Mac mini shootout: 2012 Quad-Core i7 versus 2014 Dual-Core i5 and i7

[Dameatball]

I find this all funning because even the most powerfull mini is very weak considering it's almost 2015 now.

lol know what's even funnier- you couldnt be more wrong. the 2012 i7 2.6 quad has benchmarks that put it in the top 10% of the machines made TODAY that cost under $1,500.

mouth-insert foot

**and the word is 'funny'

----------

This.

The 2012 Mini being more powerful then the 2014 doesn't mean much when the 2012 was due for an upgrade anyway.

Its a shame people limit themselves to just one device or OS although I can understand why. I do feel bad for them though, stuck between a rock and a hard place.

you and the 'funning' guy should team up and butt heads together. The reason for the passion about this argument is because the the 2012 mac-mini server edition has incredibly high benchmarks, and higher benchmarks than 90% of the desktops under $1,500 TODAY. It's fully outfitted with multiple USB3's and thunderbolt. As a matter of fact, they could release it today as a new machine and it would be considered a beast in that little shell. If you guys are going to insert yourself into a conversation about something you literally didn't take the time to even google, at least open your browser and read about the topic.
Your analogy about locking yourself into an OS is totally irrelevant to this debate. Quiet time for you moving forward. Thanks

 

[cynics]

lol know what's even funnier- you couldnt be more wrong. the 2012 i7 2.6 quad has benchmarks that put it in the top 10% of the machines made TODAY that cost under $1,500.

mouth-insert foot

**and the word is 'funny'

----------



you and the 'funning' guy should team up and butt heads together. The reason for the passion about this argument is because the the 2012 mac-mini server edition has incredibly high benchmarks, and puts in the top 10% of computers under $1,500 TODAY. It's fully outfitted with multiple USB3's and thunderbolt. As a matter of fact, they could release it today as a new machine and it would be considered a beast. If you guys are going to insert yourself into a conversation about something you literally didn't take the time to google, then you're going to get goofed on. Your analogy about locking yourself into an OS makes totally irrelevant to this debate. quiet time for you moving forward. Thanks

I'm glad you feel a 2 1/2 year old system is good enough by comparison.

And that wasn't an analogy, it was a statement and it was directed toward the people in the conversation that don't care for the new mini but also don't like windows. Which I then said I understand because its between a rock and a hard place.

Both on topic just as much as the 2012 MM server which wasn't mentioned in the OP I believe.

 

[Dameatball]

I own a base 2012 MM and I recently went to BB to check out the new Mini and it happened to be the base 2014 model. I used Safari, opened other apps and could not tell it wasn't my i5 2012 MM. It was zippy and responsive so I say for basic computing needs the base 2014 models is not a problem.

absolutely- I think the 2014 base MM for $499 is a great deal. Also (per someone else's comment) it's not a chromebook- for email and light browsing. It has a real chip in it and solid benchmarks for the price. Great for an HTPC and plenty of horsepower for transcoding.

I think the disagreement is regarding the high end 2012 (or 2011 for that matter) vs the high end 2014.

 

[Dameatball]

I'm glad you feel a 2 1/2 year old system is good enough by comparison.
*This is the basis for the discussion on this thread- 2012 i7 vs 2014 dual core i5 and i7.

And that wasn't an analogy, it was a statement and it was directed toward the people in the conversation that don't care for the new mini but also don't like windows. Which I then said I understand because its between a rock and a hard place.
* I didn't see this conversation, hence my not understanding the comparison. If it took place, it didn't take up much space.

Both on topic just as much as the 2012 MM server which wasn't mentioned in the OP I believe.
*The 2012 quad core i7 IS the server addition. That's what we're discussing.

All that said, in hindsight I think my note came off a little rougher than I intended. I apologize for that. What I was trying to convey was my confusion about the "2012 due for an upgrade". You're right in that a new mac-mini was long overdue. However a lot of people think that not only was there no actual hardware upgrade, the high end model actually regressed.

 

[cynics]

All that said, in hindsight I think my note came off a little rougher than I intended. I apologize for that. What I was trying to convey was my confusion about the "2012 due for an upgrade". You're right in that a new mac-mini was long overdue. However a lot of people think that not only was there no actual hardware upgrade, the high end model actually regressed.

I do feel its regressed in a couple areas. The CPU which I agree is debatable depending on usage. And user serviceability, mostly with upgrading it.

When I said it was due for an upgrade I meant a lot of the good things it got. Better graphics, wireless AC, thunderbolt 2....

However like any upgrade I expect at least similar performance, preferably better. I use Handbrake quite often and something about paying for a downgrade in performance rubs me wrong.

Thats where my frustration lies especially after the long wait. Being excited for a new MM to find out its not going to suit me as well as the old one I find irritating. But with the old one I don't get some of the new features plus getting more difficult to find with the specs I want.

 

[Occamsrazr]

8 hours of handbrake on a 2014 MM can be 1 bluray (depending on your settings and quality). It isn't out of the question that even your average user that wants to put their blu ray collection into iTunes would be running Handbrake 8+ hours a day for weeks even months.

So if you had a CPU that ran handbrake 25% faster you are talking A LOT of time. Hours for each blu ray, and for collections days/weeks even months if the collection is big enough.

I'm pretty sure its illegal to rip a blu-ray.

 

[cynics]

I'm pretty sure its illegal to rip a blu-ray.

It isn't, software and processes used maybe but copying your own collection isn't.

Besides that's not the point here. Does the process or any other similar process take longer is.

Saying no one does that or such and such is illegal doesn't negate the topic at hand.