Yes. The 2nd generation of the Core-i-Series (Sandy Bridge) is very efficient and runs at much lower temperatures than the C2D-processors. I lost my C2D Mid-2009 MBP due to heat problems.
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.
New Mac Mini Benchmarks Show Significant Performance Gains
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes. The 2nd generation of the Core-i-Series (Sandy Bridge) is very efficient and runs at much lower temperatures than the C2D-processors. I lost my C2D Mid-2009 MBP due to heat problems.
I answer that myself: It seems its the mobile i7 in the minis and there are dual and quad-core versions :/
Thats great to have this many early testers. Will help apple get the bugs out faster. I will still wait until the 3rd update before updating.
There really should be a real benchmark program for Mac. I can't really say that "Err... it runs like a dream for me" is a good enough measure for me.
Directly from Apples Mac mini (Mid 2011) - Technical Specifications page:
"Configurable Options:
- 2.7GHz dual-core Intel Core i7 processor..."
Interesting...
Looks like the mini w/i7-quad could make for a nice Digital Audio Workstation (DAW), e.g., running Logic Pro, or for any task where a high-end graphic card isn't necessary but raw-CPU is extremely important.
I look forward to hearing more from the early-adapters...
Looks like the mini w/i7-quad could make for a nice Digital Audio Workstation (DAW), e.g., running Logic Pro, or for any task where a high-end graphic card isn't necessary but raw-CPU is extremely important.
I look forward to hearing more from the early-adapters...
I think you meant Core Duo, but no, mine is alive and kicking! As millions others!
The Macbook Pro with the 2.7GHz dual core i7 has a geekbench score of 6867. I'd say that was significantly slower than 9573, will be interesting to see the score of the mini with that chip.
Interestingly, the Macbook Pro with the 2.0Ghz quad core i7 has a geekbench score of 8786 vs the server mini's score of 9573.
That is significantly slower, but keep in mind also that you have to run 8 threads at load to see that much performance difference. On tasks with 4 or fewer threads the CPUs would likely perform similarly, and on single threaded tasks the higher clocked 2.7Ghz dual core i7 would win out.
It is really an awesome machine. I will probably buy one, with Thunderbolt, radeon gfx, no more crap optical drive it is fantastic.
GMA HD3000 is pretty good for an integrated. it runs ok everything, you can play games even modern one at mid settings usually. Not bad, sure not a gaming machine but it runs good, don't compare it to GMA950 or x3100. Radeon gfx Mac mini naturally perform very good with 3D.
You never heard of a computational server?
It doesn't matter as we only can buy what Apple sells. I agree though that a tear down would clear up a lot of mystery. For example are Apples configurations arbitrary with one SSD and one HD. Is there one bay and a slot for a blade or are there two bays. Lots of questions that need to be answered.
That depends entirely on the software you will run on it. 4 hardware threads can be very useful to some users.
For a server that might or might not make sense however not all servers are doing web duty.
It doesn't matter as we only can buy what Apple sells. I agree though that a tear down would clear up a lot of mystery. For example are Apples configurations arbitrary with one SSD and one HD. Is there one bay and a slot for a blade or are there two bays. Lots of questions that need to be answered.
I just noticed the standard Mini drives are 5400 rpm. Server is 7200 rpm.
And to upgrade the standard Minis to 750GB 7200 rpm...$150.
And very strangely, upgrading from one 500 GB drive to one 750 GB drive in the desktop model costs $150. Upgrading the server model from dual 500 GB's to dual 750 GBs costs only $100... Uh, what?
Nope, for multithreaded CPU-intensive apps (like video encoding,) the server model is better. It's four 2.0 GHz cores (which can turbo up to 2.9 GHz on one core, 2.8 GHz on two cores, or 2.6 GHz on all four cores) as opposed to the desktop model's two 2.7 Ghz cores (which can turbo up to 3.4 GHz on one core, or 3.2 Ghz on two cores.)
I would be interested to see how thermal-constrained both models are. (AKA: How often they each turbo up.) If the server model is less thermally constrained, then it might turbo up to being faster on two cores than the desktop model (if the discrete GPU causes the whole thing to have thermal issues, it's possible.)
I would love to see some comprehensive light gaming benchmarks comparing the discrete graphics desktop model to the server model. (Which, if you upgrade both of their storage options to 750 GB spinning + 256 GB SSD, cost exactly the same, with the only difference being dual core 2.5GHz+discrete vs. quad-core 2.0GHz+integrated.)
Thats what I want to know... Can you restore from a previous installation from time machine? I am selling my mini and getting a new one, but some of the software is not compatable... Besides the fact that I am not to keen on some of the new features like mission control and such... Why did they touch spaces... lol.
If not, I will just use lion and be happy, no deal breaker but would rather stick with SL for a month or so....
It seems that the Quad-core 2.0 is the best deal hardware-wise. Would it be a good choice to buy the mac mini Lion Server version even without having any use for the server OS? I have never used any server OS, so I am sorry if my question is stupid.
Perhaps not - the 2.0 GHz is the worst case all four physical cores busy situation (4*2.0GHz == 8 GHz, 2*2.7GHz == 5.4 GHz).
You need to look at the number of busy threads, and the Turbo Boost. If you have a very multi-threaded load, the quad will always win. If you have a purely single-threaded load, it will be a dead heat due to Turbo Boost.
I'll put my money on the quad every time, though.
Well the retail disk is not going to work (nor the 2010 disks), that much is obvious.
I will be dropping a 10.6.8 image on one tomorrow, hope it works.
Why would you do that?
I realize you have a business here but is it a good thing to put off an OS update, especially when some of the hardware would be of a big advantage to your business?
Here I'm thinking Quad core is exactly what you want in a Mini.
I realize you have a business here but is it a good thing to put off an OS update, especially when some of the hardware would be of a big advantage to your business?
Here I'm thinking Quad core is exactly what you want in a Mini.
Logic Multicore Benchmark Test...
If someone with access to an Apple store could obtain permission to install and run the Logic Pro multicore benchmark test on the new minis (w/Logic Pro installed) on display and then report the results it could be very revealing...
If someone with access to an Apple store could obtain permission to install and run the Logic Pro multicore benchmark test on the new minis (w/Logic Pro installed) on display and then report the results it could be very revealing...
There are many reasons to put off an OS update. Not least of which Lion completely blindsided the enterprise. The documentation for a number of changes simply is not there. The new password hashing comes to mind (really apple .playlist files!?).
If Apple did things right, 10.6.8 can take advantage of the new Mini just as well as 10.7 (sans any under the hood improvements).
So the i7 is faster than my 09 MP! Oh how shameful
I can't wait for these to hit the refurb market + thunderbolt external drives for a blazing fast home server.
I can't wait for these to hit the refurb market + thunderbolt external drives for a blazing fast home server.
People need to realize where Apple is going with Mac OS/X and GCD.
Basically the thought that we live in a world of single threaded apps is slowly going away. More and more software is threaded some significantly so. Even things like Safari are using both threads and processes to put those cores to use, amongst other things.
Generally yes quad core is a better buy for most users, especially users that keep their computers for awhile. So we are in agreement here. The problem is Apple threw a monkey wrench into the works here buy installing a nice GPU in the middle model.
The problem here isn't the clock rates on the CPU's nor the possible number of threads on the CPU, rather it is a problem that OpenCL is now supported which can significantly impact some types of uses. So now we are in a situation where it might make sense to give up quad core if you have an applications usage pattern that exploits OpenCL or a GPU in general.
It is a tough call and frankly it would be interesting to know why Apple doesn't offer up a quad core with a GPU. If it makes people fell better they should avoid calling it a server.
Basically the thought that we live in a world of single threaded apps is slowly going away. More and more software is threaded some significantly so. Even things like Safari are using both threads and processes to put those cores to use, amongst other things.
Generally yes quad core is a better buy for most users, especially users that keep their computers for awhile. So we are in agreement here. The problem is Apple threw a monkey wrench into the works here buy installing a nice GPU in the middle model.
The problem here isn't the clock rates on the CPU's nor the possible number of threads on the CPU, rather it is a problem that OpenCL is now supported which can significantly impact some types of uses. So now we are in a situation where it might make sense to give up quad core if you have an applications usage pattern that exploits OpenCL or a GPU in general.
It is a tough call and frankly it would be interesting to know why Apple doesn't offer up a quad core with a GPU. If it makes people fell better they should avoid calling it a server.