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 think there is some truth to that. The easiest way to manage a lot of these things is to just let the operating system store stuff in the default locations. Things like the photos library, iTunes library, etc. can all be moved to and used from separate drives. But storage on the primary hard drive is always a limited resource. I have over 5TB of stuff stored on an 8TB drive. So eventually you're going to run out of space and will need to manage storage. I use Lightroom a lot. I can't possibly store all my image files on my boot drive. BUT, I do want it to be big enough to store the catalog and images from recent shoots. So I don't constantly want to be micro-managing my boot drive storage. But I'm realistic enough to know that you eventually have to do that. I would not purchase a mini with only 128gb. It's certainly viable if you manage storage. 256gb gives a more comfortable working cushion. I'd probably buy the 512, but we all have our value threshold. I do think that hanging some external SSDs on is both more economical and a better practice. The Apple prices for SSDs are substantial. Folks who compare them to typical USB 3 SSD prices are not comparing apples to apples. The internal ssds and interface are pretty much state of the art. That said, I currently have a 2012 mini. My LR catalog and a good chunk of my image files are on a 1TB Samsung T5 connected by USB 3. It's way faster than the fusion drive in my mini. And I have Carbon Copy Cloner to automatically keep a back up of the drive on a portable spinner. Works well. I don't really see a reason for the 1+TB ssds. Perhaps for someone who is editing a ton of video. But eventually you're going to have to move stuff off your boot drive.
Ok, that makes sense. so it actually sounds like getting too big of a internal drive would be counter productive or not a good thing-especially when you can get external ones that are slower but cheaper and will work well. Probably not many Apple people would bother with the 1TB then and crazy if anyone would want or need 2TB internally. I’ll probably settle for the 512 then
[doublepost=1542590430][/doublepost]The other question I had was it is confusing with all the choices is that there is quad core processors that have MORE speed (3.6) then an option that is a 6 core but ONLY (3.0)...that doesn’t make sense why I would pay more for a processor that isn’t as fast...?
This is incorrect. The six core CPUs will always clock up to an equivalent or higher clock speed with a four core workload as the i3. The i3 is never faster.
Apple's explanation attached. Basically, although it is 3.0 instead of 3.6, it has 2 more cores, meaning 3.0x6 instead of 3.6x4.
Attachments
Again, this is not the correct way to look at the clock speeds.
The i3 will ramp up to at most 3.6GHz depending on how loaded it gets.
The i5 will ramp up to at most 4.1GHz depending on how loaded it gets, but never less than the i3 with equivalent load.
The i7 will ramp up to at most 4.6GHz depending on how loaded it gets, but never less than the i5 with equivalent load.
Is basic stuff (emails, internet surfing, watching movies, iTunes and flac and word docs, looking at my 4K iPhone videos and pics and streaming 4K HDR movies to Apple TV ) all single thread applications? That’s what I usually do so it says I need a higher processor speed where as multi thread things are better with more cores...I’m guessing that’s things like graphic intensive work jobs or engineering stuff or complex video editing? Am I missing something? If not then I’m thinking a I3 with 3.6 is perfect for my needs...
Does multi core just for the sake of multi core make it future proof for average person like me?
What’s more important between upgrading the ram or upgrading the processor in performance?
I would have thought that the i3 would maintain 3.6 Ghz regardless of the load - since that is the TDP of the processor and presumably the cooling system is adequate for at least that level of load. (Other threads suggest it is good for ~75-80 Watts of load).
But I agree that a four-core load on the i5 or i7 should achieve a higher boost/turbo than 3.6 Ghz - even though they are rated at 3.0 and 3.2 GHz. I would hope so anyway...
What I don't think is clear is whether an i7 with a 4-core load will be able to (stably) boost higher than an i5 with a 4-core load. i.e. is an i7 inherently more efficient per Watt than an i5?
Even the i3 runs below its max frequency when not fully loaded. That’s a power saving feature. The difference is it will never exceed 3.6GHz for even a moment.
One could argue that HT technically gives the i7 the ability to be more efficient with some workloads (it does), but that’s not my point. My point simply was that the i7 has a higher maximum boost clock.
Sure - I understand that it will down-clock when it doesn't have much work to do. I meant that regardless of how high the load is, it should never reach a point where the workload is so high that it cannot maintain 3.6 Ghz.
Maybe...I still wonder if with exactly 4 active threads whether the i7 CPU can run at a higher Ghz than the i5 (due to inherent greater internal power efficiency of the CPU cores in the i7 than the i5.
The alternative is that the i7 is permitted to hit higher speeds, but at the expense of higher Wattage at those speeds. At which case, the cooling system in the mini may, or may no be enough to sustain the difference in max boost speed between the CPUs.
I would really like to see a synthetic "Yes" test with 1,2,3,4,5,6 instances of "Yes" and see at what speeds the CPU maintains in the i3, i5, and i7 minis. Anyone interested to share their results?
http://osxdaily.com/2012/10/02/stress-test-mac-cpu/
Again, here's my i7 with 4 cores loaded. 4.3GHz:
This is impossible for the i5 to do without overclocking.
That's great! Sorry if I had missed those results previously. That is extremely encouraging - staying below 60Watts (and thus well within the capacity of Apple's cooling solution).
May I ask what happens with 5 and 6 threads loaded?
EDIT: Just by way of comparison, here is 4 cores loaded on a 2011 quad mini.
Stable at 30 Watts and 2.1 Ghz (which is ~20% below the max 4 core turbo - 2.6 Ghz - of this old i7 processor)
Last edited:
Nice! So 5-core workload stable at 65 watts and 4.2-4.3 Ghz (4.3 Ghz is 5-core max for this CPU).
6-core workload stable at 70 watts and 4.0-4.1 Ghz (~5% below the 4.3 Ghz 6-core max for this CPU).
I'd be interested to see the same tests on an i5 mini. For purely academic purposes!
QUESTION: Do you have an eGPU attached? Just wondering why the GFX load is zero...
6-core workload stable at 70 watts and 4.0-4.1 Ghz (~5% below the 4.3 Ghz 6-core max for this CPU).
I'd be interested to see the same tests on an i5 mini. For purely academic purposes!
QUESTION: Do you have an eGPU attached? Just wondering why the GFX load is zero...
Last edited:
As I said, basically, I just pointed out a simple way to explain that it has more cores.
I technically have one attached, but it's an NVIDIA card so it's not active. It only works in Windows right now.
The GFX load is zero because I'm not utilizing the GPU other than for the basic function of displaying my desktop and the power gadget. I'm holding the mouse still over the gadget, waiting for everything to stabilize before clicking to take a screenshot of the window.
From what I know, yes.
From your list, maybe streaming 4K HDR to ATV is worth taking a closer look into how processor hungry that is.
It is not a straight forward decision based on Apple's processor explanation I'd way, as I assume that most people are not aware of applications that are benefitted by multi-core.
Considering my computer use, I'm leaning towards the i3 so that the vents are quieter on heavy loads (I record audio), even if that comes with a bit of compromise performance wise. I've seen that a reviewer wasn't able to hear the i3MM's fans at all during heavy load.
Last edited:
So the UHD630 clocks right down to 0 Ghz when not active?
It does suggest that for those that have 1-2 scaled 4K or 5K displays attached (I've seen the GPU hit max load on the LG 5K with scaled res) that this could take some power overhead from the CPU leading to lower clock speeds.
Maybe this is only relevant when the UI is animating though?
I know that my 2016 4K i7 iMac is capable of max 4-core boost (3.7 Ghz sustained), but if I stress the Iris GPU at the same time (3-D Google Maps), the CPU clock speed starts to be impacted.
Can anyone tell me if the work they do or certain tasks are multi thread vs single thread for us to help make a decision on a 4 core vs 6 core processor please and thank you?
It clocks down to 350MHz, which is plenty to drive a (mostly) static 3440x1440@60Hz display.
Yeah, the iGPU is a 15W TDP part. If you load it you're likely to take some thermal overhead away from the CPU.
Really though, I'd suggest to anyone serious about driving multiple 4K or 5K displays with non-2x scaling for graphics work that they use an eGPU with the Mini. Even on a real PC desktop system I would suggest SOME GPU if you're trying to push that much 2D.
In terms of power, a $99 Radeon RX 550 will be more than enough to drive multiple high res monitors but you might have a hard time finding a card with three ports. I've seen lots of RX 570s with triple Display Ports.
I stand corrected, what I meant was applications that are benefitted or not by multi-core.
If fan noise and power consumption are not issues to you, I'd say that the i5 and i7 are better future proof as it is more probable that developers will make use of more cores than concentrate on a single-core use along the way. Please anyone, correct me if I'm wrong.
Last edited:
[QUOTE="emboahora, post: 26822808, member: 425784]I'd say that the i5 and i7 are better future proof as it is more probable that developers will make use of more cores than concentrate on a single-core use along the way.[/QUOTE]
I agree with this, to the extent that someone uses apps with processes long enough to benefit and/or Apple assigns 6 apps each their own core and you often run more than 4. But even if you don’t, if you’re already getting 256 that extra $100 will yield more on resale for someone else.
I agree with this, to the extent that someone uses apps with processes long enough to benefit and/or Apple assigns 6 apps each their own core and you often run more than 4. But even if you don’t, if you’re already getting 256 that extra $100 will yield more on resale for someone else.