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 processor (laptop cpu ?)
- Thread starter Ics1974
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So an i7 quad core mac mini is NOT going to preform like my i7 quad core desktop machine correct?
If so what desktop intel processor would the mac mini i7 2.3 and 2.6 be equivalent to?
Just trying to figure out how powerful these things are
Probably depends on the task. Unlikely the mobile CPU will do as well as the equivalent desktop CPU. You can look up the performance, power, cache differences on the Intel site.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks
Looks like the i7 2.3 quad is equivalent to a Sandy Bridge i5 2600 in 64bit multi-core tasks. The Haswell i5-4570 is slightly slower and the Haswell i5-4690 is slightly faster. Just some reference points for you....
You can then use that comparison to extrapolate vs other processors on other benchmark charts.
Definitely laptops. Other than the dGPU my 2012 MBP 2.3 and 2012 mini 2.3 are essentially the same machines. CPU, RAM, HDD, TB, USB3 and FW appear to be identical.
This really makes me not want a mini now. Paying this kind of cash for laptop performance.
The good news is that performance is pretty good. I've got two 2012 minis, a 2.3 quad and a 2.6 quad. With 16GB RAM and SSDs they really perform well for me. Photoshop, VLC and EyeTV are my minis' biggest video challenges. The handle it pretty well so they work for me.
The MBP switches to its dGPU for those three apps so I know its video performance is slightly better. Still I am very satisfied with my minis.
The not good news is that if your work can be done on Windows you can buy a sturdy, real desktop PC for what a good mini costs.
Performance is pretty good with the quad-core i7.
If you get a 2014, it's basically a social media/email/browsing machine.
You are exactly right. For the price of a Mini especially the new ones, come nowhere near the performance of desktop CPUs. They are not worth the money.
yeah buy a bulldozer when you just wanted a bigger shovel.
I don't need my quad 2.3 2012 so I put in 16gb ram a 750gb samsung ssd and a 1.5gb hdd. This is set as a fusion 2.25tb booter.
It is a good machine for audio guys. I am selling it to a guy that does a lot of soundtrack work for pop singers.
This will be the last one I build unless apple makes a quad in 2015.
I can't say what I want to say about apple and their choice to destroy the mini for audio mixing. I would be banned for the curses and politically incorrect statements I would make.
I do not want an iMac . I don't want the mac pro. here is a funny thing a free mac pro with top of the line parts can't do something the quad core mac mini can do ..
It can not have an internal 3tb fusion drive. that you can build with the 2012 mini 1 tb ssd + 2 tb hdd = 3tb fusion drive.
You oughta let that anger out occasionally, otherwise the bodies might start stacking up in the basement.
QFT
A Mini with a 512GB SSD cost $1300, and all you get is a dual core notebook CPU with integrated graphics.
That is retarded.
I agree about the 2014 Mac Mini, it's a joke but the inability to use a fusion drive isn't the killer downside of a 2013 Mac Pro, a fusion drive is worthless for audio when a secondary recording drive is needed before you even start considering paying extra for a faster boot drive. You benefit massively from an SSD boot drive so far as system responsiveness and booting is concerned once the dedicated secondary storage for recording to is taken care of, the downside of the 2013 Mac Pro is the medeocre CPU power for the bloated price.
Any 2010+ Mac Pro or 2012 quad i7 Mac Mini is well within spec for audio work but the new Mac Minis are pathetic. I'm only on a 2009 model and I wouldn't trade up to a barely twice as fast soldered RAM waste of money when a used 2.3Ghz i7 2012 Mac Mini or 2.8Ghz 2010 Mac Pro offers more CPU power for about the same price used.
Last edited:
All of Apple's computers are using notebook CPU's, except for the extremely ridiculous more than anyone needs Mac Pro.
Even the iMac flagship product is essentially just an overpriced and oversized laptop.
Apple hasn't been focussed on performance and power for many years.
People tend to forget that Apple uses laptop parts and think the CPU's are the same thing you get in a PC.
Typical differences between laptop and desktop counterparts for the same processor are BUS Speed, CPU cache sizes, memory speed, etc. All of these can make a huge difference at a similar price point (if not cheaper for the desktop CPU).
Even the iMac flagship product is essentially just an overpriced and oversized laptop.
Apple hasn't been focussed on performance and power for many years.
People tend to forget that Apple uses laptop parts and think the CPU's are the same thing you get in a PC.
Typical differences between laptop and desktop counterparts for the same processor are BUS Speed, CPU cache sizes, memory speed, etc. All of these can make a huge difference at a similar price point (if not cheaper for the desktop CPU).
The iMac actually uses a desktop CPU. At least the 27" does. It's just the rediculous price tag and all-in-one nature that's the problem. I don't understand their obsession with form-before-function.
The G3s started at £999
Prices slowly crept up with the G4 and G5 systems till the first Mac Pro which had a custom config of a dual 2Ghz system for £1,399.
Then they started with their endless price hikes of their desktops, only briefly offering a quad i7 option on the Mac Mini before killing even that option.
They "Could" offer a proper desktop Mac with desktop parts based on the 27" iMac and simple call it the "Mac" as a headless compromise between the Mac Mini and Mac Pro but until they drop quad Xeons from the Mac Pro and make a hex-core the entry level, I doubt they'd even risk a quad i7 Mac Mini again.
I stand corrected then. Thank you.
Yes, I remember my Mac Pro being much cheaper also. I got it in 2007 after waiting out for reports of trouble. I'd already had tons of iMac g5 models die and Apple refused to acknowledge the manufacturing defects until long after they'd finally been disposed of.
Last I'd heard, I thought the iMacs had also moved to mobile CPU's. But now that I think, it is actually the GPU's that are mobile on the iMacs.
The Xeons are a bit beyond necessary. It's just a price hike for the sake of a name essentially.
I could see making 2 levels of Mac Pro. One with Xeons, and one with high end desktop CPU's. That would likely allow for more people to buy in to the Pro line.
They would never do that. Quad Xeons cost about the same amount as desktop i7s. Sometimes the i7s are marginally more expensive.
There's actually a hex-core i7 now so they could have a mid range desktop with the 3Ghz i5 from the BTO Mac Mini at the low end, the 4Ghz i7 from the BTO Retina iMac at the middle and the hex-core i7 at the high end with the Mac Pro starting at hex-core but they won't. They're all about pretty dispossible gadgets for credit card millionaires to share photos of their pets, kids and dinner with
Where Xeons do have an advantage is in large core-count or multi-CPU systems but other than that, the performance of the entry level Mac Pro was an embarassment from the day it was released when desktop i7s were already beating it. I look at the eBay prices on used Mac Pros and it seems assembling a hex-core 3.46Ghz Xeon system is about in the price range of a 2.8Ghz Mac Mini with even 12-core systems only being around the price of the entry level 15" Macbook Pro. It's just rediculous that to get that kind of power means having to buy them used and then add extra PCIe cards for faster I/O like USB 3.0, SATA III or the recent PCIe SSDs from Samsung that the Mac Pro come with (or the even faster version that's out now).
Last edited:
If you're building your own PC, the price difference between an i5 quad core and i7 hex core system can be as little as $450, and that includes taking advantage of DDR4 SDRAM on the new Haswell-E motherboards.
Apple would want to price them $3000 apart because of the all-in-one Mac.
Apple would want to price them $3000 apart because of the all-in-one Mac.
Since the mini moved to Intel chips it's always used the mobile varient of the desktop cpu's.