Okay, you got me. Now 2,3 or 2,6 GHz?

Poki

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Mar 21, 2012
1,317
903
I currently have a 2,66 GHz Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro from 2009, so the Mini should be at least triple the speed (hope this translates to real world).

As for the graphics, Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 both seem to run okay on low with the HD 3000, so they should run just fine with the HD 4000 on low even on 1440p I think, and for everything else, there's my PS3. I don't want to wait for a new Thunderbolt Display as it's probably not a day and night difference to the current one.

Now the only thing I don't know is the CPU. Many said the 2,6 GHz chip is worth it. Problem is, first, both chips cost exactly the same according to Intel, so it would be basically gifting money to Apple, and second, is there any worthy real world difference in 1080p video or 36 MP RAW photo editing?
 

milkmandan

macrumors member
Oct 3, 2012
65
0
Now the only thing I don't know is the CPU. Many said the 2,6 GHz chip is worth it. Problem is, first, both chips cost exactly the same according to Intel, so it would be basically gifting money to Apple, and second, is there any worthy real world difference in 1080p video or 36 MP RAW photo editing?
Between the new quad core 2.3Ghz version and the quad core 2.6Ghz version?
The difference honestly would be negligible in my opinion.
The 2.6Ghz MAY shave off a few seconds with 36MP RAW photo editing. But at the very most 5-10 seconds maybe? Is the extra $100 worth that much time to you ? ;)
And for watching 1080p video, you'll probably see no improvement.
 

cocacolakid

macrumors 65816
Dec 18, 2010
1,108
19
Chicago
Let's use the 15" rMBP as a comparison for Geekbench scores since the rMBP is available with the same 2.3Ghz and 2.6Ghz quad core CPU's.

The 2.3Ghz scores 10932/11980 in 32/64 bit Geekbench tests according to Everymac.

The 2.6Ghz scores 11832/13003.

They both have the same amount of RAM and the same GPU's for each test (8GB RAM + HD 4000/GT 650M combo Graphics.) So the only difference in those tests are the CPU performance. That's a little over 8% faster for $100. To some people that's worth it and others it's not.

Usual Geekbench disclaimer: Geekbench is best for comparison of CPU power, actual everday use of each CPU will give a better understanding of any difference. Some people hate Geekbench, but for a quick comparison of similar CPU's, it has value.
 

Amedeus

macrumors newbie
Jul 30, 2012
2
0
Does the 2.6 run hotter than the 2.3? Could this possibly be an issue (fan running louder, etc.)?
 

philipma1957

macrumors 603
Apr 13, 2010
6,272
192
Howell, New Jersey
Let's use the 15" rMBP as a comparison for Geekbench scores since the rMBP is available with the same 2.3Ghz and 2.6Ghz quad core CPU's.

The 2.3Ghz scores 10932/11980 in 32/64 bit Geekbench tests according to Everymac.

The 2.6Ghz scores 11832/13003.

They both have the same amount of RAM and the same GPU's for each test (8GB RAM + HD 4000/GT 650M combo Graphics.) So the only difference in those tests are the CPU performance. That's a little over 8% faster for $100. To some people that's worth it and others it's not.

Usual Geekbench disclaimer: Geekbench is best for comparison of CPU power, actual everday use of each CPU will give a better understanding of any difference. Some people hate Geekbench, but for a quick comparison of similar CPU's, it has value.
your tests may have no meaning as the 650 gpu is not in the mac mini. both quad cores are fast

http://ark.intel.com/products/64891/Intel-Core-i7-3720QM-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz

this is 2.6 to 3.6 with a 6mb cache it is the 3720qm

http://ark.intel.com/products/64900/Intel-Core-i7-3615QM-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_30-GHz

this is 2.3 to 3.3 with 6mb cache it is the 3715qm

by the way they both cost 378 so apple is gouging us quite a bit of cash for the better cpu.


since I have thousands and apple has billions on principle I will have to get the 2.3 quad over the 2.6 .

my guess is the 2.6 is 8 to 12 percent faster .


8 percent faster in 1 or 2 threaded work and 12 percent faster in 6 to 8 thread work.

so you could argue that 100 bucks is 12.5 percent more cash for the 8 to 12 percent cpu increase.
 

cocacolakid

macrumors 65816
Dec 18, 2010
1,108
19
Chicago
your tests may have no meaning as the 650 gpu is not in the mac mini. both quad cores are fast

http://ark.intel.com/products/64891/Intel-Core-i7-3720QM-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz

this is 2.6 to 3.6 with a 6mb cache it is the 3720qm

http://ark.intel.com/products/64900/Intel-Core-i7-3615QM-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_30-GHz

this is 2.3 to 3.3 with 6mb cache it is the 3715qm

by the way they both cost 378 so apple is gouging us quite a bit of cash for the better cpu.


since I have thousands and apple has billions on principle I will have to get the 2.3 quad over the 2.6 .

my guess is the 2.6 is 8 to 12 percent faster .


8 percent faster in 1 or 2 threaded work and 12 percent faster in 6 to 8 thread work.

so you could argue that 100 bucks is 12.5 percent more cash for the 8 to 12 percent cpu increase.
In Ars Technica's tests of the Retina MacBook the GT 650M added between 22 and 37 points total to the Geekbench scores above what the isolated HD 4000 Geekbench tests scored. There was virtually no difference in the scores between the integrated graphics and the dedicated GPU.

The HD 4000 graphics scored 12,932 in 10.8 while the 650M scored 12,954.
Lion had a slighter larger difference, 37 points instead of 22.

The GT 650M didn't effect the Geekbench scores so much that a comparison of the CPU's can't be made.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/08/graphics-improvements-give-mountain-lion-that-speedy-feeling/

Obviously the GT 650M has a bigger effect on gaming and other heavy editing and high 3D use, but as far as Geekbench scores, it has no discernible effect.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.