Mac Mini 2010 Benchmarks (2009 2.53 GHz Mini vs 2010 2.4 GHz Mini)

[iamthedudeman]

openCL? I'm well aware of how these features work


currently, gpu acceleration from apple currently only goes as far as h264 decoding, not very useful for some types of BD rips (vc-1 etc). It is even more limited to the fact that you must use QTx for movie playback, which is a pile of steaming manure compared to Plex etc which do not have gpu decoding support.

And as far as openCL goes with applications, the support is limited. There are only a handful of Photoshop features that can take advantage of this but they are slowly coming on board.

Based on those factors, I will say that the mini will be fine for most general users, but I don't see if being significantly better then the older model just because it has a new GPU that can't really be utilized.

Of coarse it's being utilized. If it wasn't why would apple go with a older C2D with 320M over a Core i3 with Intel graphics if overall performance wasn't improved. Don't you think they know a little bit more about this than you?


That may be true for discrete GPU's and ones without a dedicated video processor. The 320M has such a processor. There is a reason they call it a "intergrated' processor not just because it in on the main board. The video processor in the 320M outperforms much more powerfull cards that have more graphical power. People get hung up on the frame rates of "game frame rates' not realizing that is not the sole purpose of the GPU.

Open Cl is supported more than in just photoshop. The 320M handles H.264, VC-1, WMV, DivX, MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 HD and SD movies all in hardware no CPU required. Sorry have to disagree with you on this one.

The benchmarks tell a different story. How do you explain that?

How do you explain this?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20005670-64.html

A GPU has a greater effect on system performance than ever before. The facts speak for themselves.

 

[iamthedudeman]

CPUs still do the biggest number crushing. GPUs are quite poorly supported. Only thing Mini is better is gaming and video playback when hardware acceleration is supported. In everyday tasks, there is no difference between iMac and Mini, they both handle Safari and Mail just fine. Most calculations are still done by the CPU, and iMac has 15% faster CPU than the server Mini, let alone full size 3.5" 7200rpm hard drive, it crushes 2.5" unless you put them in RAID 0.

GPU doesn't play that big role in overall performance, only in apps that can actually take advantage of it. OpenGL isn't same as OpenCL. OpenGL is widely supported but it's used to produce graphics, not to transfer CPU load to GPU like OpenCL which is still pretty unpopular.

Due the lack of support for OpenCL, the 320M won't provide much extra for everyday computing nor for more demanding computing. It's still integrated thus not very powerful so it wouldn't provide that much better performance even if OpenCL was support.

I meant Open CL. Fixed.

The imac processor is not even near 15% as fast.
Intel Core2 Duo E7600 @ 3.06GHz 2110 182----------imac with 9400
Intel Core2 Duo P8800 @ 2.66GHz 1873 214--------- mac mini server 320M

Since it's integrated it will provide "more' of a computers systems functions, not less.

You have it backward. Don't let game frame rates fool you. Again, the bench marks of overall system performance tell a different tale.

And see my above post for the rest.

The size of the hard drive from 2.5 to 3.5 running at the same speed has little effect on performance.

We can only wait and see about the server mini bench marks. They will be better or really close to the entry level imac. That is my opinion, and I am sticking to it.

 

[Hellhammer]

How do you explain this?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20005670-64.html

What does that has to do with anything? Yeah, it's two times faster in benchmarks but that has nothing to do with real world performance such as games and hardware acceleration.

We never said it's slower or only minimally better than 9400M. It is about two times faster in raw power but in other than games and hardware acceleration, the difference is fairly small because its power cannot be fully used

 

[Hellhammer]

I meant Open CL. Fixed.

The imac processor is not even near 15% as fast.
Intel Core2 Duo E7600 @ 3.06GHz 2110 182----------imac with 9400
Intel Core2 Duo P8800 @ 2.66GHz 1873 214--------- mac mini server 320M

Since it's integrated it will provide "more' of a computers systems functions, not less.

You have it backward. Don't let game frame rates fool you. Again, the bench marks of overall system performance tell a different tale.

And see my above post for the rest.

The size of the hard drive from 2.5 to 3.5 running at the same speed has little effect on performance.

We can only wait and see about the server mini bench marks. They will be better or really close to the entry level imac. That is my opinion, and I am sticking to it.

We need real world benchmarks such as HandBrake, not GeekBench and stuff, they are just for growing up your virtual dick. In those, CPU matter more because support for GPU unfortunately isn't that great, yet. You are right that if the GPU can fully be used, the difference between iMac and Mini is fairly small, it isn't that huge now either.

As for HD speeds, you gave me a laugh lol.

500GB 7200rpm Hitachi

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/8912180/

640GB 7200rpm WD Caviar Blue

Results 75.70
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.5.7 (9J61)
Physical RAM 8192 MB
Model MacPro4,1
Drive Type WDC WD6400AAKS-41H2B0
Disk Test 75.70
Sequential 148.98
Uncached Write 160.87 98.77 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 159.83 90.43 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 108.70 31.81 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 193.16 97.08 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 50.75
Uncached Write 17.25 1.83 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 223.91 71.68 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 96.07 0.68 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 167.32 31.05 MB/sec [256K blocks]

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/7899779/

Let alone what e.g. 2TB Caviar Black would score....

 

[DoFoT9]

Of coarse it's being utilized. If it wasn't why would apple go with a older C2D with 320M over a Core i3 with Intel graphics if overall performance wasn't improved. Don't you think they know a little bit more about this than you?

ouch. that is a very harsh comment right there. no need to be rude man, its a debate - not an insult contest.

the C2D benchmarks faster then the i3 models for a lot of tests, the i3 mainly only scores better for video processing blaablaa we all know this. the C2D are still very prominent in the market place, and there would be MILLIONS lying around waiting to be used at reduced prices.

That may be true for discrete GPU's and ones without a dedicated video processor. The 320M has such a processor. There is a reason they call it a "intergrated' processor not just because it in on the main board. The video processor in the 320M outperforms much more powerfull cards that have more graphical power. People get hung up on the frame rates of "game frame rates' not realizing that is not the sole purpose of the GPU.

come on man, we arent n00bs here. i dont give a rats about GPU framerates, video conversion frame rates are important to me though

Open Cl is supported more than in just photoshop. The 320M handles H.264, VC-1, WMV, DivX, MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 HD and SD movies all in hardware no CPU required. Sorry have to disagree with you on this one.

i think you are missing a crucial point in your arguement. OpenCL is not the "feature" that helps those along, hardware decoding thats built into the chip does all that. and there is also the fact that OSX must support it as well for it to run. the most recent update being that h264 was the only format supported by this hardware decoding - and it MUST use the Apple side of things. as hell hammer points out, it appears that Plex is slowly adding support as well (thank god). VLC doesnt support it at all. wmv for openCL support? seriously? are you entirely sure that you are aware of what is happening?

The benchmarks tell a different story. How do you explain that?

How do you explain this?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20005670-64.html

A GPU has a greater effect on system performance than ever before. The facts speak for themselves.

that is the vaguest benchmark that i have ever seen. and it gives stupid PC benchmarks that dont even test real world scenarios, not to mention the fact that they refer to CoD4 FPS games that you hate the performance increases are also benefited by the new i5 (i7 in this case) CPU which adds HT and TB. infact, it doesnt even refer to ANY real world improvements, but rather refers to benchmarked improvements.

The size of the hard drive from 2.5 to 3.5 running at the same speed has little effect on performance.

on the silly benchmarks that you provide maybe, the 2.5" HDDs in the MacMini will struggle to hit 40MB/s, compared to the 3.5" iMac HDDs which can hit +80MB/s. synthetic benchmarks will not show this improvement much as they are, well, synthetic! take it into a real world scenario where you launch multiple applications or heavily multitask will change that.

We can only wait and see about the server mini bench marks. They will be better or really close to the entry level imac. That is my opinion, and I am sticking to it.

a real world tester such as xbench etc will be a lot slower - that is my guess

 

[Jimmie48]

I really wish one of the many Mini owners here would just run Xbench already...

come on people, it takes only a few minutes!

 

[animatedude]

Xbench u all!

 

[DoFoT9]

Xbench u all!

And while they're at it they can do geek bench too lol

 

[iamthedudeman]

What does that has to do with anything? Yeah, it's two times faster in benchmarks but that has nothing to do with real world performance such as games and hardware acceleration.

We never said it's slower or only minimally better than 9400M. It is about two times faster in raw power but in other than games and hardware acceleration, the difference is fairly small because its power cannot be fully used

Your missing the point. You are too focused on the performance of the GPU in concern to games and not what the GPU does for overall performance of the computer.

If you would have read the article there were several links at the bottom explaining the macbook 2010 form the previous version.

http://www.laptopmag.com/review/laptops/apple-macbook-pro-13-inch-2010.aspx?page=3

"But you only see this advantage in Apple’s OS"

"By changing a few key components and optimizing them for its software, Apple has managed to once again drastically improve the 13-inch MacBook Pro. Not only does it perform much better than the previous version"

Do you think that they improved the 13 inch macbook pro by just improving the CPU one that went from 2.26 to 2.4Ghz do you if the GPU didn't make much difference? Why would apple not go with a Core i3 if overall performance in real world tasks were not going to be improved?

 

[DoFoT9]

Your missing the point. You are too focused on the performance of the GPU in concern to games and not what the GPU does for overall performance of the computer.

hmm from that singular page you linked to all i see are gaming tests?

if i compare the 2009 MacBook - which was 2.26ghz, 9400M (3,691) to the new 13" MacBook Pro (4,164) i think the point is really made there. it simply doesnt have any massive change for EVERYDAY CPU use.

everything i have seen from you so far relates to gaming, which indeed does equate to a ~2x increase in performance.

 

[iamthedudeman]

We need real world benchmarks such as HandBrake, not GeekBench and stuff, they are just for growing up your virtual dick. In those, CPU matter more because support for GPU unfortunately isn't that great, yet. You are right that if the GPU can fully be used, the difference between iMac and Mini is fairly small, it isn't that huge now either.

As for HD speeds, you gave me a laugh lol.

500GB 7200rpm Hitachi

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/8912180/

640GB 7200rpm WD Caviar Blue



https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/7899779/

Let alone what e.g. 2TB Caviar Black would score....

Again we can agree to disagree.

http://www.digitaldingus.com/articles/2005sep/25dilemma.php

 

[DoFoT9]

Again we can agree to disagree.

http://www.digitaldingus.com/articles/2005sep/25dilemma.php

hhmmm lets think, actual legit benchmarks from a few months ago with CURRENT hardware - or 5 year old (and outdated) hardware that has no benchmarks at all!?

you cant be serious? grab some benchmarks where a similar RPM 2.5" HDD beats a 3.5" HDD..

 

[iamthedudeman]

hmm from that singular page you linked to all i see are gaming tests?

if i compare the 2009 MacBook - which was 2.26ghz, 9400M (3,691) to the new 13" MacBook Pro (4,164) i think the point is really made there. it simply doesnt have any massive change for EVERYDAY CPU use.

everything i have seen from you so far relates to gaming, which indeed does equate to a ~2x increase in performance.

Really?

http://www.laptopmag.com/review/laptops/apple-macbook-pro-13-inch-2010.aspx?page=3

PCMark Vantage, the MBP scored 4,164, an increase of 957 from the last generation.
"

You are not going to see that big of a increase from going from a 2.26 processor to a 2.4 from a CPU alone.

 

[DoFoT9]

Really?

http://www.laptopmag.com/review/laptops/apple-macbook-pro-13-inch-2010.aspx?page=3

PCMark Vantage, the MBP scored 4,164, an increase of 957 from the last generation.
"

You are not going to see that big of a increase from going from a 2.26 processor to a 2.4 from a CPU alone.

PCMark Vantage runs tests based on DX10. aka gaming benchmarks and whatnot. like i said, please direct me to a benchmark that is useful for the real-world and not to gaming which im pretty sure you said you dont care about, but that is all you are linking to?

 

[iamthedudeman]

hhmmm lets think, actual legit benchmarks from a few months ago with CURRENT hardware - or 5 year old (and outdated) hardware that has no benchmarks at all!?

you cant be serious? grab some benchmarks where a similar RPM 2.5" HDD beats a 3.5" HDD..

Never said a 2.5 would ever beat a 3.5 all things considered equal on a consistent basis. I said that real world performance is not greatly effected. Not much difference. A few seconds. Thats it.

But sometimes it does.

http://www.barefeats.com/note05.html

http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/hdd_list.php

Seems to me that it beats a few 3.5 drives.

 

[iamthedudeman]

PCMark Vantage runs tests based on DX10. aka gaming benchmarks and whatnot. like i said, please direct me to a benchmark that is useful for the real-world and not to gaming which im pretty sure you said you dont care about, but that is all you are linking to?

PC mark vantage is not a gaming benchmark. It measures overall performance in a variety of tasks.

"
A PCMark score is a measure of your computer’s performance across a variety of common tasks such as viewing and editing photos, video, music and other media, gaming, communications, productivity and security."

Seems to me that it is not just about gaming. Last time I checked these functions we essential to the overall function of a computer and how it performs. Which echos the increased functions in OSX for GPUs.

http://www.futuremark.com/benchmarks/pcmarkvantage/introduction/

 

[DoFoT9]

Never said a 2.5 would ever beat a 3.5 all things considered equal on a consistent basis. I said that real world performance is not greatly effected. Not much difference. A few seconds. Thats it.

But sometimes it does.

http://www.barefeats.com/note05.html

http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/hdd_list.php

Seems to me that it beats a few 3.5 drives.

Soooo many things wrong there. That bare feats link compares 2.5"hdds only. And that other list isn't organized at all. Hellhammer has already produced the data to prove that a desktop hdd will beat a laptop hdd.

PC mark vantage is not a gaming benchmark. It measures overall performance in a variety of tasks.

"
A PCMark score is a measure of your computer’s performance across a variety of common tasks such as viewing and editing photos, video, music and other media, gaming, communications, productivity and security."

Seems to me that it is not just about gaming. Last time I checked these functions we essential to the overall function of a computer and how it performs. Which echos the increased functions in OSX for GPUs.

http://www.futuremark.com/benchmarks/pcmarkvantage/introduction/

My mistake, I thought you said 3Dmark, for some reason.

This is getting ridiculous. You have yet to give any valid reasons that say you are correct for real world processes. The vantage would be a combination of hdd, CPU, ram and gpu upgrades (the gpu upgrades would only be useful for gpu takes, which have already been listed). I'll repeat, the gpu is NOT used for most everyday tasks, it is currently only used for QTx, plex betas, and a few Photoshop functions. Other then that there is minimal benefits, if the gpu was fully used by osx the performance increases would indeed be near the 2x that you state the 320m has over the 9400m.

 

[Hellhammer]

Never said a 2.5 would ever beat a 3.5 all things considered equal on a consistent basis. I said that real world performance is not greatly effected. Not much difference. A few seconds. Thats it.

But sometimes it does.

http://www.barefeats.com/note05.html

http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/hdd_list.php

Seems to me that it beats a few 3.5 drives.

Depends on density. Sure 500GB beats 160GB but how about facing a 1TB behemoth? They are similarly priced too. Of course, the latency is the same, only sustained read&write speeds differ but it's faster, that's what we're talking about.

PC mark vantage is not a gaming benchmark. It measures overall performance in a variety of tasks.

"
A PCMark score is a measure of your computer’s performance across a variety of common tasks such as viewing and editing photos, video, music and other media, gaming, communications, productivity and security."

Seems to me that it is not just about gaming. Last time I checked these functions we essential to the overall function of a computer and how it performs. Which echos the increased functions in OSX for GPUs.

http://www.futuremark.com/benchmarks/pcmarkvantage/introduction/

But it's not a real world benchmark! PCMark can't encode, can't it? The issue is that GPUs are poorly supported by software. If the app cannot take advantage of the GPU's power (with e.g. OpenCL), it doesn't matter because the GPU will just idle. Benchmark apps can take advantage of the GPU but how about some real software?

Benchmark software has nothing to do with real life tasks. Provide some Photoshopping and HandBrake benches so it starts to matter... Even Intel IGP runs OS X just fine so how does better GPU make OS X better?

 

[iamthedudeman]

Soooo many things wrong there. That bare feats link compares 2.5"hdds only. And that other list isn't organized at all. Hellhammer has already produced the data to prove that a desktop hdd will beat a laptop hdd.



My mistake, I thought you said 3Dmark, for some reason.

This is getting ridiculous. You have yet to give any valid reasons that say you are correct for real world processes. The vantage would be a combination of hdd, CPU, ram and gpu upgrades (the gpu upgrades would only be useful for gpu takes, which have already been listed). I'll repeat, the gpu is NOT used for most everyday tasks, it is currently only used for QTx, plex betas, and a few Photoshop functions. Other then that there is minimal benefits, if the gpu was fully used by osx the performance increases would indeed be near the 2x that you state the 320m has over the 9400m.

Again you miss the point. Noone said the Gpu was fully used by the OSX, just that it has more to do with overall performance of a computer than you are suggesting. I think I made my case quite clear and provided plenty of info to back up my claims.

You say tomato I say tamato.

 

[iamthedudeman]

Depends on density. Sure 500GB beats 160GB but how about facing a 1TB behemoth? They are similarly priced too. Of course, the latency is the same, only sustained read&write speeds differ but it's faster, that's what we're talking about.



But it's not a real world benchmark! PCMark can't encode, can't it? The issue is that GPUs are poorly supported by software. If the app cannot take advantage of the GPU's power (with e.g. OpenCL), it doesn't matter because the GPU will just idle. Benchmark apps can take advantage of the GPU but how about some real software?

Benchmark software has nothing to do with real life tasks. Provide some Photoshopping and HandBrake benches so it starts to matter... Even Intel IGP runs OS X just fine so how does better GPU make OS X better?

Again, in real world use there is not much of a difference to the end user. Which is what I said in the first place.

See my above post.

 

[Deathlok2001]

So , what do all those benchmarks comparing hard drives mean?

Is the server mini with its 7200 HD faster? (significantly faster than the 5400 rpm hd that would justify the increased $$$?)

 

[DoFoT9]

Again you miss the point. Noone said the Gpu was fully used by the OSX, just that it has more to do with overall performance of a computer than you are suggesting. I think I made my case quite clear and provided plenty of info to back up my claims.

You say tomato I say tamato.

no, it doesnt. on those SYNTHETIC benchmarks it might show significant increases, and i never denied that - but in the real world you just wont see those improvements mirrored onto the end user experience.

p.s. i am aussie - we would pronounce them different to you

Again, in real world use there is not much of a difference to the end user. Which is what I said in the first place.

See my above post.

again, are you serious? a 5400RPM drive reading at ~35MB/s vs a 7200RPM drive reading anywhere up to 70MB/s+ will have dramatic influences on ANYTHING related to end user experience. MMU (memory management, swap files, page ins etc) start up times, virtualisation (parallels/ etc), opening applications, multitasking, copying files, streaming files, opening files, will all directly be effected the most by a faster HDD. the hard drive is the MOST prominent bottleneck on any computer - we both agree on this. so stating that there is no really world difference is just, well, immature.

 

[iamthedudeman]

no, it doesnt. on those SYNTHETIC benchmarks it might show significant increases, and i never denied that - but in the real world you just wont see those improvements mirrored onto the end user experience.

p.s. i am aussie - we would pronounce them different to you



again, are you serious? a 5400RPM drive reading at ~35MB/s vs a 7200RPM drive reading anywhere up to 70MB/s+ will have dramatic influences on ANYTHING related to end user experience. MMU (memory management, swap files, page ins etc) start up times, virtualisation (parallels/ etc), opening applications, multitasking, copying files, streaming files, opening files, will all directly be effected the most by a faster HDD. the hard drive is the MOST prominent bottleneck on any computer - we both agree on this. so stating that there is no really world difference is just, well, immature.

Immature. The Mac Mini server model has a 7200 HD not a 5400 one. We are discussing the server Model are we not? Of coarse the HD would have a effect if it is a 5400 2.5 vs a 7200 3.5. The imac has a 3.5 7200 and the Mac Mini server has a 2.5 7200. There will be some difference but not much to the end user between these type of drives.

More than just the CPU or GPU plays a part of the overall performance of a computer.

http://www.macworld.com/article/151349/2010/06/macmini_mid2010.html?lsrc=top_1

Well that about settles it. It seems the GPU in the Mac Mini is not only good for gaming like I said. Photoshop, and imovie benefited greatly as would alot of other multi-media intensive tasks. Not just gaming.

I said earlier that the new Mac Mini server would come close to or beat the performance of the entry level imac. From the tests it seems that the server model would come very close. The regular Mac Mini matched or beat the mac mini 2009 server on alot of tests even with a weaker processor.

With a added 2GB ram, faster CPU, and a faster hard drive than the regular Mac Mini the server model it seems would come close or meet but not beat it. Judging by the benchmarks in the article.

The imac is 27% faster than the Mac Mini with the 2.4 Cpu. I would expect the server model to come close to meet or beat the imac entry level model.

And please lets not use the excuse that the tests are not good enough. This is just about the best benchmark test for a OSX system in existence for real world performance.

http://www.macworld.com/article/143698/2009/11/speedmark6_intro.html

Well that settles that.
Move along nothing to see here.

 

[iamthedudeman]

So , what do all those benchmarks comparing hard drives mean?

Is the server mini with its 7200 HD faster? (significantly faster than the 5400 rpm hd that would justify the increased $$$?)

Yes. The server model is the better deal in my opinion.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Yes. The server model is the better deal in my opinion.

seems too hard to get standard SL on there at this point though.