Mac mini i5 Tests

[rmdeluca]

One other question. Does anyone believe the i7 will add longevity to the machine over the i5? If I am thinking this will be around for 5-8 years, will the i7 age any better?

Right now we're nearly at an inflection point in Apple CPU performance for three reasons:

1) Intel may (finally) launch their 10nm tech next year

2) Apple may be working on a CPU alternative for their desktops

3) Local (as opposed to in-the-cloud) machine learning is becoming increasingly important, but requires dedicated silicon assets to do quickly

If #1 happens then the next generation of Mini that uses 10nm Intel tech will be a significant improvement over the current i7.

If #2 will happen at all I have no idea, Apple's A12X is impressive but not when you start to compare it to the I/O capabilities of a modern x86 desktop CPU. So I don't know how many years off a switch to ARM is for Apple, if ever.

#3 is a bit complicated for this post but it COULD (NOT will) become a must-have feature in the next several years, making any variation of the current Mini hopelessly obsolete without an eGPU.

Anywho, the point of all this is basically to say "yes, of course, but we don't how much" because the future is not clear. Get the i7 if you can on its merits now. The i7 is probably going to give you a 10-20% (or more) bump in performance compared to the i5 regardless of what you're doing.

 

[Cashmonee]

If you are an Mac user who likes to upgrade every three to five years then the i7 should hold it's resale value better than an i5. If you are someone who likes to keep your older Macs then this is a non-factor.

My iMac is 8 and my MacBook Pro is 5. If I were to buy a mini, I would try to find a new home for the iMac. So the mini would be expected to go about the same 7 or so years the iMac went (it has not seen much use in the last 6 or so months). So other than performance now, I am wondering if the i7 will age better performance-wise.
[doublepost=1542066628][/doublepost]

Right now we're nearly at an inflection point in Apple CPU performance for three reasons:

1) Intel may (finally) launch their 10nm tech next year

2) Apple may be working on a CPU alternative for their desktops

3) Local (as opposed to in-the-cloud) machine learning is becoming increasingly important, but requires dedicated silicon assets to do quickly

If #1 happens then the next generation of Mini that uses 10nm Intel tech will be a significant improvement over the current i7.

If #2 will happen at all I have no idea, Apple's A12X is impressive but not when you start to compare it to the I/O capabilities of a modern x86 desktop CPU. So I don't know how many years off a switch to ARM is for Apple, if ever.

#3 is a bit complicated for this post but it COULD (NOT will) become a must-have feature in the next several years, making any variation of the current Mini hopelessly obsolete without an eGPU.

Anywho, the point of all this is basically to say "yes, of course, but we don't how much" because the future is not clear. Get the i7 if you can on its merits now. The i7 is probably going to give you a 10-20% (or more) bump in performance compared to the i5 regardless of what you're doing.

Interesting points. I am not super worried about #2 or #3. #1 is possible, but it seems Apple is going longer and longer between computer refreshes and Intel seems to be having real trouble pushing out new chips, especially in large quantities. So, even if Intel releases their 10nm, it could be a while before it makes its way to a mini.

I am getting OT. Suffice it to say, I agree with your points, but do not believe they will be major inhibitors to this mini going for 5-7 years. I also agree with the idea that it is wise to look at the i7 based on its merits now and not estimate what will happen down the road. Though that makes my decision harder!

 

[SoCalReviews]

I just ordered an i7 / 16GB / 1TB.... 16GB is probably fine for me and this is the one thing I can change my mind on later.

IMO 16GB is good for most Mac users. If your needs expand in the future you can always upgrade the RAM to 32GB or 64GB in a few years when the RAM prices really drop. I just watched a RAM upgrade video for the 2018 Mini the other day. It's not easy like the 2012 Mini but it looked doable. If you don't want Apple to do it or if you don't want to do it yourself (with an iFixit or other kit) there will probably be a lot of third party places that will offer reasonably priced RAM upgrade services for the 2018 Mini.

 

[F-Train]

I've just done some tests using Lightroom and Compressor on my own work. I'm quite happy with how the i5/256GB/8GB performed.

Lightroom

Some context might be helpful. I am an amateur photographer who shoots 35mm, 6x7 and 4x5 film as well as 35mm digital. I take very few photographs by current standards, even when shooting digital, and keep even fewer. When editing, I take my time. I have no experience with batch processing, and don't anticipate ever doing it.

For this test, I imported a scan of a medium format, 6x7 colour negative into Lightroom. The file is 117MB. I edited the photo the same way that I normally do, and then exported it as a JPEG at 60% of the original size.

There's not much to say, except that Lightroom was snappy throughout. There was no lag at any time.

Compressor

I used Compressor to ready two QuickTime .mov videos for publishing to YouTube. Both videos are 3840x2160.

The first video is 1.9GB in size and 06:47 long. The conversion took 07:12.

The second video is 2.17GB in size and 10:07 long. The conversion took 10:42.

In other words, Compressor carried out the conversions in close to real time.

UPDATE: I should note that the top of the mini enclosure got noticeably hot during the conversions. Didn't hear any fan noise though, and I was only a meter/3' away.

 

[Spectrum]

I've just done some tests using Lightroom and Compressor on my own work. I'm very happy with how the i5/256GB/8GB performed.

Lightroom

Some context might be helpful. I am an amateur photographer who shoots 35mm, 6x7 and 4x5 film as well as 35mm digital. I take very few photographs, even when shooting digital, and keep even fewer. When editing, I take my time. I have no experience with batch processing, and don't anticipate ever doing it.

For this test, I imported a scan of a medium format, 6x7 colour negative into Lightroom. The file is 117MB. I edited the photo the same way that I normally do, and then exported it as a JPEG at 60% of the original size.

There's not much to say, except that Lightroom was snappy throughout. There was no lag, at least that I noticed, at any time.

Compressor

I used Compressor to ready two master QuickTime .mov videos for publishing to YouTube. Both videos are 3840x2160.

The first video is 1.9GB in size and 06:47 long. The conversion took 07:12.

The second video is 2.17GB in size and 10:07 long. The conversion took 10:42.

In other words, Compressor carried out the conversions in close to real time.

What screen (and resolution) are your using F-Train?

 

[F-Train]

Hi Spectrum,

I used an Acer that I've borrowed until I make up my mind what monitor to get for the mini. The model is T272HUL, specs here: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1005329-REG/acer_um_ht2aa_002_t272hul_27_wide_ahva.html

 

[vidguy7]

I've just done some tests using Lightroom and Compressor on my own work. I'm quite happy with how the i5/256GB/8GB performed.

Lightroom

Some context might be helpful. I am an amateur photographer who shoots 35mm, 6x7 and 4x5 film as well as 35mm digital. I take very few photographs by current standards, even when shooting digital, and keep even fewer. When editing, I take my time. I have no experience with batch processing, and don't anticipate ever doing it.

For this test, I imported a scan of a medium format, 6x7 colour negative into Lightroom. The file is 117MB. I edited the photo the same way that I normally do, and then exported it as a JPEG at 60% of the original size.

There's not much to say, except that Lightroom was snappy throughout. There was no lag at any time.

Compressor

I used Compressor to ready two QuickTime .mov videos for publishing to YouTube. Both videos are 3840x2160.

The first video is 1.9GB in size and 06:47 long. The conversion took 07:12.

The second video is 2.17GB in size and 10:07 long. The conversion took 10:42.

In other words, Compressor carried out the conversions in close to real time.

UPDATE: I should note that the top of the mini enclosure got noticeably hot during the conversions. Didn't hear any fan noise though, and I was only a meter/3' away.

Sorry, I'm new to the forum and it seems you can't delete a post. I had asked my question of F-Train in a post below. Not sure what happened.

 

[Spectrum]

Hi Spectrum,

I used an Acer that I've borrowed until I make up my mind what monitor to get for the mini. The model is T272HUL, specs here: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1005329-REG/acer_um_ht2aa_002_t272hul_27_wide_ahva.html

OK so regular 2.5K resolution. That's what I'll have to begin with.
Does the touchscreen feature of that Asus work with MacOS?

 

[F-Train]

OK so regular 2.5K resolution. That's what I'll have to begin with.
Does the touchscreen feature of that Asus work with MacOS?

I haven't tried it. The owner of the monitor says that he doubts that it will work on MacOS.

 

[vidguy7]

F-Train, what settings are you using in Compressor? I have a late 2015 I5 IMac and used Compressor for a 30 minute, 4K H265 HLG video I shot. I set Compressor to the highest bitrate available, and it took an astounding 1 1/2 days to complete.

 

[F-Train]

F-Train, what settings are you using in Compressor? I have a late 2015 I5 IMac and used Compressor for a 30 minute, 4K H265 HLG video I shot. I set Compressor to the highest bitrate available, and it took an astounding 1 1/2 days to complete.

UDATE: the CPU process that was causing the problem in the iMac (see below) is called VTEncoderXPCService.

In Compressor, I imported the .mov file and set the left side panel to "Publish to YouTUbe up to 4K". On the right side panel, under the Video tab, I used the default settings because this was just a test. Then I clicked on Start Batch.

Try your H265 file again and check what's happening in Activity Monitor, CPU tab. If you have a process listed at the very top that is using a huge amount of resources, that may be your culprit. It is a process with a long name. If you looked at my post on converting H264 to H265, this is the process that prevented me from doing an iMac comparison to the mini. The conversion was taking much longer than it should have, and I cancelled it. I have never seen my iMac/Compressor do this before, and haven't had time to drill down on what the issue is.

 

[vidguy7]

In Compressor, I imported the .mov file and set the left sidebar to "Publish to YouTUbe up to 4K". On the right side panel, under the Video tab, I just used the default settings because this was just a test. Then I clicked on Start Batch.

Try your H265 file agin and check what's happening in Activity Monitor, CPU tab. If you have a process listed at the very top that is using a huge amount of resources, that is your culprit. It is a process with a long name. If you looked at my post on converting H264 to H265, this process is what prevented me from doing an iMac comparison to the mini. I haven't had time to drill down on the issue yet.

Thanks. I appreciate your tests. Unfortunately that timeline has since been deleted, so there's no way for me to now check process usage. I'm expecting a MM on Friday with an I7, 16gig & 1TB drive. So we'll see how this compares to my 2015 I5 iMac. I can still do some A/Bs with shorter test clips using the same settings I used for the long video.

 

[F-Train]

Thanks. I appreciate your tests. Unfortunately that timeline has since been deleted, so there's no way for me to now check process usage. I'm expecting a MM on Friday with an I7, 16gig & 1TB drive. So we'll see how this compares to my 2015 I5 iMac. I can still do some A/Bs with shorter test clips using the same settings I used for the long video.

If you can post some results here, or by personal message, I'd really appreciate it. I'm interested in whether the i7/16GB does conversions faster than the i5/8GB (presumably it will) and, if so, by how much. I have another ten days to decide whether to keep the i5 or exchange it for an i7, so for me the issue is not academic

 

[vidguy7]

F-Train, no problem, I absolutely will. My rationale for initially going with the I7 was because I wanted to be sure there were significant differences for video editing between my existing iMac and the new MM. Otherwise I'll return it.

 

[Dr. Dr. Evil]

If you can post some results here, or by personal message, I'd really appreciate it. I'm interested in whether the i7/16GB does conversions faster than the i5/8GB (presumably it will) and, if so, by how much. I have another ten days to decide whether to keep the i5 or exchange it for an i7, so for me the issue is not academic

Please post it here.
I would appreciate the tests as I am have also to decide between i7 ( more temp, more noise, more performance, better investment protected?) vs. i5 ( enough power for now, more silent, resellable in 5-8 years?)

 

[vidguy7]

Please post it here.
I would appreciate the tests as I am have also to decide between i7 ( more temp, more noise, more performance, better investment protected?) vs. i5 ( enough power for now, more silent, resellable in 5-8 years?)

Sounds like you're certainly leaning toward the I5.

 

[Dr. Dr. Evil]

Sounds like you're certainly leaning toward the I5.

Really not sure.
Normally I always go for more capacity if available.
I love to have performance and investment protection, though I need the MM not for work but for privat. Only silence is important for me, which I include in my consideration the more silent and prob. reasonable CPU

 

[vidguy7]

I may be wrong, but I'd think that for many tasks the I7 might be quieter since it doesn't have to work as hard as an I5 for CPU intensive chores.

 

[doboy]

Please post it here.
I would appreciate the tests as I am have also to decide between i7 ( more temp, more noise, more performance, better investment protected?) vs. i5 ( enough power for now, more silent, resellable in 5-8 years?)

Resell a desktop in 5-8 years? Haha. Since it’s an Apple I guess you can recoup $100 or so.

 

[DVD9]

Don't forget the i7 also has a larger cache in addition to the higher boost clock. Even at identical clocks it will be faster than the i5.

In the real world neither you nor anyone else could tell the difference between two identical setups each with an i5 and i7 processor respectively.

It's a sales gimmick by Intel that continues to work. I'm not even thinking about the i7. I haven't thought about an i7 since a machine I was looking at had an i5 with two cores vs the i7 with four. Ghz bumps and cache size are nonsense.

 

[Dr. Dr. Evil]

Resell a desktop in 5-8 years? Haha. Since it’s an Apple I guess you can recoup $100 or so.

Just sold my Mac Book late 2008 for 250
[doublepost=1542135340][/doublepost]

I may be wrong, but I'd think that for many tasks the I7 might be quieter since it doesn't have to work as hard as an I5 for CPU intensive chores.

I7
Utilization - Temperatur - Frequency
99.50 - 97.00 - 3.70
66.10 - 96.70 - 3.80
49.50 - 97.80 - 4.00
33.10 - 98.50 - 4.30
3.0 - 44.80 - 1.40

I5
Utilization - Temperature - Frequency
99.00 - 95.50 - 3.60
66.70 - 92.90 - 3.90
50.00 - 89.60 - 3.90
33.30 - 88.90 - 3.96
1.00 - 44.00 - 1.46

 

[vidguy7]

In the real world neither you nor anyone else could tell the difference between two identical setups each with an i5 and i7 processor respectively.

It's a sales gimmick by Intel that continues to work. I'm not even thinking about the i7. I haven't thought about an i7 since a machine I was looking at had an i5 with two cores vs the i7 with four. Ghz bumps and cache size are nonsense.

Since the I7 has hyper threading and the I5 doesn't, it would certainly not seem a gimmick for those apps that take advantage of hyper threading.

 

[rmdeluca]

In the real world neither you nor anyone else could tell the difference between two identical setups each with an i5 and i7 processor respectively.

This is simply untrue. It's dependent upon the workload.

 

[zandorf]

I7
Utilization - Temperatur - Frequency
99.50 - 97.00 - 3.70
66.10 - 96.70 - 3.80
49.50 - 97.80 - 4.00
33.10 - 98.50 - 4.30
3.0 - 44.80 - 1.40

I5
Utilization - Temperature - Frequency
99.00 - 95.50 - 3.60
66.70 - 92.90 - 3.90
50.00 - 89.60 - 3.90
33.30 - 88.90 - 3.96
1.00 - 44.00 - 1.46

Keep in mind that more work gets done for the high "utilization" cases with hyper-threading than without. But a hyper-thread is only worth about 30% of a real core... And short-term loads (e.g compiling) can "turbo" faster for a while on higher-frequency CPU until it heats up. So it's complicated.
[doublepost=1542138694][/doublepost]

Since the I7 has hyper threading and the I5 doesn't, it would certainly not seem a gimmick for those apps that take advantage of hyper threading.

Looking at my iMac Activity Monitor, I routinely see over 2000 threads total running on my system. Most are idle most of the time, but I don't think I need special hyper-threading apps to utilize more CPU threads...

 

[DesertSurfer]

For what it’s worth, my dual core 2012 i5 is using four threads pretty much all of the time.