Mac Mini 2014 (i5 model with Intel Iris Graphics): Benchmark scores and VRAM size?

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by miretogo, Oct 24, 2014.

  1. miretogo macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2014
    #1
    Can someone who has already purchased the Mac Mini (Late 2014) with i5 processor and Intel Iris Graphics please run and post game-related benchmark scores (e.g. Unigine Heaven, Half Life 2: Lost Coast) including the detail settings used?

    I would like to compare them to the scores I get on the Late 2012 model. Unfortunately, when I look at non-Mac benchmarks of Iris (=5100) compared to HD 5000 and HD 4000, it seems that the Late 2014 model would only be 20% to 50% faster in most game scenarios.

    Sources (selection):
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1657520
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/7072/intel-hd-5000-vs-hd-4000-vs-hd-4400

    Also, can someone please post the amount of VRAM that Yosemite allocates to Intel Iris Graphics (including your machine's amount of RAM)?

    I hope with 8 GB of RAM, Yosemite allocates at least 1,536 MB of VRAM to the GPU (compared to the 1,024 MB of VRAM it allocates to Intel HD Graphics 4000 on the Late 2012 model).
     
  2. jeanba3000 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2013
  3. miretogo thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2014
    #3
    Thank you for posting this link, jeanba3000.

    The (only) game-relevant benchmark in that review is the OpenGL version of Cinebench R11. In this benchmark, the Late 2014 model with a 2.6 GHz (dual-core) i5 and Intel Iris Graphics is 29,3% faster than the Late 2012 model with a 2.3 GHz quad-core i7 and Intel HD Graphics 4000.

    Unfortunately, the Late 2012 model with a 2.5 Ghz dual-core i5 and Intel HD Graphics 4000 is not listed. Also, it's not possible to download Cinebench R11 from Maxon's website anymore, since the current version is R15.
     
  4. Kebabselector macrumors 68030

    Kebabselector

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    #4
    Looks like the base model is better than my 2011 base model.
     
  5. LoCarbHotrod, Oct 24, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2014

    LoCarbHotrod macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
  6. majkom macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    #6
    with or without SSD/fussion.. if without, how it works on spinner? are loading times for apps too long? thx
     
  7. miretogo thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2014
    #7
  8. jeanba3000 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2013
    #8
    Miretogo, another french Mac website published their first tests of the Mini : Mac4Ever including Cinebench test on stock 2012 Mini Dual i5.
     
  9. miretogo, Oct 24, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2014

    miretogo thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2014
    #9
    jeanba3000, thank you for posting another interesting review and thanks to the French reviewers for providing it :) In the Cinebench 11.5 benchmark they used, the Late 2014 with 2.8 GHz Haswell i5 and Intel Iris (5100) is 54,2% faster than the Late 2012 base model (with 2.5 GHz Ivy Bridge i5 and Intel HD Graphics 4000). So I guess the Late 2014 with 2.6 GHz Haswell i5 would be about 50% faster than the Late 2012 base model. That is a decent and noticeable performance increase.
     
  10. LoCarbHotrod macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    #10
    Hey, I ran the benchmarks you asked. For the Unigine benchmark I used the 'Basic' preset. My mini has the standard 1TB 5400rpm HDD. I have a SSD on hand, but I read that Yosemite isn't cooperating well with aftermarket components, so I'm a bit hesitant to install it.

    Cinebench:
    [​IMG]

    Unigine Heaven:
    [​IMG]
     
  11. miretogo thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2014
    #11
    LoCarbHotrod, thank you for running the benchmarks and posting your scores.

    I just ran the same benchmarks on my Late 2012 model with 2.5 Ghz i5 (Ivy Bridge), HD Graphics 4000 and 8 GB (2x4 GB) 1,6000 MHz RAM and got the following results:

    Cinebench R15:
    15.57 fps
    249 cb

    Unigine Heaven 4.0 ("Basic" preset):
    11.1 fps
    281 score

    Thus, your Mac Mini, which is the Late 2014 equivalent to my Late 2012 in terms of price, achieved +62.6% more frames per second (fps) in Cinebench and +53.2% more fps in Unigine.
     
  12. Dont Hurt Me, Oct 25, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2014

    Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #12
    Thanks also,
    2011 late Mini 2.5 i5 6630M 4 GB 10.9.5

    Cinebench R15
    OpenGL 21.46
    CPU 254cb

    2nd test running safari with macrumors opened
    Cinebench R15
    OpenGL 22.14
    CPU 254cb
     
  13. scottsjack macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Location:
    Arizona
    #13
    And,
    Late 2012 mini 2.6 i7 HD4000 16GB 10.10.10 SSD

    Cinebench R15
    OpenGL 17.99
    CPU 583cb

    Yes, HD 4000 sucks.
     
  14. FunnyGee, Oct 25, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2014

    FunnyGee macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2014
    #14
    What screenresolution did you used on cinebench? I got:

    2011 late Mini 2.5 i5 6630M 16GB 10.10.

    Cinebench R15
    OpenGL 21.20 FPS on 1600 x 900
    OpenGL 18.12 FPS on 2560 x 1140

    25.32 FPS on a tunderbolddisplay would be nice, around 30% faster than the 6630M.
     
  15. LoCarbHotrod macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    #15
    I didn't set a resolution, I just clicked 'Run' next to the Open GL option. I have it open now and I don't see any options for setting the resolution (I have the free version).
     
  16. FunnyGee macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2014
    #16
    Which resolution has your display?

    Displays with lower or higher resolutions get different FPS on the same system. So the FPS are only comparable if the screenresolution is identical on all systems.
     
  17. LoCarbHotrod macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    #17
    My display resolution is 1920x1080.
     
  18. belltree macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    #18
    Where did you read this? Could you provide a link. I am thinking to do an SSD upgrade for my Mini but if you have a link for the above information I may hold off for now.
     
  19. rrl macrumors 6502

    rrl

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    #19
  20. LoCarbHotrod macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    #20
  21. miretogo thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2014
    #21
    My resolution is also 1920 x 1080.
     
  22. FunnyGee macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2014
    #22
    @ LoCarbHotrod

    Thank you, that sounds pretty nice:

    Cinebench on 1920x1080:

    Mac Mini i5 Intel Iris: 25.32 fps - CPU 272
    Mac Mini i5 AMD 6630M: 18.97 fps - CPU 253
    Mac Mini i5 Intel HD4000: 15.57 fps - CPU 249

    Did you have some games for benchmarking? Left4Dead2, BlackOps, Bioshock Infinity?

    I´m not able to do Unigine Heaven, got between 2-4 fps.
     
  23. CausticPuppy macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    #23
    I think I will avoid running these on my HD3000. :(
     
  24. LoCarbHotrod macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    #24
    Sorry I don't have any of those games. If there are some free game benchmarks that I could download, I'd be more than happy to run some tests.

    I'd also like to run some real world tests as opposed to synthetic benchmarks. If you guys have any suggestions so we could compare numbers I'd appreciate it!
     
  25. AnalyzeThis, Oct 26, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2014

    AnalyzeThis macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2007
    #25
    Both 2012/2014 suck. I am getting on HD4600:
    Cinebench R15
    OpenGL 23.99
    CPU 775cb
     

Share This Page