New Mac Mini Benchmarks Show Significant Performance Gains

[repoman27]

@calderone

As for running earlier OS's, Apple has always been crystal clear on this point: Running an OS earlier than the one that shipped with your Mac (and we're not just talking minor revision, we're talking build number here) is not supported. The reason for this is that new hardware, such as the 2011 mini, introduce new chipsets that have never been used by Apple before, and the required drivers are simply not present in earlier OS builds. Sometimes the hardware changes are not terribly drastic and you can boot an earlier instance without encountering any major stability issues. I would think that the new mini shipping with a major revision change pretty much puts the kibosh on being able to just selectively grab a few kexts and patch up a copy of Snow Leopard to make it work though.

Besides, if you support a lot of machines, you certainly wouldn't want to head down that path. At this point, you should also have had access to the GM builds of Lion for long enough to have set up and tested a netrestore image to ensure smooth deployment.

However, I will agree with you 100% about Apple's documentation regarding deployment being woefully inadequate and supremely frustrating.

 

[praetorian909]

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.

Not sure if you read the article, but they did try a SL image and it didn't work.

http://www.macminicolo.net/macmini2011
(See near bottom under "Other Notes")

In our testing, we weren't able to get Snow Leopard running on these new Mac minis. We tried it with the completely updated 10.6.8 cloned on but couldn't get it to start.

 

[alust2013]

I bet apple is hoping not too many people will realize that the mini server has a better CPU than the i5 iMacs. Definitely closer to the "headless iMac" that many people have been wanting. Pity you have to choose between graphics and CPU though, although the 2.7 i7 isn't half bad.

 

[ninewaters]

All the computers should have gone to the i series last year.

Well, according to internal staff training, core 2 duo, and i series have very little difference for normal end users.

 

[Wondercow]

a 500MB or 1GB graphics card would have really made the mini a perfect HTPC.

How so? What would that give you that the current one (2.5 GHz) doesn't?

Except for stuttering on high bit rate Blu-ray rips (I don't re-compress with Handbrake, and so far it's only two of 103 films) my 2010 HDMI Mini works like a dream as my HTPC.

 

[repoman27]

the mini server has a better CPU than the i5 iMacs

Well, you're comparing a mobile i7-2635QM to a desktop i5-2400S / i5-2500S, so the iMacs lose out on Hyper-Threading, but get way higher turbos, which probably makes them better for the average Joe.

All the computers should have gone to the i series last year.

The mini couldn't because Apple wasn't willing to go with just Intel HD graphics, and Intel ixnayed NVIDIA chipsets for the Core architecture. Also there were scant few suitable TDP Clarksdale/Arrandale offerings that made any real sense for the mini. The low power i series chips really didn't come into their own until Sandy Bridge.

 

[Dammit Cubs]

dammit and I bought a mac mini last year and the macbook air last year as well. Mac mini = my HTPC.

I don't need a new one but I love power.

OH THE POWER!!!!

 

[soLoredd]

Wow, I was planning on getting an iMac for the home office but the Mini will be a much better option since we've already got the display, keyboard, and mouse. Outstanding.

Glad Apple stuck with the Mini, I really hope these things sell well.

 

[brendan_biele]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Should I get the BTO 2.7 dual i7 or the off-the-shelf 2.0 quad i7 Server model for my Pro Tools DAW? I have some time to decide as Avid won't be supporting Pro Tools 9 on Lion for a bit. I must say that this is a great dilemma have! These machines have fantastic specs and I did not expect these features plus a price drop!

 

[TripHop]

Why Did You Order The 2.7GHz i7 Model?

They're built-to-order, so no one has received one yet. Mine is scheduled to arrive between July 27th and 29th.

I studied the difference between a 2.5 GHz i5 & the 2.7 GHz i7 on Intel's website and only found a 3MB vs 4MB cache difference respectively. Both Turbo Boost and both Hyperthread. So what motivated you to spend an extra $100 to get only 200 MHz more speed?

Is that little speed difference worth $100 more. Or are there other differences between the new i5 and i7 processors that Intel isn't telling us on their spec sheets? I'm really curious why the almost identical i7 isn't an i5? Can someone help me out of this confusion please?

BTW the list price difference between the two is $121.

Processor Comparison chart from Intel website.

Note the missing advanced features in the Quad Core 2.0 GHz i7 processor.

 

[dr Dunkel]

How bad are the intel HD 3000 ?

It is questions like this one, and the myriad of possible subjective answers that really calls for a benchmark program for the Mac.

As it is now, BMT could get answers like "It runs modern games on medium settings..." and "steer clear of anything but Angry Birds".

 

[oblop]

Processor Comparison chart from Intel website.

Note the missing advanced features in the Quad Core 2.0 GHz i7 processor.

Hello,

Yes, I would say these are the CPU available in the new mac minis :
http://ark.intel.com/compare/52219,52231,52229,52224

(I added the 2.3 i5).

 

[cat3600]

But at least in the BTO options, you can configure the model with discrete GPU with a 2.7GHz dual core Core i7 for an extra $100. Probably not too much slower than the server model CPU-wise.

It actually makes sense to me that the server does not have discrete graphics--have you ever seen a PC/Unix/Linux server with a gaming graphics card? It's meant to be a server only, and I even remember Apple recommending (the old Mac mini server) not be used as a client machine.

Though I wonder if the discrete graphics takes up the space freed up by the lack of the Superdrive. And that it doesn't fit in the server because of the 2 hard drives. Hopefully someone (iFixit?) will post a breakdown soon.

I am wondering if the CPU in the non server model be swapped out with the Quad CPU from the server, when they become available in the stores the i7m?

Wonder who will open these machines to confirm, that way one could buy the discrete better graphics & swap out the CPU after a while, I have done in my iMac.

 

[Mr Rogers]

What about used 2010 prices

Here goes:

Just invested in used Dell U2711 monitor for US$300, now what to marry it too.

I run a 2010 2.4Ghz Mac Mini with 8G of RAM - it works fine with all HD content and was a great improvement on my G4 Mac Mini - only put it through its paces when uneunRaring big files and its a little slow - I do not encode myself.

Now given I utilise Mac Mini as HTC, do I go with new server edition, purchase a used BTO 2010 Mac Mini with 2.66Ghz C2D for about US$430, buy new old 2010 Mac Mini for US$520, obviously this has Optical Drive.

Add Logitech Quickcam Orbit for US$60.

Basically, I can get a good system up and running for just under US$800.

Upshot of all this is I can send one of my new iMac i7 3.4Ghz to the UK, family will use Mac Mini.

Had the new Mac Mini Server come with discrete graphics chip, I'd have purchased this, same applies if I could have BTO'd top end Mac Mini with a Quad Core i7, again a no brainer - as it stands, used 2010 Mac Mini's are now looking good value. i.e., if add Apple Care, cost of 2010 2.4Ghz Mac Mini is same as unit cost one week ago.

My question, should I wait until the high end Mac Mini gets a quad core option in next refresh and save a few bucks now.

 

[praetorian909]

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 believe this teardown was posted sometime during our discussion yesterday (and really needs to be posted on the front page!)

I quickly skimmed but seems like there is a gap from the Superdrive and an extra SATA port not being used (BYO ribbon cable, of course).

http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Mac-Mini-Mid-2011-Teardown/6131/1

 

[Clive At Five]

Doubling the Mini's speed then only showing it compared to older Minis is incredibly misleading.

I was goin 1mph, but now I'm going 2mph! Meanwhile, all the other cars on the road are going 65. Congratulations?

I'd like to see this Mini compared to, say, the base model iMac and MacPro.

(That will probably be the best way to detect the gapaing abyss between iMac and MacPro, BTW...)

-Clive

 

[praetorian909]

Processor Comparison chart from Intel website.

Note the missing advanced features in the Quad Core 2.0 GHz i7 processor.

I would also like to know, but I think you're right--it's only the clock and the extra cache. Larger cache can really make a difference, but is the upgrade worth an extra $100 (plus less retailers selling BTO models)?

Here's another CPU site I like to use (before I found out about Intel ARK)
Intel Core i5 Mobile i5-2520M (PGA) vs Intel Core i7 Mobile i7-2620M (PGA)

 

[Count Blah]

Sorry, late to the party here. Any word on the scores for the $799 model with the added dual core i7($100 option)? At least that gets you discrete graphics with some CPU boost.

Oops - After reading, it's been asked and we'll just have to wait for a BTO one to get in someone's grubby little hands.

 

[Robellyn]

Sorry, late to the party here. Any word on the scores for the $799 model with the added dual core i7($100 option)? At least that gets you discrete graphics with some CPU boost.

Oops - After reading, it's been asked and we'll just have to wait for a BTO one to get in someone's grubby little hands.

I'm assuming that everyone else who may have ordered one on the release day is having the same experience I am ... still waiting for delivery. Once there are machines in-hands then I'm sure we'll get some benchmarks.

 

[wesrk]

I sold my mac mini to my neighbour last week to get a new iMac. now I'm thinking of getting a mini and an external display. The iMac is just so tempting.

 

[Starfires]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)

You know, I'd really like quad core with the discrite graphics, even in a slightly bigger case. Greedy? Maybe, but I think I'll wait until it quietly and inevitably becomes an option.

 

[Joey Calamaro]

Like many here, I'm waiting to see the benchmarks on the Dual Core i7 2.7 ghz model verses the Quad Core i7 2.0 ghz server. Certainly either model would be a substantial upgrade over my original Mac Pro, however I hate having to decide between graphics performance and CPU performance. Especially since I'd gladly pay a premium to have both.

 

[cragmr]

You know, I'd really like quad core with the discrite graphics, even in a slightly bigger case. Greedy? Maybe, but I think I'll wait until it quietly and inevitably becomes an option.

You would think they would have offered it as a BTO option. I know several people who want this option, including me. Now we must wait.

 

[TripHop]

Heat

You would think they would have offered it as a BTO option. I know several people who want this option, including me. Now we must wait.

Servers aren't typically used for graphics intensive operations on a screen. Plus heat is likely the reason not to put AMD discreet graphics in it. The Quad Core i7 is 10 watts hotter - 45 watts vs 35 watts.

 

[dank414]

Come on Apple, at least give the low-end the DVD drive so people can get a good HTPC setup for cheap!
...Then again, that would hurt Apple TV sales.

I was hoping for this revision to have just that.. mac mini is one of the best htpc of it's kind and sorta lack one of the major functions (replace my crappy dvd play and have it all in one for my big ole dvd collection).