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

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by Poki, Oct 23, 2012.

  1. Poki macrumors 65816


    Mar 21, 2012
    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?
  2. milkmandan macrumors member

    Oct 3, 2012
    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.
  3. cocacolakid macrumors 65816


    Dec 18, 2010
    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.
  4. Amedeus macrumors newbie

    Jul 30, 2012
    Does the 2.6 run hotter than the 2.3? Could this possibly be an issue (fan running louder, etc.)?
  5. philipma1957 macrumors 603


    Apr 13, 2010
    Howell, New Jersey
    your tests may have no meaning as the 650 gpu is not in the mac mini. both quad cores are fast


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


    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.
  6. cocacolakid macrumors 65816


    Dec 18, 2010
    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.


    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.

Share This Page