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.
cuad-core i7+3000HD or dual-core i7+AMD Radeon 6630
- Thread starter jonjon1
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What exactly is the difference? what would be a MINI SERVER?
At the end I decided to buy the 2.5 Ghz i5 dual-core, because of the dedicated graphics. So I guess I made the right choice. I would have bought the i7 dual core, but I had no time to wait, cuz im leaving the country.
I planing to use the mac mini to run Archicad and Artlantis Studio.
I don't think the DC i7 is worth the upgrade price, personally. Usually the main make or break between an i5 or an i7 is if you can take advantage of Hyperthreading but, if I'm not mistaken, the i5's in the Mini have Hyperthreading.
So it's like $100 for 200mhz and 1MB of L2 cache? No thanks.
My understanding is the i7 has hyper threading where the i5 does not (unless that changed with sandy bridge?) That's the difference between 2 threads and 4 threads (and 8 in the case of the server)
This does not lend a big boost to gaming but anyone doing video encoding, or audio work will probably want the i7.
It's my understanding that the Mini is using these processors:
i5-2410M, i5-2520M, i7-2620M, i7-2635QM
According to Intel, all of these processors have Hyperthreading.
So that's 4 threads for the i5's and i7-2620M and 8 threads for the 2635QM.
If I were doing this for something very processor intensive, I'd buy the Quad-core server.
But going from the 2.5ghz i5 to the 2.7ghz i7... ehhh... A lot harder choice to make...
i5-2410M, i5-2520M, i7-2620M, i7-2635QM
According to Intel, all of these processors have Hyperthreading.
So that's 4 threads for the i5's and i7-2620M and 8 threads for the 2635QM.
If I were doing this for something very processor intensive, I'd buy the Quad-core server.
But going from the 2.5ghz i5 to the 2.7ghz i7... ehhh... A lot harder choice to make...
Thinking about the Core i5 Mac Mini
I'm thinking about one of these myself, with the same config. that you've described below. I mostly play Minecraft and League of Legends (which currently doesn't have a public Mac client), and I'm wondering about overheating issues. This is some hefty hardware in a tiny box. Do you think heat will be an issue? Or will the fan sound like a jet airliner when I'm playing Minecraft? Has yours arrived yet? How do you like it?
Thanks!
I'm thinking about one of these myself, with the same config. that you've described below. I mostly play Minecraft and League of Legends (which currently doesn't have a public Mac client), and I'm wondering about overheating issues. This is some hefty hardware in a tiny box. Do you think heat will be an issue? Or will the fan sound like a jet airliner when I'm playing Minecraft? Has yours arrived yet? How do you like it?
Thanks!
Ok, received my quad core Mac Mini and upgraded it with an SSD. Been using it a few days now.
Compared to my 2011 MPB 13" i7 (which has the same Crucial M4 SSD), the the quad core Mini feels faster for day-to-day tasks and Windows, under virtualization, is much speedier than the same setup on my MBP.
Both share the same Intel graphics chipset.
Therefore I can safely say the quad core Mini would be an advantage over the regular i7 dual core. Pretty impressed with this quad core Mini. Ok, it's no quad core iMac, but it's the fastest desktop you'll get for the size.
Compared to my 2011 MPB 13" i7 (which has the same Crucial M4 SSD), the the quad core Mini feels faster for day-to-day tasks and Windows, under virtualization, is much speedier than the same setup on my MBP.
Both share the same Intel graphics chipset.
Therefore I can safely say the quad core Mini would be an advantage over the regular i7 dual core. Pretty impressed with this quad core Mini. Ok, it's no quad core iMac, but it's the fastest desktop you'll get for the size.
Yep.
I don't think it changed with Sandy Bridge...it was kind of confusing with the last generation too iirc.
I figure if you know you have a particular need for more CPU power, go for the quad, or if you know you have a particular need for more GPU power, go for the Radeon. If you need both then figure out which one you'll be taking advantage of more often.
If price isn't a factor at all I guess you could get the quad and hope for Thunderbolt GPUs or get an external PCIe chassis down the line. I emphasize price not being a factor here cause I suspect they'll be expensive as hell when they come out.
It's sort of a shame they didn't include a discrete option for the Server, though could that be due to heat issues?
No clue if that's the actual reason, but it's a plausible one. The dual core CPUs in the regular models are 35W while the quad core in the server is 45W. Searching around I can't find hard numbers, but random people on the internet suspect the Radeon is in the 10-15W range.
I would buy the Quad-Core (8 threads) for audio/video projects. You need realtime effects or at least very fast, high quality "previews", so multithreading is a plus. And 32-Bit is not a real problem in the audio/video world, because encoders/decoders/plugins/apps use already 128-Bit SIMD instructions where it makes sense. Apples Mac OS X on Intel platform definition requires, that a computer must have a processor, which can execute SSE2 instructions (SIMD instructions).
Is 256 MB enough for discrete graphics these days? This I wonder.
I wonder if the 6490M used in the 15" MBP would have worked for the server as well.
I wonder if the 6490M used in the 15" MBP would have worked for the server as well.
I am not sure about heat, but certain about the power issue or lack of it. the internal powersupply is 85 watts
Now I am getting a beefed up mini with the Radeon.
I tested what a 2.3 mini pulled with a kill-a-watt it pulled
42 watts with a macbook air dvd playing a movie , a keyboard plugged in and running hand brake.
I like handbrake as it can push the cpu hard. Lots of people use it.
The beefed up mini gpu and the quad would pull too much juice.
85 psu
45 cpu
40 left
15 gpu
25 left
6 pair of hdds
19 left
2 fan
17 left
17 watts to spare.
fire wire pulls up to 9.
each usb can pull 3 there are 4 of them 12 watt
so that is 9 plus 12 = 21 watts this brings you to negative 4.
Have a machine and plugging in 4 usb and a fire wire product is common.
Putting a piece of gear on the market that has negative power supply headroom is bad business.
Not to mention the wifi card pull some juice.
T-bolt also has to spend power.
The video signal spend juice.
Ram spends juice.
It would be very easy to fix this problem.
Bring back a 110 watt brick as an option for a killer mini.
you can have your quad and a gpu more room in the case for cooling as the psu in outside the box. Just the hi end option. a real gaming mini that will also do heavy cpu work.
Last edited:
I'm really dissapointed it didn't get at least 512mb that said anyone have a idea as to why the sever got the most video memory?
Shared memory usage is dependent on the amount of memory installed. If you put 4GB in the base Mini, it would share 384MB of memory as well.
The memory in the Radeon version is dedicated, so it can't be changed.
In my opinion, 256MB is enough. It's not MORE than enough, but enough. You're not going to be playing games on a 6630M at super-high resolutions where the memory would come in handy anyways. I think if you stick to resolutions of 1600x900 (or 1680x1050 if you have a 16:10 screen) you should be fine.
I would have really LIKED 512MB but if it came down to a choice of having the HD3000 or the 6630m with 256Mb of RAM, I'll take the compromise every day of the week.
This is a little bit older article at Tom's but it was what I found quickly:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-ram-4870,2428-5.html
As you can see from the benchmarks in various games, the 512MB, 1GB and 2GB cards are all pretty even at lower resolutions. Once you start going over 1920x1200, there starts to be a little bit of a spread, but not too bad on most. A 256MB card would be below the 512MB, but at resolutions at 1680x1050 or lower (i.e.: probably what you're going to get playable on a 6630m), it won't be TERRIBLE.
Nice article. Another thing to remember is the pair of ram chips in the mini with radeon are very high speed type. so even though they are 256MB they are faster chips. I posted a photo of them on this site. It looked like they may be upgradeable. I can't tell until I get my 2.5 later this week.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1199455/
Yeah, it could have been a lot worse, like DDR3 or GDDR3 or something.
I wouldn't put money on it if I were you.
Funny you should say that. as an ex-player of many games of chance I would have to bet they are soldered and even if they are not efi may not handle the bump up. Plus sourcing the better chips has been proving very hard to do. I would guess 25 to 1 odds as an easy upgrade would be way off more like 50 to one or worse!
Geek Bench i7 DC vs i7 QC
Has any Geek Bench numbers come out on the dual core i7 yet? I am pretty impressed with the close to 9000 number on the quad core.
I am leaning toward the quad core right now as this would be my media server and also the system I use handbreak to convert DVDs to m4v's. I take it the Radeon wouldn't buy me much in the way of viewing video... would it?
Has any Geek Bench numbers come out on the dual core i7 yet? I am pretty impressed with the close to 9000 number on the quad core.
I am leaning toward the quad core right now as this would be my media server and also the system I use handbreak to convert DVDs to m4v's. I take it the Radeon wouldn't buy me much in the way of viewing video... would it?
Looks like scores are starting to trickle in though the results seem to be all over the place--saw some 2.5 i5 results better than the i7 though a few 64-bit scores cracked 8000.
Keep waiting...
I'll look in to my crystal ball and say 2012's lineup will look very much like 2011's. To go quad you'll need the server version but it won't have discrete graphics. I'd think theyll all have at least one USB 3 ports though, since the Intel chipset will finally support it.
I don't expect apple to ever adopt USB 3.0. With apple adopting bluetooth 4.0 and thunderbolt USB may be on its way out.