According to the Geekbench scores, a 2012 i7 quad core mini scores a 10736 while the 2012 i5 dual core mini scores a 6626. 4000 points seems like a whole bunch! But..... What does that actually mean? What difference will it make in actual performance? Any thoughts? Thanks!
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.
Actual "performance" difference?
- Thread starter GlobalRaymond
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Those benchmarks are CPU based, and since the is a dual core (four threads) and the i7 is a quad core (eight threads) CPUs, the difference is correct.
Depending on your computational requirements (what you actually do with your computer), you might see a difference in daily computing.
Browsing the web, playing a game now and then, writing essays, editing a video every now and then, listening to music and so on can easily be handled with a dual core i5. Anything more CPU demanding on a regular basis (editing video weekly or more often, playing games often, converting compressed files, calculating pictures en masse or any other data en masse) is better handled with an i7.
I have gone from a mobile Core 2 Duo dual core (two threads) CPU to a desktop quad core (eight threads) CPU just a week or two ago and the difference is astonishing with CPU intensive tasks (even Flash is CPU intensive on a C2D Mac).
For example, as I haven't had a chance to fully exhaust the system with work stuff, I recently converted 20 or so ripped DVDs I had lying around for some time and always put off transcoding sing my C2D Macs, as one DVD would take 2 or so hours, in less than six hours. I had "problems" filling HandBrake's queue as fast as it was (10 to 20 minutes per DVD (containing 90 to 130 minutes of video).
But on the other hand, the wonderful Compressor (app by Apple to transcode many videos to many formats) was only using half of the CPU and it still took quite some time to transcode a 13 minutes 1080p edit using an editing codec (not highly compressed and storing every farm) to several variants (1080p, 720p, 540p MP4 files and one DVD compliant file)m around two or three hours or so.
Anyway, a better/faster CPU might not be necessary for your if you barely stretch it.
Depending on your computational requirements (what you actually do with your computer), you might see a difference in daily computing.
Browsing the web, playing a game now and then, writing essays, editing a video every now and then, listening to music and so on can easily be handled with a dual core i5. Anything more CPU demanding on a regular basis (editing video weekly or more often, playing games often, converting compressed files, calculating pictures en masse or any other data en masse) is better handled with an i7.
I have gone from a mobile Core 2 Duo dual core (two threads) CPU to a desktop quad core (eight threads) CPU just a week or two ago and the difference is astonishing with CPU intensive tasks (even Flash is CPU intensive on a C2D Mac).
For example, as I haven't had a chance to fully exhaust the system with work stuff, I recently converted 20 or so ripped DVDs I had lying around for some time and always put off transcoding sing my C2D Macs, as one DVD would take 2 or so hours, in less than six hours. I had "problems" filling HandBrake's queue as fast as it was (10 to 20 minutes per DVD (containing 90 to 130 minutes of video).
But on the other hand, the wonderful Compressor (app by Apple to transcode many videos to many formats) was only using half of the CPU and it still took quite some time to transcode a 13 minutes 1080p edit using an editing codec (not highly compressed and storing every farm) to several variants (1080p, 720p, 540p MP4 files and one DVD compliant file)m around two or three hours or so.
Anyway, a better/faster CPU might not be necessary for your if you barely stretch it.
The difference will come in play when both systems are pushed to their limits. Normal usage, or even gaming does not push the new CPU's anywhere near their limits, so with that said, you wont notice any difference. If you plan on keeping the system longer then few years, going with i7 might be a better choice - hard to predict OS requirements in few years. Also, if you plan on doing any sort of video encoding work (ie. handbrake) I would also recommend i7.