storage suggests that you have a lot of data, or expect to have a lot of data, and want to keep it all on your computer instead of on external drives. That's a personal decision. Just realise that internal flash storage is much more expensive than external storage, especially if that external storage doesn't need to be high speed. Plus, purchasing 1TB of flash drive doesn't change the fact that you need external storage, or at the very least cloud storage, for backup.

You aren't highjacking anything

Many thanks for the quick response.

You are probably right about 16GB RAM being sufficient for my purposes. The reason I chose 32GB was that my old mini maxed out at 8GB RAM and has gotten so sluggish -- especially at startup, sometimes taking 15 minutes for everything to load -- that I didn't want to lowball the RAM. But I'm likely not taking into consideration that everything on a new mini will be much faster than on an 8 year old mini.

Re the SSD storage, there too I may be overestimating my needs. My old mini has a 500GB drive and is about 2/3rds full with about 150GB unused. So, getting another new drive (albeit a SSD) the same size seemed a bit skimpy. But the truth of the matter is that I have 3 external drives (one 1TB, one 2TB, and one 3TB), so I am not lacking for storage. I use the 2TB for Time Machine backup and the 3TB for some thirty years of archived files, music, and art. The 1TB is presently not in use. I just want things to be fast, as the two external HDs in use power down into eco mode and take awhile to wake up when accessing them (though I did recently install "Keep Drive Spinning" for the 3TB).

As for the 15 minutes for stuff to load on startup, I attribute that in part to apps that are loading on startup that want to do their thing (such as Malwarebytes scanning, Time Machine archiving, etc.) It was my hope that with a slew of RAM and 1TB of SSD all that could be sped up back to a reasonable quick startup.

 

[F-Train]

Many thanks for the quick response.

You are probably right about 16GB RAM being sufficient for my purposes. The reason I chose 32GB was that my old mini maxed out at 8GB RAM and has gotten so sluggish -- especially at startup, sometimes taking 15 minutes for everything to load -- that I didn't want to lowball the RAM. But I'm likely not taking into consideration that everything on a new mini will be much faster than on an 8 year old mini.

Re the SSD storage, there too I may be overestimating my needs. My old mini has a 500GB drive and is about 2/3rds full with about 150GB unused. So, getting another new drive (albeit a SSD) the same size seemed a bit skimpy. But the truth of the matter is that I have 3 external drives (one 1TB, one 2TB, and one 3TB), so I am not lacking for storage. I use the 2TB for Time Machine backup and the 3TB for some thirty years of archived files, music, and art. The 1TB is presently not in use. I just want things to be fast, as the two external HDs in use power down into eco mode and take awhile to wake up when accessing them (though I did recently install "Keep Drive Spinning" for the 3TB).

As for the 15 minutes for stuff to load on startup, I attribute that in part to apps that are loading on startup that want to do their thing (such as Malwarebytes scanning, Time Machine archiving, etc.) It was my hope that with a slew of RAM and 1TB of SSD all that could be sped up back to a reasonable quick startup.

You definitely don't need more than 16GB of RAM.

On the drive side, have a look at USB-C drives. The Samsung T5 series, one of which I have, is very popular, highly regarded, and very fast. And it sure is cheaper than Apple flash drive. There's a reasonable chance that there will be some attractive Black Friday pricing on the T5 drives too.

 

[MacNeal]

You definitely don't need more than 16GB of RAM.

On the drive side, have a look at USB-C drives. The Samsung T5 series, one of which I have, is very popular, highly regarded, and very fast. And it sure is cheaper than Apple flash drive. There's a reasonable chance that there will be some attractive Black Friday pricing on the T5 drives too.

Thanks for the pointer on the T5 series. While it pains me to think of getting another external drive when I've got 6TB of them already, the fact of the matter is they are all several years old, the WD HD periodically gobbles itself and has to be reformatted, and none of them is an SSD.

Part of my speed problem with the old mini has been that old USB hubs and peripherals dumb everything down to the lowest USB speed, even if they are capable of faster throughput. Cleaning all this up is one of the challenges I will face in getting a 2018 mini. I've been using Macs since my 128K Mac in 1984, but it doesn't get easier, the older I get. I suppose in another five years we'll just be ordering Siri around to take care of it all.

 

[Machspeed007]

I mostly use my Mac mini for the Web (Chrome & Firefox), for writing (LibreOffice), for some infrequent light design work (Adobe CS5), and for playing music via iTunes & Internet radio. And that's about it. Since my present mini is 8 years old and badly needing replacing, I plan to get a new 2018 mini.

Having read through this thread and related ones, I've concluded that the i7 is overkill for my needs, but the i3 is underkill, as I want my next mini to last a good while without needing to upgrade it. Here's my plan, any feedback is welcome.

Why is the i3 "underkill" in your scenario?

 

[MacNeal]

Why is the i3 "underkill" in your scenario?

Because, according to my logic (which might not be yours, I admit), I want to build in some head room (or is that elbow room?) to allow for future OS, app, and data expansions that might cause the bottom based 2018 mini to be lagging a few years down the line. I'm not looking for the rock-bottom cheapest mini configuration that might get me through; I'm willing to spend some extra $ to not worry about finding myself in 3 years muttering "damn, I should have gone for an i5!"

Since it took Apple six years to do a really serious update to the mini series (I don't think 2014 really counted), I figure I have to cover the possibility that they may pull that on us again. If you have a different take on this, I am all ears.

 

[SoCalReviews]

What processor/memory settings do you recommend for a VMware Fusion virtual machine running Windows 10? I mainly use it for TradeStation, running in the background all day.

It really depends on the specs of your Mac Mini. With my 2012 2.3Ghz i7 with 16GB RAM... I run Parallels VMs but VMware Fusion VMs should use similar settings. For performance virtual settings for Windows 10 VMs I set to 4 virtual cores (2 actual cores with Hyperthreading or just use 2 actual cores without HT) and 4GB system RAM, 1GB or 2GB video RAM depending on your needs. The Parallels automatically allocates the drive storage dynamically... as I recall it defaults at 64GB which is what I leave it at... VMware Fusion probably uses a similar feature for drive space.

If you only have one VM open at a time you can allocate more resources... more cores, RAM, etc.. if you choose but there is usually a sweet spot where if you allocate more VM resources you can waste MacOS system resources on your VMs that you don't need to. You can experiment with those settings and see if you notice an improvement in performance when you run your VMware Fusion VM for Windows 10. As you know this is why having at least 16GB total system RAM on your Mac and more cores to run really helps with running VMs.

As you probably already realize if you only have 8GB total system RAM and a CPU with less cores or without Hyperthreading you will have to scale back your VM settings to a minimum to have enough for MacOS and your Video RAM (I would leave at least 4GB or more minimum left over for MacOS after allocating RAM to the active VMs). If you are using a new 2018 i7 hex core Mini (12 virtual cores with HT) with higher specs... 32GB or more RAM, etc... then you can more easily ramp up those VM settings higher and run multiple different live VMs at the same time as well. I hope this information is helpful.

 

[StellarVixen]

If the i7 cannot perform as good as it is able to, due to thermal throttling, isn’t the i7 just a waste of money?


I know according to Geekbench, i7 outperforms i5 by significant margin, but Geekbench alone does not tell much. What are video export times on i5 vs i7, for example? How different are Handbrake scores? How faster are Xcode compile times on i7 vs i5?


These are much better measures than Geekbench alone.

 

[Machspeed007]

Because, according to my logic (which might not be yours, I admit), I want to build in some head room (or is that elbow room?) to allow for future OS, app, and data expansions that might cause the bottom based 2018 mini to be lagging a few years down the line. I'm not looking for the rock-bottom cheapest mini configuration that might get me through; I'm willing to spend some extra $ to not worry about finding myself in 3 years muttering "damn, I should have gone for an i5!"

Since it took Apple six years to do a really serious update to the mini series (I don't think 2014 really counted), I figure I have to cover the possibility that they may pull that on us again. If you have a different take on this, I am all ears.

Fact is, the i5 is not much of an upgrade if we are talking about browsing the internet, mails and occasional photo edits.
If in 3 years time I would really need intense multithreading capabilities, I would get the i7. I would then sell the i3 or keep it and use it for other things (Plex server, office desktop, whatever).
95% of the time, for people who browse, code, edits photos, listens to music, watches movies, the 4 core i3 is in fact overkill, in my opinion.
I would rather invest in n egpu than in an i7 for the time being, given the usage scenario and potential bottlenecks in the future.

 

[mmomega]

I did the i7 and will redo the thermal paste on it right away while installing new RAM.
Hoping it kicks the current 6core Mac Pro I have right in the jiggle bits.

 

[Dr. Dr. Evil]

If the i7 cannot perform as good as it is able to, due to thermal throttling, isn’t the i7 just a waste of money?


I know according to Geekbench, i7 outperforms i5 by significant margin, but Geekbench alone does not tell much. What are video export times on i5 vs i7, for example? How different are Handbrake scores? How faster are Xcode compile times on i7 vs i5?


These are much better measures than Geekbench alone.

same questions here

 

[Machspeed007]

There's PCMag review of the i3 here

The handbrake test:

The Hades Canyon is an i7 with hyperthreading AND VegaM dgpu.

Now, the i3 has the T2 video encoding chip that I doubt that is used yet by Handbrake.
Also, video encoding can be offloaded to an egpu, if added later.

I don't expect the i7 mini having the same video encoding performance as the Hades Canyon NUC because the 630 igpu is slower, so I would expect there's a much closer performance to the i3/i5 at launch..