i5 or i7?

[auduchinok]

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!"

With your current usage this particular i3 won't make you think so even more than in 3 years. It's more powerful than i7 in, say, MBP 15" 2015 which is a machine which still can be used for many kinds of professional work just fine, it could be a perfect machine for your needs performance-wise.
You won't gain a lot from having two additional cores of i5 due to the most of the time you'll be waiting for single core tasks or IO (network, disk) anyway, except for maybe Lightroom which probably uses more cores.

 

[Dr. Dr. Evil]

I read on another thread that the i5 model is much closer to the i3 than the i7 in terms of temperature and fan noise.
.

which thread?
I would alos go for an i5, if there are this advantgages in normal workload/daily work situations
If there is not a big difference in not peak situations between i5 and i7, will say that they feel like the same during the day in terms of noise and temp, then I would opt in for i7 as a kind of an investment protection

 

[F-Train]

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.

Here is a Blackmagic Speed Test on my 500GB Samsung T5 flash drive > Mac mini i5 Thunderbolt 3/USB-C port. The T5 drive has two AFPS volumes:

 

[jclardy]

2) SSDs have a limit on how many times they can write. The larger the capacity the more lifetime you get on them. If you are planning on keeping the computer and using it for 10 years and you plan on using it a lot, going for a 128GB could be a huge mistake. Minimum 256GB although if I were buying one now I would go even higher, though I wouldn't plan on using the mini for a decade.

They do have a limit, but given 4 thunderbolt 3 ports you could just use an external boot drive if the internal drive started to deteriorate. The Samsung X5 external TB3 SSD is actually faster at reads and writes than the internal drive of the mini, and it is likely that there will be faster/larger/cheaper drives 2-3 years from now. You won't get the T2 secure boot features but it would still work just fine.

 

[Dr. Dr. Evil]

The Samsung X5 external TB3 SSD is actually faster at reads and writes than the internal drive of the mini

Are you sure??

 

[PJivan]

Are you sure??

Na it’s not faster but it’s close, it also depends what size tou are comparing 1tb mac mini goes to 2.6GB/s writing

 

[Dr. Dr. Evil]

Na it’s not faster but it’s close, it also depends what size tou are comparing 1tb mac mini goes to 2.6GB/s writing

The reviews which I found of the x5 are currently not so promising (Data loss with a short time of use)

May be it will progress in future, but not now

 

[Ice Dragon]

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.

So you have a 2010 Mini right now? I too was considering 32 GB of RAM but I don't think I will need that much. I am also planning to just go with a 512 GB SSD. I could go with a 1 TB but I feel it is unnecessary right now.

 

[ktcifone]

in regards to longevity go with the i7, 12 cpu threads to work with.
storage is personal preference all my storage is on external RAID array.
Id recommend getting the 16GB out of the box you should be ok for 2-3 years depending on your workload. once its out of warranty then upgrade it memory prices will drop down and why muck with the internals if you dont need to.

 

[Neodym]

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!"

The Coffee Lake i3 (Mac mini 2018) is actually a rebadged Kaby Lake R (previous gen) i5 with minor optimizations. So the biggest advantages the i5 mini has over the i3 mini are two additional cores and turbo boost on single/low-threaded tasks.

As a quadcore was (upper) mainstream until very recently, it will probably still be sufficient for quite some years to come (outside of specialized audio/video workflows), especially with the use scenario you depicted earlier. And even if you decide to go for video editing, a rebadged i5 quad core is still no slouch.

And if you should find out in 3 years(!) that the i3 of today may not be sufficient anymore, chances are that either a new mini is available by then (with further improved tech, such as more powerful iGPU, faster SSD, even more powerful CPU etc.) or the existing one and some components (Ram) are available cheaper / refurbed (meaning you may even be able to more easily afford the i7 w/ Hyperthreading). In the meantime you could put the saved money to good use elsewhere

Disclaimer: Purchasing decisions are often not solely based on rationale, so please don't misunderstand my posting as trying to talk you out of having some fun tech around, just because you can (and want it)! :-D

 

[Fishrrman]

F-train wrote:
"Here is a Blackmagic Speed Test on my 500GB Samsung T5 flash drive > Mac mini i5 Thunderbolt 3/USB-C port. The T5 drive has two AFPS volumes:"

Those speeds look good.

I'd be interested in seeing one from the t5 with an HFS+ partition...

 

[MacNeal]

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.

Assuming that's the case, in what usage scenarios is the i5 enough of an upgrade for it to be the second option on mini 2018 CPUs?

 

[F-Train]

F-train wrote:
"Here is a Blackmagic Speed Test on my 500GB Samsung T5 flash drive > Mac mini i5 Thunderbolt 3/USB-C port. The T5 drive has two AFPS volumes:"

Those speeds look good.

I'd be interested in seeing one from the t5 with an HFS+ partition...

The T5 is a flash drive that I've configured for APFS, two volumes.
[doublepost=1542124065][/doublepost]

Assuming that's the case, in what usage scenarios is the i5 enough of an upgrade for it to be the second option on mini 2018 CPUs?

I'm doubtful that the i3 would perform as the i5/8GB did in this test that I just posted: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mac-mini-i5-tests.2153750/page-4#post-26798154

For that matter, I'm kind of surprised (pleasantly so) that the i5 handled this with aplomb.

 

[Neodym]

Assuming that's the case, in what usage scenarios is the i5 enough of an upgrade for it to be the second option on mini 2018 CPUs?

Multicore-/Multithreaded-optimized applications in demanding scenarios, such as e.g. running VM’s or doing ambitious audio/video editing, while on a strict budget or concerned significantly about heat and/or noise.

 

[Machspeed007]

Assuming that's the case, in what usage scenarios is the i5 enough of an upgrade for it to be the second option on mini 2018 CPUs?

I think that the I5 is good for programmers, those who compile a lot during the day to test their applications.
The i7 is perfect for those who have a lot of VMs. Although instead of unix VMs you could use docker with lower overhead on the i5/i3, for websites or other small servers.
I don't know about audio production, I guess that that's another area that i5/i7 is useful.
Video encoding should be offloaded to egpu or the T2 so not much to gain from the i5/i7.

The i3 should be the snapiest in day to day simpler tasks (web browsing, excel, word editing, listening to music, playing videos) because of the higher single core speed. (3.6Ghz by default on all 4 cores).

That's my opinion, but I could be wrong..
[doublepost=1542133720][/doublepost]

The T5 is a flash drive that I've configured for APFS, two volumes.
[doublepost=1542124065][/doublepost]

I'm doubtful that the i3 would perform as the i5/8GB did in this test that I just posted: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mac-mini-i5-tests.2153750/page-4#post-26798154

Actually I'm curious about some tests in Lightroom for the i5 vs i3.
Lightroom 6 doesn't use more than 4 cores efficiently and the i3 is quicker than the i5 on all 4 cores..

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Lightroom-CC-6-Multi-Core-Performance-649/

 

[PJivan]

I think that the I5 is good for programmers, those who compile a lot during the day to test their applications.
The i7 is perfect for those who have a lot of VMs. Although instead of unix VMs you could use docker with lower overhead on the i5/i3, for websites or other small servers.
I don't know about audio production, I guess that that's another area that i5/i7 is useful.
Video encoding should be offloaded to egpu or the T2 so not much to gain from the i5/i7.

The i3 should be the snapiest in day to day simpler tasks (web browsing, excel, word editing, listening to music, playing videos) because of the higher single core speed. (3.6Ghz by default on all 4 cores).

That's my opinion, but I could be wrong..
[doublepost=1542133720][/doublepost]
Actually I'm curious about some tests in Lightroom for the i5 vs i3.
Lightroom 6 doesn't use more than 4 cores efficiently and the i3 is quicker than the i5 on all 4 cores..

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Lightroom-CC-6-Multi-Core-Performance-649/

Yeah that is why I’m asking for frequency during reql world scenarios, most of games use only 2 cores, for instance will i7 or i5 be able to keep the frequency above the i3 in thise scenarios?

 

[Cashmonee]

The i3 should be the snapiest in day to day simpler tasks (web browsing, excel, word editing, listening to music, playing videos) because of the higher single core speed. (3.6Ghz by default on all 4 cores).

Wouldn't Turboboost kick for the i5 making it faster than the i3? All of the single core benchmarks show the i5 as faster, and the multicore benchmarks show it much faster. Is there any situation other than Turboboost not kicking in where the i3 would actually be faster?

 

[rmdeluca]

Wouldn't Turboboost kick for the i5 making it faster than the i3? All of the single core benchmarks show the i5 as faster, and the multicore benchmarks show it much faster. Is there any situation other than Turboboost not kicking in where the i3 would actually be faster?

Right. The i5 and i7 are always going to turbo higher with low thread count workloads than the i3 runs at naturally. There’s no realistic situation where the i3 would ever come out faster.
[doublepost=1542143534][/doublepost]

Actually I'm curious about some tests in Lightroom for the i5 vs i3.
Lightroom 6 doesn't use more than 4 cores efficiently and the i3 is quicker than the i5 on all 4 cores..

The i3 is not actually quicker than the i5. Both CPUs idle at below their maximum frequency. When they are loaded, they both ramp up to their maximum frequency. In the case of the i3, that maximum frequency is 3.6GHz. In the i5, it's up to 4.1GHz, but never less than the i3 with identical loading.

There are a few reasons why that graph you shared shows diminishing (or non-existent) improvements beyond a certain core count. The two biggest are: 1) that particular benchmark is limited by other factors such as I/O speed or available RAM 2) very high core count CPUs have lower clock speeds when all cores are utilized. Due to the nature of that particular task, clock speed carries a higher weight

 

[Cashmonee]

Right. The i5 and i7 are always going to turbo higher with low thread count workloads than the i3 runs at naturally. There’s no realistic situation where the i3 would ever come out faster.
[doublepost=1542143534][/doublepost]

The i3 is not actually quicker than the i5. Both CPUs idle at below their maximum frequency. When they are loaded, they both ramp up to their maximum frequency. In the case of the i3, that maximum frequency is 3.6GHz. In the i5, it's up to 4.1GHz, but never less than the i3 with identical loading.

So would this also be true of the i7 vs i5 as well, but with a smaller difference in speed?

 

[rmdeluca]

So would this also be true of the i7 vs i5 as well, but with a smaller difference in speed?

Correct.

 

[pl1984]

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..

I am unaware that Handbrake utilizes GPU acceleration, do you have a reference for this?

 

[archer75]

I am unaware that Handbrake utilizes GPU acceleration, do you have a reference for this?

It uses quicksync for GPU acceleration. However that option is missing from handbrake on mac. It's there on my PC version though. The mac version does encode 3x faster on it's i7 than on the 6 core 5820 i7 in my PC.
Handbrake doesn't support AMD/Nvidia for GPU encoding.

 

[Machspeed007]

Right. The i5 and i7 are always going to turbo higher with low thread count workloads than the i3 runs at naturally. There’s no realistic situation where the i3 would ever come out faster.
[doublepost=1542143534][/doublepost]

The i3 is not actually quicker than the i5. Both CPUs idle at below their maximum frequency. When they are loaded, they both ramp up to their maximum frequency. In the case of the i3, that maximum frequency is 3.6GHz. In the i5, it's up to 4.1GHz, but never less than the i3 with identical loading.

So, are you saying that under load the i5 will run at 4.1Ghz on all 6 cores? As far as I know, the i5 cannot sustain that speed on all cores, infact just 1-2 cores will run at that speed while the others are throttling back..
So, I guess I'm waiting for an answer to this question: in a real-life scenario, under load, will the i5 be quicker than the i3 by 5% or 25%? Lets say exporting DNG images from Lightroom.

If you are a professional than sure, having a 200 batch DNG export take 10 seconds less on the i5 than on the i3 can make a difference at the end of the day because you are doing it often. For most users however, it wouldn't matter that much. I wouldn't chose the i5 over the i3 if that's the only difference I'm going to see.
[doublepost=1542174312][/doublepost]

I am unaware that Handbrake utilizes GPU acceleration, do you have a reference for this?

I don't know if Handbrake on mac uses hardware acceleration, that's what I was saying, but it should use it if possible. Professional video editors do use it and that's what somebody who does this for a living would seek to have.
On its own, the mini is an amateur video editing machine, be it the i3/i5 or i7. A capable machine but still, amateur. Professionals will use dedicated video cards to offload graphics tasks from the CPU.

 

[rmdeluca]

So, are you saying that under load the i5 will run at 4.1Ghz on all 6 cores?

No.

 

[ktcifone]

Just go with the i7, you will thank yourself 3 years from now.
2018 model is my third mini in 9 years.