I've now migrated from my 2009 Mini to a refurb quad i7 with Crucial SSD and 16GB ram. What a sweet machine.
M.
M.
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.
Four cores good, two cores bad
- Thread starter marclondon
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I couldn't agree more. I went from an early 2009 to 2.3 I7 and added 16gb. But I kept the early 2009 and found it's still useful and easily accessible from the new machine (for optical drive and 320gb hard drive).
You realize that it has nothing to do with Cores or at least very little right? You went from a slow Core2Duo Mini to an Core i Series. Dual vs Quad is nice, but your comparison is completely Apples to Oranges. I guarentee you would have had the same "What a Sweet Machine" response if you went with even the Dual core i5 2012 (or 2014) when comparing to a 2009.....
Party pooper! No matter what the techno analysis, it is a sweet machine. It's not apples and oranges, because the quad provides flexibility for whatever future application needs might be. (how many more machines needed in your signature to impress us all?)
you realize that the quad is an old processor right? I mean, you could buy quad processors from 2004 also.... Just because something is "quad" doesn't mean its gonna be awesome.
Ummm.... It is Apples to Oranges. If the OP bought a Dual Core 2012 and a Quad Core and said that the Quad Core was so much faster, then I would agree.
Look at Geekbench scores, a 2009 Core2duo 2.53ghz processor (the fastest put in the Mini from 2009 which may not even be the one the OP has) scores a whopping 2583 whereas the dual core i5 2012 2.5ghz processor in the Mini scores 5732! That is more than double! To say the step up from Dual Core to Quad core has ANYTHING to do with the speed of his machine is laughable. It has more to do with 2-3 generations worth of processor upgrades more than anything else.
Further, while I can't say for sure, I'm guessing he isn't rocking an SSD in his 2009 and I KNOW he isn't rocking 16GB of RAM (since the 2009's max out at 8GB). It is a COMPLETELY Apples to Oranges comparison and to say it solely because of the Quad core processor (which is what the OP's title alludes to) is just false.
It would be like me comparing my Ford Explore to my Ford Escape and saying that the Ford Escape gets better gas mileage solely because it is smaller. While that may play a part in, the real reason is the drop from a big giant V6 down to a tiny 4 Cylinder engine..... And oh yeah about 5 years worth of engineering...
Overkill...OP is expressing his happiness. No need to rain on his parade. Be nicer.
There's nothing wrong with highlighting facts. And misleading titles for that matter. The OP is happy with his latest acquisition. That's seems to be a fact, too.
No need for anyone to be offended in this thread.
No need for anyone to be offended in this thread.
The issue is with the thread title, which can be misleading. The "sweet machine" isn't "sweet" compared to the OP's older Mac because they went from dual core to quad core. That's like trading in a blue 1983 Honda Civic for a red 2014 Dodge Challenger and then saying: Red good, Blue bad.
It's not about being a party pooper or raining on someone's parade, but about making sure people aren't misled into thinking the thread title is always true.
And listing your Mac hardware in your signature isn't about impressing anyone. It's very helpful when asking for help or discussing specifics about hardware, so posters don't have to continually ask "which model and configuration are you running?"
Thank you! Voice of reason. If they OP had stated "My 2012 Mini crushes my 2009!" as his thread title, I wouldn't have a problem with this thread at all. I would congratulate him. However, because he made some blanket statement about Quad over Dual in the title as if that is the ONLY reason his Mini is so much faster.... That is what I have a problem with.
These kinds of threads are why too many people think Mhz/Ghz or more Cores is everything. If you run an 8 Core AMD is that faster than a Quad Core Intel? Maybe if you are comparing the AMD to a Quad Core Pentium 4 from 200X, but not if you are comparing the 8 Core AMD to a Haswell Ivy Bridge....
----------
FYI, I didn't even list all my machines. And you will see that they are various old vs new machines. It sets context that I have experience with various Mac hardware..... I'm sorry if you don't have 4 or more Macs and that upsets you and there are multiple people in my household.
----------
Be nicer? I'm pointing out a logic flaw by the OP. I didn't call him names or berate him. I pointed out his logic flaw. The OP was the one that chose the poor title of this thread. The OP needs to change it....
A newer dual or quad could be a sweet machine. A quad using apps that take advantage of the cores is a superior machine.
Unless Apple comes out with a quad Mini again...I'll be moving on. In the meanwhile, my apps do great on my quad Mini as well as being a better fit for virtual machines.
Unless Apple comes out with a quad Mini again...I'll be moving on. In the meanwhile, my apps do great on my quad Mini as well as being a better fit for virtual machines.
agree with other posters in that it's likely not the dual vs quad that's increasing your speed.
I have a 2014 dual core i7, 256 SSD, 16GB at work and a 2012 quad core i7, 1TB spinner, 16GB ram at home. Both are pretty fast, especially compared to my ancient 2008 macbook and even older dual core Dell I was using at work, but my 2014 is faster than my 2012 at most tasks because of the SSD. I haven't pushed either computer with my work software that takes advantage of multiple cores, but I would suspect my 2012 would be faster at computing those tasks.
Both are running the latest Yosemite, btw.
I'll eventually put a Samsung pro 850 in the 2012, but not for a while.
Yup, the thread title is really off. If you don't use apps that take advantage of all four cores, the CPU doesn't matter, assuming roughly equal clock speeds.
Almost the same setup with me, late 2009 2.66 C2D to 2012 i7 with a Crucial SSD and 16GB Crucial RAM. The difference is certainly noticeable with email and the Web but when I edit EyeTV recordings the difference is just stupid. I smile every time.
----------
OK, we've got the same two experts chiming in to remind us that what we're all excited about isn't very exciting at all (to them). In behalf of the rest of this thread I would like to say "buzz off".
I'll be perhaps neutral and say 2core & 4core are both good when you max the Ram And add a nice SSD. The i7 is certainly sweet but the 2 is darn good when you jazz it up
I'll be perhaps neutral and say 2core & 4core are both good when you max the Ram And add a nice SSD. The i7 is certainly sweet but the 2 is darn good when you jazz it up
That is also true. Both 2012s and 2014s with maximum RAM and SSDs will be great machines.
Yes it is the title of the thread is four cores good two cores bad.... Not 2012 Mac minigood 2009 bad... Which is what it should be.....
Okay, I had to smile.
For me - 2012 good 2014 screwed. I guess I sit in that group that found the entire 2014 line to be not to my liking given not just dual core but soldered in RAM and less ease for drive replacement. For some they might start small and like the idea they can upgrade their purchase. For others, they'll just buy the latest and (not always) greatest.
