Its main problem, like all other synthetic benchmarks, is it doesn't accurately represent the ability of a computer to perform a specific task other than how well it runs Geekbench. I already provided an example.
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.
Mac mini 2018 Geekbench scores up
- Thread starter EugW
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes but the point is that for general purpose comparisons, Geekbench is actually more useful than Handbrake. Handbrake tests are useful assessing Handbrake and nothing else.
Agree 100%, which is why I don't use it as anything other than how well a system runs Handbrake. Just like I don't use Geekbench as representative of anything other than how a system runs Geekbench.
In a way, Geekbench is analogous to a lite version of spec. It’s a general purpose benchmark, testing multiple different types of tests, and doesn’t claim to be a definitive comparison for all workloads.
Basically, for general purpose comparisons, Geekbench 4 is as good as it gets without resorting to stuff like spec, with the caveat that Geekbench doesn’t run long enough to cause significant throttling.
However, if you have very specific workloads for your computers, then yes, test those specific workloads.
Which doesn't make it any more valid.
It's interesting but that's about it.
Agree 100%, which is my point.
As a cMP owner and so called power user I’m currently considering this upgrade path and connecting my cMP via Ethernet as a slave/render farm. The cMP performs fine but the idea of a 2nd machine with a modern processor and with noticeably higher single core performance (hopefully) is very appealing as an After Effects user. The vast majority of day to day AE operations are single core. The cMP currently smashes multi core renders using the Render Garden script so it would be great if the Mini smashed the single core ops alongside it. I’m pretty close to pulling the trigger and putting it through some real world AE tests.
Many MacBook Pro users including myself jumping ship. I'm not as portable as I used to be, sure, but I got used to buy MBPs over all else just because they were always better than the Mac mini, but weren't as expensive as the Mac Pro. After 14 years of Apple portables (starting with the 12" Powerbook) this will be my first Mac mini purchase.
I think I'd be happy with Apple's 2019 Mac Pro replacement too but I know they're gonna come out the gate with a starting price of $5k or something and I just can't.
Yup, the 6-core Mac mini chips have excellent single core and dual-core performance.
Not the i3 quad though.
Not the i3 quad though.
There's another benchmark up today, with even higher scores than before:
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/10625929
Same person who did the previous benchmarks too.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/10625929
Same person who did the previous benchmarks too.
For this one, the Mac Mini was in the freezer.
For this one, the Mac Mini was in the freezer.
That was VERY funny, but don't let it go to your head. I have a very strange sense of humor....
That’s actually expected. On the PC side, people get ~6000/29000
Similar story here - worked on MBPs for the last decade. I used to be a lot more mobile with work, but these days it's not required, and critically - the Mini offers pretty decent hardware without the pre-conclusion that everyone needs a dedicated GPU, and at a much lower price (with higher spec ceilings) than the MBP. This machine I'm typing on (base 2018 MBP15) will do for any short term work away from the home office, but the Mini will be the real workhorse.
I'm less sure about this - I kinda suspect it's still going to skew heavily to default high-end GPU. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I think the Mini may be Apple's offering for non-graphics intensive users.
Neck to neck with i7-8700K. I find it hard to believe this, maybe the i7-8700K wasn't being pushed to the limit here?
Both the 8700 and 8700K run at 4.3 GHz.
Personally I’d rather have an 8700 than an 8700K in the 27” iMac.
Last edited:
Same here.
The main issue I see is that the power consumption in very heavy loads in some tests may approach that of the 95 Watt chips, as opposed to the 65 Watts it’s supposed to be.
This chip would be perfect for the 27” iMac though.
The cinebench test, although an excellent test to quantify multi core rendering speed of a cinema 4D scene, doesn't take all that long to render with today's CPUs. A cold computer in a cold room could render that scene before much thermal throttling of the CPU takes place.
What I'd be really interested in is ... Can the i7 in the mini render an animation overnight. Is the mini capable of 24/7 rendering without burning up or requiring the need to wear earplugs.
Most render designated boxes use big fans that are loud.
What I'd be really interested in is ... Can the i7 in the mini render an animation overnight. Is the mini capable of 24/7 rendering without burning up or requiring the need to wear earplugs.
Most render designated boxes use big fans that are loud.
adding a eGPU to this thing and you have a very solid video editing machine.
You are correct, they can sound like a jet engine for hours at a time...
So, I put my GPU's on water and now I have a very quiet render workstation. I was able to get rid of 12 fans, 3 from each card. It still pours out a lot of heat though, which is expected.
Last edited: