When are 6 cores better than 4 cores for home, non-pro use?

[kevink2]

I've spent too much on Apple products this year (iPad Pro 10.5", Watch Series 4) that I needed to limit my overall spending on the Mini. I had just got tired of issues with my Hackintosh. For high performance purposes, I can use my old Hackintosh, a Skylake series i7 that is now back to Windows. Share the same 4K 27" monitor (luckily my monitor supported 60Hz at 4K using HDMI).

But historically, it is so easy to overspend. Just a "little" bit more, get something nicer. I bumped up from i3 and 128GB, but if I didn't set limits, next thing I know I would be at 2TB, 64GB of RAM, etc

 

[Cheapassmac]

So you think spending an extra $200 to go form i5 to i7 is a waste of money? Just go back and read the other threads on this subject, you will find yourself in the minority, which isn't an automatic bad thing, in this case, it is off.
In 5 years, I can guarantee you, nobody who paid the extra $200 to get an i7 is going to regret it. If you argue that, then you just like to disagree for the sport of it, which seems to be the case.

I don't even know why this is even a debate for those people advocating the i5 route. You can literally get a BTO i7 (from the i3 model) for the same cost as the default i5 config of 1099. It's not even paying extra money, it's literally free performance and better resale value.

You either need the extra horse power and the i7 would pay for itself even if it was an extra 200 dollars, or casual user of the computer would never see any benefit beyond the quad core i3 and save $300. The i5 config isn't a bad choice, just that the i3 or i7 choices would serve the user better (depending who you are).

 

[dmsea1]

I took no position as to which processor a user should buy. I simply stated adequate is what people should be shooting for and anything above that is wasting money.

Well, in this case, that is just bad advise if you stop at the i5 -

I don't even know why this is even a debate for those people advocating the i5 route. You can literally get a BTO i7 (from the i3 model) for the same cost as the default i5 config of 1099. It's not even paying extra money, it's literally free performance and better resale value.

You either need the extra horse power and the i7 would pay for itself even if it was an extra 200 dollars, or casual user of the computer would never see any benefit beyond the quad core i3 and save $300. The i5 config isn't a bad choice, just that the i3 or i7 choices would serve the user better (depending who you are).

Exactly! If you are a light user, then sure, an i3 may be adequate. If you plan on doing video editing, music, etc - and an i3 is your min requirements, stopping at the i5 may save you a few bucks in the short run, but at that point, it is almost a no brainer to jump to the i7 due to the small incremental cost. You won't have any regrets that will creep in every time you are on this forum. Just don't do that to yourself. And the reward will be - Time, which is the best reward of all.

 

[tpivette89]

I don't even know why this is even a debate for those people advocating the i5 route. You can literally get a BTO i7 (from the i3 model) for the same cost as the default i5 config of 1099. It's not even paying extra money, it's literally free performance and better resale value.

You either need the extra horse power and the i7 would pay for itself even if it was an extra 200 dollars, or casual user of the computer would never see any benefit beyond the quad core i3 and save $300. The i5 config isn't a bad choice, just that the i3 or i7 choices would serve the user better (depending who you are).

I purchased the i5 base config... it offered double the storage capacity, and a lot more CPU performance over the base (i3) config. Read/write speeds are better than the 128GB model (which is where the comparably priced i7 would be), and the CPU performance is head and shoulders above the i3. For my use, the extra 200mhz clock speed and hyper threading just aren't worth the extra $200... my money was better spent on an eGPU (Akitio TB3 new on ebay for $175) that I could re-use my RX 480 from my old 5,1 Mac Pro.

All in all, for my use, my $1274 was better spent on the i5 base config + eGPU than the absolute base model upgraded to the i7 for $1299.

 

[Cheapassmac]

Basically, you rather pay $200 for 128gb hard drive instead of $200 for the extra clock speed, hyper threading, extra cache, better grade chip, all of which you can't change later on.

SSDs are faster when larger, but even a power user wouldn't miss much by using a cheaper external ssd.

 

[Amazing Ox Space Monkey]

Show me anyone that is buying a new computer that isn't thinking about the future.

I am. I tend to enjoy what I have now. I don’t care about problems that do not exist.

Again, if we are talking $200, find me a better way to spend that money on this machine. More Internal Storage? More Ram? Apple Care? Pretty matching space gray keyboard and mouse? Or raw, horsepower that can't be upgraded?

Depends on the use case and the budget. The good thing is that we have choices.

For my needs, the base i3/128 would be enough but the storage seem to be small so let’s suppose I decide for the bigger and twice faster storage. Now we have i3/256 for $200 more. Now since we are at $1000, why not spend $100 on the faster i5. We are at i5/256. Only then comes the argument of going for i7 for $200 which makes the cost $1300. So, upgrading the processor from i3 to i7 is not $200 but $300 which is 1/3 of the total cost of the computer.

My choices are basically down to
i3/8/128
i3/16/128
i3/8/256
i5/8/256

Any of those computers will fullful my needs/wants for the next 5 years. I would really want to get the base stock configuration, plenty of horsepower. My only gripe is that the size of the ssd is too small. Will be getting an external drive anyway.

 

[Cheapassmac]

I am. I tend to enjoy what I have now. I don’t care about problems that do not exist.
Depends on the use case and the budget. The good thing is that we have choices.

For my needs, the base i3/128 would be enough but the storage seem to be small so let’s suppose I decide for the bigger and twice faster storage. Now we have i3/256 for $200 more. Now since we are at $1000, why not spend $100 on the faster i5. We are at i5/256. Only then comes the argument of going for i7 for $200 which makes the cost $1300. So, upgrading the processor from i3 to i7 is not $200 but $300 which is 1/3 of the total cost of the computer.

My choices are basically down to
i3/8/128
i3/16/128
i3/8/256
i5/8/256

Any of those computers will fullful my needs/wants for the next 5 years. I would really want to get the base stock configuration, plenty of horsepower. My only gripe is that the size of the ssd is too small. Will be getting an external drive anyway.

If you are getting an external hard drive anyway, you can pretty much rule out all the 256 configs already. Most people will be happy with an i3. RAM depends on how comfortable with installing (and it's more involved then the 2012 model). Most people can appreciate 16gb RAM, but you can get by with 8. Even something as innocent as a web browser gobbles gigs of ram. Also, the intel graphics uses system ram, and uses 1.5gb for optimal performance.

 

[Cat-toy]

If you are getting an external hard drive anyway, you can pretty much rule out all the 256 configs already. Most people will be happy with an i3. RAM depends on how comfortable with installing (and it's more involved then the 2012 model). Most people can appreciate 16gb RAM, but you can get by with 8. Even something as innocent as a web browser gobbles gigs of ram. Also, the intel graphics uses system ram, and uses 1.5gb for optimal performance.

The only thing about going with the 128gb (almost 50% slower than 256gb) and upgrading to i7 is a possible bottleneck. the base i5 will be a more balanced system. i dunno its a $200 upgrade for something you want to keep. spend now less tears later.

I just ordered i7/256/8gb remember the ssd and proc you are stuck with don't skimp on that proc

 

[Cheapassmac]

The only thing about going with the 128gb (almost 50% slower than 256gb) and upgrading to i7 is a possible bottleneck. the base i5 will be a more balanced system. i dunno its a $200 upgrade for something you want to keep. spend now less tears later.

I just ordered i7/256/8gb remember the ssd and proc you are stuck with don't skimp on that proc

While it's true that the hard drive is always the slowest part of the PC, these days, the only practical scenarios where it would be a bottleneck would be under niche pro use where they need to literally move raw data constantly for some reason. The speed of the 128gb ssd is more than plenty fast for non-pro home use.

Also keep in mind that only the sequential data transfer speed is affected by size. Smaller SSDs have about the same latency and IOPS, and basically the reason why SSDs make the OS snappier compared to the old platters.

TLDR: there's no practical bottleneck for the i7 from the 128gb ssd

 

[Cat-toy]

While it's true that the hard drive is always the slowest part of the PC, these days, the only practical scenarios where it would be a bottleneck would be under niche pro use where they need to literally move raw data constantly for some reason. The speed of the 128gb ssd is more than plenty fast for non-pro home use.

Also keep in mind that only the sequential data transfer speed is affected by size. Smaller SSDs have about the same latency and IOPS, and basically the reason why SSDs make the OS snappier compared to the old platters.

TLDR: there's no practical bottleneck for the i7 from the 128gb ssd

Valid point. I guess it just a question of value , the i3 base upped to i7 I considered but i had the extra $200 to spen on something that did not feel as a tax. I will be using externals, but none of my current machines are less than 256gb. might be psychological.

EDIT: to OP go i5 minimum. from exp buying low base mac leaves you one OS behind at cutoff time

 

[Cheapassmac]

Valid point. I guess it just a question of value , the i3 base upped to i7 I considered but i had the extra $200 to spen on something that did not feel as a tax. I will be using externals, but none of my current machines are less than 256gb. might be psychological.

EDIT: to OP go i5 minimum. from exp buying low base mac leaves you one OS behind at cutoff time

$1099 for i7/8gb/128gb or $1099 for i5/8gb/256gb, you think 128gb hard drive space is worth the same as an i7 upgrade? An external 128gb SSD goes for like 20-30 bucks for reference. For $200 this past black friday, 2TB SSD. Paying Apple for any storage can't possibly be viewed as a value choice. You buy Apple storage if you're a Pro moving constant data.

Also, Apple cuts off hardware based on architecture or age, not how fast the machine is. The i3 will be discontinued the same time as the i7 variant.

 

[Cat-toy]

$1099 for i7/8gb/128gb or $1099 for i5/8gb/256gb, you think 128gb hard drive space is worth the same as an i7 upgrade? An external 128gb SSD goes for like 20-30 bucks for reference. For $200 this past black friday, 2TB SSD. Paying Apple for any storage can't possibly be viewed as a value choice. You buy Apple storage if you're a Pro moving constant data.

Also, Apple cuts off hardware based on architecture or age, not how fast the machine is. The i3 will be discontinued the same time as the i7 variant.

just 1 time my 2009 MBP was cut off long ago, tho riding mojave now. at that time the 2008 macbook was still supported. might be that they knew the 2009 mbp was a workhorse that people were stil rigging to work on new OS. I think we agree to get the best spec you can gent with mac hardware. these may be the last mac minis. A bone thrown to le us upgrade the RAM

EDIT my 2009 I replaced the logic board with the 2.5ghz , works flawlessly

 

[Cheapassmac]

just 1 time my 2009 MBP was cut off long ago, tho riding mohvae now. at that time the 2008 macbook was still supported. might be that they knew the 2009 mbp was a workhorse that people were stil rigging to work on new OS. I think we agree to get the best spec you can gent with mac hardware. these may be the last mac minis. A bone thrown to le us upgrade the RAM

That was for architectural reason. The macbook 2008 is a different machine from the macbook pro that was discontinued. Apple didn't support a high end BTO Macbook Pro 2009 but discontinued the stock 2009 model.

 

[Cat-toy]

That was for architectural reason. The macbook 2008 is a different machine from the macbook pro that was discontinued. Apple didn't support a high end BTO Macbook Pro 2009 but discontinued the stock 2009 model.

can we agree on get the best silicone you can buy? I will halt it here

Im old

 

[Cheapassmac]

can we agree on get the best silicone you can buy? I will halt it here

Im old

I was merely assuring that the i3 would be as safe to buy. I can agree with you that the i7 is the best you can get for the mini though.

 

[Cat-toy]

I was merely assuring that the i3 would be as safe to buy. I can agree with you that the i7 is the best you can get for the mini though.

ok

 

[Broken Hope]

I love how people in this thread pretend that the i5 is miles worse than the i7, a small amount of cache and Hyper-Threading won’t suddenly make the i7 relevant and the i5 slow and crappy, there isn’t many apps that can make good use of more than 6 threads, those apps tend to be media encoding apps where you might shave off a few minutes with maximum gains.

For the vast majority of people they wouldn’t notice a difference between the i5 or i7.

 

[Cheapassmac]

I love how people in this thread pretend that the i5 is miles worse than the i7, a small amount of cache and Hyper-Threading won’t suddenly make the i7 relevant and the i5 slow and crappy, there isn’t many apps that can make good use of more than 6 threads, those apps tend to be media encoding apps where you might shave off a few minutes with maximum gains.

For the vast majority of people they wouldn’t notice a difference between the i5 or i7.

A vast majority of people wouldn't notice the difference between an i3 and i5 either, and would save $300. The point is, if you need the extra power, might as well go with the i7 at the same or minimal cost.

Also, 25% more high speed cache, 13% extra turbo, 7% high clock speed, and 6 extra threads isn't nothing. 8th Gen i7 (what the mini uses) is about 95% the speed of 9th Gen i7. Seeing how the 9th gen is 8 cores 8 threads compared to 6 cores 12 threads 8th gen, it's practically 2 cores worth of performance gains for cpu intensive tasks. And if you didn't need the extra performance, I'll point back to that i3 once more.

Nothing wrong with i5, just that the i3 and i7 serve the target audiences better.

 

[pl1984]

Well, in this case, that is just bad advise if you stop at the i5 -

Again: I did not give any advice as to which processor a user should get. Please stop with this straw man argument.
[doublepost=1543926708][/doublepost]

I don't even know why this is even a debate for those people advocating the i5 route. You can literally get a BTO i7 (from the i3 model) for the same cost as the default i5 config of 1099. It's not even paying extra money, it's literally free performance and better resale value.

It's not, but there are some people who are turning it into one. People have different wants/needs/requirements and what makes sense in one situation may not in another. Those advocating always buying the i7 over the i5 are ignoring this.
[doublepost=1543927103][/doublepost]

$1099 for i7/8gb/128gb or $1099 for i5/8gb/256gb, you think 128gb hard drive space is worth the same as an i7 upgrade? An external 128gb SSD goes for like 20-30 bucks for reference. For $200 this past black friday, 2TB SSD. Paying Apple for any storage can't possibly be viewed as a value choice. You buy Apple storage if you're a Pro moving constant data.

When purchasing my MacBook I decided to purchase a 2016 Core m5 model over the 2017 Core m3 model because the SSD in the 2016 was 512GB versus the 2017 models 256GB SSD. Based on the research I did the 2017 Core m3 model was supposed to outperform the 2016 Core i7 model (though I never did see benchmarks to support this). While this is not an apples to apples comparison of the Mini I'm pointing out I prioritized SSD capacity over processor speed when purchasing the MacBook. It's a shame that, in a desktop computer, Apple makes you have to make such a decision about SSD capacity at the time of purchase.

 

[Cheapassmac]

Again: I did not give any advice as to which processor a user should get. Please stop with this straw man argument.
[doublepost=1543926708][/doublepost]
It's not, but there are some people who are turning it into one. People have different wants/needs/requirements and what makes sense in one situation may not in another. Those advocating always buying the i7 over the i5 are ignoring this.
[doublepost=1543927103][/doublepost]
When purchasing my MacBook I decided to purchase a 2016 Core m5 model over the 2017 Core m3 model because the SSD in the 2016 was 512GB versus the 2017 models 256GB SSD. Based on the research I did the 2017 Core m3 model was supposed to outperform the 2016 Core i7 model (though I never did see benchmarks to support this). While this is not an apples to apples comparison of the Mini I'm pointing out I prioritized SSD capacity over processor speed when purchasing the MacBook. It's a shame that, in a desktop computer, Apple makes you have to make such a decision about SSD capacity at the time of purchase.

Laptop and desktop use case is different. There's plenty of merit of getting a larger ssd for that. In the mini it doesn't make sense with the way Apple charges for them (unless you're a pro).

And there's merit to advocate the i7, though I'm not actually doing that. I'm advocated against the i5 exactly because it doesn't meet the wants/needs/requirements as well as either the i3 or i7 for people and their situations. You seem to be ignoring this Mr Semantics.

 

[AgustoPinochet]

Just trying to decide whether to opt for the $799 model vs. the $1099 model.

Of course, there are differences in terms of the SSD size and the processor. For the processor specifically, when would the processor in the $1099 model be of benefit to a home user who doesn't do photo or video editing but occasionally performs video transcoding (example, transcoding a video obtained only to be playable on the Apple TV)?

Thanks

I would get more cores if you are running virtual machines, like windows in Parallels or someething

 

[pl1984]

Laptop and desktop use case is different. There's plenty of merit of getting a larger ssd for that. In the mini it doesn't make sense with the way Apple charges for them (unless you're a pro).

No, they're not. The decision was between a solder on CPU and SSD for both systems. I put more weight on a larger capacity SSD compared to a faster processor. The exact situation being discussed above.

And there's merit to advocate the i7, though I'm not actually doing that. I'm advocated against the i5 exactly because it doesn't meet the wants/needs/requirements as well as either the i3 or i7 for people and their situations. You seem to be ignoring this Mr Semantics.

My issue isn't with those who advocate for the i7. My issue is with those who feel it's either the i3 or the i7 but never the i5. People's situations are different. To say the i5 is a no go for everyone is extremely arrogant.

 

[dmsea1]

If you are getting an external hard drive anyway, you can pretty much rule out all the 256 configs already. Most people will be happy with an i3. RAM depends on how comfortable with installing (and it's more involved then the 2012 model). Most people can appreciate 16gb RAM, but you can get by with 8. Even something as innocent as a web browser gobbles gigs of ram. Also, the intel graphics uses system ram, and uses 1.5gb for optimal performance.

I am typing this on my mac mini i7 - 16Gb. I have activity monitor open, and I am at 12.17 GB used of RAM right now.
I have 2 Safari windows opened side by side, each with 5 tabs. One particular site is eating up nearly 1GB on it's own. Crazy how quick you get to 12GB with no real apps opened, but a lot of internet windows eats up RAM. You are going to want to upgrade the RAM pretty quick above 8GB.

No, they're not. The decision was between a solder on CPU and SSD for both systems. I put more weight on a larger capacity SSD compared to a faster processor. The exact situation being discussed above.

My issue isn't with those who advocate for the i7. My issue is with those who feel it's either the i3 or the i7 but never the i5. People's situations are different. To say the i5 is a no go for everyone is extremely arrogant.

I have not seen the word "Never" in any of the responses - other than maybe your stance on "never shoot for above adequate in computing as it is a waste of money".
My last piece of advise for anyone wrestling with value and cost on upgrades. If you can't afford $200 dollars on the CPU right now, it cannot be upgraded later - same goes with the storage as well. Exercise some financial discipline, save up for the next couple of months, or however long it takes to get the computer you want/need, then make the purchase that will not give you immediate regrets on storage and computing power. I waited nearly 3 years to upgrade my iMac, and had the funds to get the i7 and a 1TB SSD - only because I saved the funds and had some financial discipline and was able to get the computer that fit my needs today as well as future video and music production for the next 5-8 years.

 

[pl1984]

I have not seen the word "Never" in any of the responses - other than maybe your stance on "never shoot for above adequate in computing as it is a waste of money".

If not never then what is your argument?

 

[F-Train]

I am typing this on my mac mini i7 - 16Gb. I have activity monitor open, and I am at 12.17 GB used of RAM right now.
I have 2 Safari windows opened side by side, each with 5 tabs. One particular site is eating up nearly 1GB on it's own. Crazy how quick you get to 12GB with no real apps opened, but a lot of internet windows eats up RAM. You are going to want to upgrade the RAM pretty quick above 8GB.

I've owned both an i5 and an i7 2018 mini. RAM use tends to expand with the RAM available.

Right now, my i7 has 8GB of RAM pending a change to 32GB later this week. I have two Safari windows open, one with seven tabs and one with five. Activity monitor says that I am using 5.81GB of RAM.