I agree with this. It seems clear that it is faster than the i5, does not have thermal issues, and should offer a little bit of extra future-proofing. With EDU discount, it is only a $180 upgrade over the i5. I think that is worth it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
i5 or i7?
- Thread starter Mavimao
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree with this. It seems clear that it is faster than the i5, does not have thermal issues, and should offer a little bit of extra future-proofing. With EDU discount, it is only a $180 upgrade over the i5. I think that is worth it.
I figured this out a long time ago when purchasing computers. If you are juggling back and forth trying to make a close decision between the i5 or i7...even if it means you sleep better at night not by having to wake up and question whether you should have gotten the i7 then IMO it's worth it just to get it.
I bought an i5/8GB/256GB Mac Mini a few days ago, and thanks to the Holiday return policy, I have till January to test it out and decide if I want to keep it. I ran some Cinebench synthetic benchmark and some practical tests on the 2018 Mini and thought it might help others trying to decide between the i5 and i7 (although it might end up confusing you guys even more 
)
Primary Usage: Lightroom and Photoshop Editing, Clean Audio Source
I currently use a 2012 2.3QC Mac Mini with 16 GB RAM and maxed out SSDs. The Mini also has one of the cleanest optical out ports which I connect to Schiit Audio Bifrost DAC and Sennheiser HD600 headphones. Unfortunately, the 2018 Mini has dropped the Optical Out (why Apple?) and I have ordered a Hifimediy USB to Mini Toslink converter to compare against the native Optical out of the 2012 Mini (more on this later)
Back to testing. Let's start off with the synthetic tests first.
Synthetic Benchmarks: Cinebench and Intel Power Gadget
Practical Test: Exporting 650 RAW Pictures (24 MP) to JPEG (90% compression)
The processor maintained a Turbo Boost of 3.9 Ghz throughout the Export Process. Temperatures were stable around 90C. (Screenshot 4)
Hope these tests help others perform a comparison with i7. Overall, the performance is quite solid. If you are looking to configure the i3 Quad core version with 256GB SSD, then it is a no-brainer to pay 100$ extra and get the i5 six core processor. Compared to my 2012 Mini, the fan on this model is quieter and has a lower pitch.
If anyone has additional tests that they would like to be done on the i5, let me know.
)Primary Usage: Lightroom and Photoshop Editing, Clean Audio Source
I currently use a 2012 2.3QC Mac Mini with 16 GB RAM and maxed out SSDs. The Mini also has one of the cleanest optical out ports which I connect to Schiit Audio Bifrost DAC and Sennheiser HD600 headphones. Unfortunately, the 2018 Mini has dropped the Optical Out (why Apple?) and I have ordered a Hifimediy USB to Mini Toslink converter to compare against the native Optical out of the 2012 Mini (more on this later)
Back to testing. Let's start off with the synthetic tests first.
Synthetic Benchmarks: Cinebench and Intel Power Gadget
- Ran Cinebench a couple of times, and the i5 Mini maintained a turbo of 3.9GHz easily with a score of 955 (Screenshot 1)
- Continued running Cinebench 2 more times, and turbo moved between 3.8 and 3.9 GHz resulting in a score of 948 (Screenshot 2)
- Continued Cinebench testing non-stop, this time the i5 turbo fell down to 3.7 Ghz resulting in a score of 921 (Screenshot 3)
Practical Test: Exporting 650 RAW Pictures (24 MP) to JPEG (90% compression)
The processor maintained a Turbo Boost of 3.9 Ghz throughout the Export Process. Temperatures were stable around 90C. (Screenshot 4)
Hope these tests help others perform a comparison with i7. Overall, the performance is quite solid. If you are looking to configure the i3 Quad core version with 256GB SSD, then it is a no-brainer to pay 100$ extra and get the i5 six core processor. Compared to my 2012 Mini, the fan on this model is quieter and has a lower pitch.
If anyone has additional tests that they would like to be done on the i5, let me know.
For reference, my i7 Mini just benchmarked 1220, 1208, 1201 and 1204 in four sequential R15 CPU runs, which is on the higher end of what we would expect.
For the average Mac user that doesn’t need any professional work done or graphic stuff or photo editing or video editing but just needs a future proofed fast machine to run iTunes, flac, 4K videos to Apple TV, store 4K photos and videos from iPhone and web surf...is there any reason a i3 wouldn’t be good enough for me?
My needs will never change of what I use the Mac mini for but would the i5 be worth the upgrade cost if I won’t be doing intensive stuff even a few years from now? Does that matter or will the processor be worth upgrading to play the software Apple runs in 2021 better??
Since there were a few responses to my question I thought I'd respond. I was referring to the Mac version of Handbrake.
[doublepost=1542571589][/doublepost]
Any chance you would be willing to perform some Handbrake transcoding using the following video:I bought an i5/8GB/256GB Mac Mini a few days ago, and thanks to the Holiday return policy, I have till January to test it out and decide if I want to keep it. I ran some Cinebench synthetic benchmark and some practical tests on the 2018 Mini and thought it might help others trying to decide between the i5 and i7 (although it might end up confusing you guys even more
Primary Usage: Lightroom and Photoshop Editing, Clean Audio Source
I currently use a 2012 2.3QC Mac Mini with 16 GB RAM and maxed out SSDs. The Mini also has one of the cleanest optical out ports which I connect to Schiit Audio Bifrost DAC and Sennheiser HD600 headphones. Unfortunately, the 2018 Mini has dropped the Optical Out (why Apple?) and I have ordered a Hifimediy USB to Mini Toslink converter to compare against the native Optical out of the 2012 Mini (more on this later)
Back to testing. Let's start off with the synthetic tests first.
Synthetic Benchmarks: Cinebench and Intel Power Gadget
- Ran Cinebench a couple of times, and the i5 Mini maintained a turbo of 3.9GHz easily with a score of 955 (Screenshot 1)
- Continued running Cinebench 2 more times, and turbo moved between 3.8 and 3.9 GHz resulting in a score of 948 (Screenshot 2)
- Continued Cinebench testing non-stop, this time the i5 turbo fell down to 3.7 Ghz resulting in a score of 921 (Screenshot 3)
Practical Test: Exporting 650 RAW Pictures (24 MP) to JPEG (90% compression)
The processor maintained a Turbo Boost of 3.9 Ghz throughout the Export Process. Temperatures were stable around 90C. (Screenshot 4)
Hope these tests help others perform a comparison with i7. Overall, the performance is quite solid. If you are looking to configure the i3 Quad core version with 256GB SSD, then it is a no-brainer to pay 100$ extra and get the i5 six core processor. Compared to my 2012 Mini, the fan on this model is quieter and has a lower pitch.
If anyone has additional tests that they would like to be done on the i5, let me know.
https://4kmedia.org/samsung-nature-uhd-4k-demo/
I'd like to benchmark against my 2010 and 2013 Mac Pros.
It sounds like an i3 would be just fine.
This is something I have a hard time believing almost anyone can say conclusively. It does however often become a self-fulfilling prophecy - people underbuy and then a few years later are turned off by their machine to the point that they never consider branching out.
I'm of the school of thought that my time has intrinsic value (not that yours is worth any less than mine). Every second I spend waiting for my computer is a wasted second of my life. My personal calculus is such that I'll happily pay a 25-35% premium for 20% more performance if it will translate to my work OR play. Right up to the very limits of (or exceeding) whatever budget I have in mind.
So far I have never regretted buying a faster machine. Then again, I'm also one of those people who has vanishingly low patience for inanimate objects that get in the way of whatever I'm doing - be it a wall, a box that doesn't stay where I shove it in a closet, or a computer, phone or tablet that runs slowly.
You may be different
I think the i3 is more than a capable machine for your needs. Also, I would suggest not paying Apple Tax for internal SSD. Something like a 1TB Samsung 860 EVO is ~130$ right now. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1382499-REG/samsung_mz_76e1t0b_am_860_evo_1tb_internal.html
Add an external enclosure and you have a super fast Internal SSD for OS and Apps, and a 1TB relatively fast SSD for iTunes library.
Sure! Downloaded the file. Which Handbrake preset would you like me to test with?
Tried it in two separate runs. The cores stabilize around 3.9Ghz, and the encode took 42 seconds in both scenarios for this preset.
[12:39:46] macgui: QueueCore started encoding Samsung Nature 4K Demo.mp4
[12:39:46] macgui: QueueCore with preset iPhone & iPod touch
[12:39:46] 1 job(s) to process
[12:39:46] starting job
.
.
.
[12:40:27] libhb: work result = 0
[12:40:28] macgui: QueueCore work done
[12:40:28] macgui: Queue Done, there are no more pending encodes
[12:45:21] macgui: QueueCore started encoding Samsung Nature 4K Demo 2.mp4
[12:45:21] macgui: QueueCore with preset iPhone & iPod touch
[12:45:21] 1 job(s) to process
[12:45:21] starting job
.
.
.
[12:46:03] libhb: work result = 0
[12:46:03] macgui: QueueCore work done
[12:46:03] macgui: Queue Done, there are no more pending encodes
[12:40:27] work: average encoding speed for job is 68.550781 fps
Similar for the 2nd one as well
Thanks, this is helpful. Here are my numbers:
2010 Mac Pro: work: average encoding speed for job is 11.845707 fps
2013 Mac Pro: work: average encoding speed for job is 63.307049 fps
2010 Mac Pro is the standard config quad 2.8GHz model with 32GB RAM, the 2013 is a hexacore model with 16GB RAM. It looks as if thermal throttling may not be an issue with the new Mini.
Thanks for the response-so 1TB internal SSD plus a 1 TB external Samsung SSD?
Isn’t it a good idea to have as much internal SSD storage as possible? I need at least 3 TB total storage as that’s what I have now...isn’t it best to load the Mac mini with 1TB internal SSD (to future proof) and add a separate 2TB ssd or SATA or continue to use my WD my Mac hardrive
Your idea of performing Handbrake Transcoding made me curious to try out this test - https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/benchmark-your-computer-4k-with-handbrake-1-1-and-h265.2544492/
Result from i5 Mini
encoded 1806 frames in 514.88s (3.51 fps), 11821.39 kb/s, Avg QP:29.08
Comparable results from that thread
"Intel i5-8400 - Windows 10, 16GB DDR4 3200C16 (All cores at 100% during encoding process)
encoded 1806 frames in 558.91s (3.23 fps), 11820.04 kb/s, Avg QP:29.09"
So indeed, the new Mini seems to be performing well.
For laptops, yes, I would always go for as much internal SSD storage as possible. But for a desktop, I don't want to pay the high Apple Tax for internal SSD as I can add external SSD storage of my own. I am personally considering 256 GB internal Apple SSD and adding a Mediasonic USB-C RAID-0 Enclosure and put 2 * 1TB SATA SSDs in it. Perhaps, even NVME M.2 enclosures in the future when there are more options.
What are you future proofing with a 1 TB internal SSD that 512 GB or 256 GB won't? You say you need at least 3 TB total so why spend money on an expensive Apple internal SSD rather than bigger, less expensive external disks that you will need anyway? I've got about 30 TB of storage on my Mac Pro (includes backup and Time Machine) and boot Mojave and Applications I actually use off of a 256 GB SSD. I have a separate 256 GB SSD for Win 10. I'm buying a Mac mini with a 256 GB SSD and will boot both Mojave and Win10 from that. I'll use a much cheaper external SSD for any additional applications storage I need.
I guess I’m confused about what’s the point of even getting a 256 GB upgrade when all of the apps and operating system is booted from the external SSD? Why not just get the 128 GB option and save more?
Apps and operating system will be booted from the Internal SSD. 128GB is probably more than enough for macOS, 256GB because I want to have both macOS and Windows via BootCamp on the internal SSD.
Ok thanks-so really there is NO reason for anyone to get a 1 TB (or 2TB) internal SSD from Apple for the mini?
Is there any inherent value of having some of your storage that starts the operating system also be used for other things like iTunes and music/movie files or photo storage or If they are completely separate there is no downfalls to this?
I already thought less physics hard drives would be easier for keeping things simple as possible or streamlined...?
Here are the results of my 2013 Mac Pro:
work: average encoding speed for job is 2.404646 fps
Thanks for sharing! Gives a good perspective of the i5 Mini vs the 2013 Mac Pro.
If any i7 Mini users on this forum can perform similar tests, that would be really cool
I think it's understood the new Mini has faster technology but the question has been is it able to sustain its faster speeds or will thermal throttling negatively impact the performance. So far it appears as if that's not the case.