Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Can anyone please post the geekbench score together with the spec?

xlii said:
Geekbench 32bit results for my 2.3ghz quad 2012 4gbytes memory stock 1tb hard drive.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1216255
Click to expand...

Thank you! Very impressive!

I am wondering whether to pay 100 dollars more to get the 2.6ghz version if the scores doesn't have much difference.

Edit: i found it here: 13000+
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1216294

I can't believe the new generation of macmini is so much powerful! And it has the best performance/price ratio in apple's product line. I am thinking to get one. :D
 
sza said:
Thank you! Very impressive!

I am wondering whether to pay 100 dollars more to get the 2.6ghz version if the scores doesn't have much difference.

Edit: i found it here: 13000+
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1216294

I can't believe the new generation of macmini is so much powerful! And it has the best performance/price ratio in apple's product line. I am thinking to get one. :D
Click to expand...

Note that one has 16gb ram tho whereas the one linked above only had 4gb. The i7 2.6ghz with 4gb is still getting impressive 11000 to 11700 scores tho.
 
i just got my 2.6 with stock drive and 4GB of ram and without anything but geekbench on it, i scored somewhere in the 1100s, im still waiting for my ssd and ram so ill do another test when its all in there.

seems as if 2.3 vs 2.6 stock is a 1000 point difference roughly
 
Anyone have an idea how these scores compate to the base i5 that's in the new iMac? I'm debating myself on replacing my 2010 mini with the new mini i7 quad and keeping my monitors (or a TB Display...), or going with the new iMac with the i5. I think I read that both processors are like 3.5x faster than my 2.4C2D.
 
Also keep in mind when comparing scores, that some are 32 bit results, and others are 64.. As with a couple of the examples above. It makes a difference too.
 
Luap said:
Also keep in mind when comparing scores, that some are 32 bit results, and others are 64.. As with a couple of the examples above. It makes a difference too.
Click to expand...

Good point. The 64-bit result is somewhat around 1000 - 1500 higher than the 32 bit result. So keep it in mind.

----------
iPhisch said:
Anyone have an idea how these scores compate to the base i5 that's in the new iMac? I'm debating myself on replacing my 2010 mini with the new mini i7 quad and keeping my monitors (or a TB Display...), or going with the new iMac with the i5. I think I read that both processors are like 3.5x faster than my 2.4C2D.
Click to expand...

The base model is not fast. it is around 6000-7000.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/search?q=macmini6,1
 
10771 is what I got in the 32-bit mode.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1217992

I've already stripped it, but in a Samsung 830 128GB SSD and slaved the original drive as media storage and put in 16 gigs of ram. I love this little machine. Sold my rMBP to pick this up and an 13" air... then they released the rMBP 13" that's only half a pound more in weight. Decisions decisions.

Edit: I have the mid range model with the quad core chip.
 
Yanwoo said:
Note that one has 16gb ram tho whereas the one linked above only had 4gb. The i7 2.6ghz with 4gb is still getting impressive 11000 to 11700 scores tho.
Click to expand...

I'm back from the power outage that Sandy gave us. I have 16gbytes of memory coming from Crucial and I expect the score to improve somewhat when that is installed. At the moment my machine is a stock 2.3 quad bought from Amazon.
 
These scores are pretty impressive! I think my 2.4C2D 2010 mini scores around 3000 or so. I'm really thinking about getting a mid range 2012 insted of an iMac. Even with the apple installed ssd, it's a grand less than an iMac. Could get a Thunderbolt display later on, once they upgrade the ports... :)

I just really want to be able to AirPlay mirror.
 
impressive scores, too bad the Intel HD 4000 kind of sucks compared to the GPU in the new iMac..
 
stellan0r said:
impressive scores, too bad the Intel HD 4000 kind of sucks compared to the GPU in the new iMac..
Click to expand...

That is true, but if it's the same graphics power that's in the new 13" MBP retina, than it should be fine for my purposes. I don't play games, but I do see the occasional hiccup when playing HD video with my GeForce 320M. 4000 should be better than that. I'm really looking for processing power over graphics capabilties. And this thing still has a FW800 port!
 
iPhisch said:
That is true, but if it's the same graphics power that's in the new 13" MBP retina, than it should be fine for my purposes. I don't play games, but I do see the occasional hiccup when playing HD video with my GeForce 320M. 4000 should be better than that. I'm really looking for processing power over graphics capabilties. And this thing still has a FW800 port!
Click to expand...

I am dependent on the FW port for my audio interface and the TB port for my TB-to-ExpressCard/34 adapter from Sonnet (and as I need 2 screens, the new iMac would be much more expensive than the Mini (iMac + TBD vs. Mini + TBD + old 23" ACD), also it will have decent gfx power).

I'm on an early 2008 MBP with 2,5GHz C2D, 6GB RAM, SSD+HDD and a GF 8600M GT, it even runs Diablo 3 - a bit laggy at some points during the game, but I simply hope the HD4000 is faster than that ;-) (i know it is, also not much according to this http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html )

----------

btw, regarding the GFX power of the HD4000, check this out:


http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4000.69168.0.html
 
That sounds pretty good. I run two Dell 24" 1080p monitors right now, they aren't the best, but were $400 for the pair. I have a 160gb Intel 320 SSD, and all my media is on a FW800 drive containing a WD Scorpio black 500GB 7200rpm drive (allowing me to take my media with me without taking the computer). I could do the mid level 2012 mini with the 256gb SSD for 1100 bucks, add ram later, use my existing monitors, and be pretty happy. Then dump my exisitng mini for a few hundos. The new iMacs look so sweet, but not 2-3x the price sweet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back