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.
Mini's faster than 2012 imacs?
- Thread starter iamthedudeman
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sorry, for some reason I thought I was in an iMac thread. Too many new machines at once.
I have the same setup on my 2009 mini. 2X1TB FW800 drives and I'm going to be putting an SSD in as the main drive soon.
No worries.
I actually pulled apart my 2007 iMac and put an SSD in it as well, extended the life of it by probably a year or two.
Finally time for a replacement and I think it's going to be a mini
I buy a Mac for not having to care if it works. That's definitely not the case with a hackintosh.
I suggest using an emoticon to let readers know when you are being sarcastic.
will do the trick... I am happy to be leaving the iMac realm. I don't care for the glassy display and lack of interior access. (My 2006 iMac was the last model with a matte anti-glare display.) Now I will have a Mac that should last me for 3-5 years. When it comes time to replace it I can keep my perfectly good external display/input devices (mechanical keyboard and trackball) and get a new Mac at an attractive price. If something breaks out-of-warranty or I want to upgrade a component I can easily get inside a Mini.
Underpowered? i think you are confused my friend. You do know that the imacs run desktop processors right?
The imac has a 'desktop' CPU, and the mini's 2.6 i7 is just as fast as the desktop CPU i7. The 2.6 i7 in the mini is as fast as the fastest quad core CPU 'desktop' processor, in any machine weather it is a laptop or desktop.
GPU yes, it is not as good as a discrete desktop. But this thread was started talking about the CPU, not the GPU.
Why would you mention this anyway in this thread? Can you say off topic?
The process intel is using now is 22nm. That means more power in laptops, on par with the desktop equivalents. In the past what you said held true. Not any more, and it has not for the last year at least.
The supposed underpowered Mac Mini 2.6 with i7 is Apple's current most powerfull quad core desktop.
----------
[/COLOR]
Actually that is not true.
The 2.6 in the i7 mini is as fast as the imac i7 3.1 in the 21.5 and the i7 3.4 in the 27 imac. They are about the same. Look at the original post of this thread for bench marks. Actually very little difference between the three.
On geekbench all score over 13000! the 3.4 i7 is the same processor as the 3.1 just starts at a lower clock. But the exact same CPU. Both turbo up to 3.9.
The 2.6 in the Mini is as fast as the imac 27 3.4 i7 and 3.1 i7.
The imac is running a desktop CPU, the Mini a laptop CPU.
leaked imac 2012 benchmark 32 bit. It is the 3.4 i7.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/657744
Retina MBP 2.6 i7.
32 bit and 64 bit.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/840104
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1198797
Last edited:
Even accepting what you say, why do I want to be 2 years behind in power just to squeeze it into a smaller box? And even if that is true in power, I have 12 TB in my tower, do you know how ugly that would be strewn around my desk as external hard drives?
Accepting what you say about the towers, they're still under your desk hidden out of sight.
As for the triple-size mini...tonymacx86 just posted a build/buyers guide for mini hackintoshes based on mini-ITX hardware and some cute tiny cases. If you really don't want much internal hardware, it doesn't have to be much bigger than the mini and you have a whole range of choices from supermacmini to full tower based on your taste.
----------
And an SSD next a 3TB 3.5" HD is not acceptable to you why?
So which laptop CPU is apple using that's on par with my i7-3770k? Not even going to get into the socket 2011 chips, which are way beyond the 3770 in performance.
That's so pathetic it's beyond words. Their most powerful desktop is a cheap little low-power notebook CPU. Says everything you need to know about Apple circa 2012.
What benchmarks are you looking at? Why are you even talking about those processors, seriously we are comparing the imacs to the mini's. What does this thread have to do with socket 2011 chips?
You have a Hackintosh. Is it faster? Maybe, then again maybe not. I posted the geekbench scores for the 2012 imac, it has the i7 3770. The i7 2.6 in the mini has almost idenical geekbench scores. Is your 3770k stock that much faster than the 3770? No it isn't. They have almost identical performance. If you overclock the 3770K is faster. If you cannot, the Mini will be keep up with your hackintosh in raw CPU power.
Is there a more powerfull mini-desktop solution on Windows, can you even make a mac mini sized windows box with better specs? CPU, thunderbolt, etc. Maybe with a better GPU, but overall. No you cannot. Go ahead build me a better specked windows box that is the same size as the Mini. Or one that I just ordered for $1200. I7, 256 SSD and 16GB of crucial ram.
How much did you pay for your hackintosh? What are the specs?
I appreciate engineering. You don't. You would rather have a ugly box. To each their own.
I just posted the geekbench numbers. No one is comparing the Mac Mini's to your CPU. We are comparing them to the imac, which has the 3770 i7. Not the overclockable 'K' version.
Apple isn't about all power, it's about design and power. For a little box desktop that is alot of impressive in a little box. I would much rather have the Mini than your home built box. Good whiskey is better than moonshine.
And the mini isn't the fastest desktop currently in the Mac lineup. The Mac Pro still is.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/500630
I said the fastest Quad core desktop. The Mac Pro's still need to be updated bad. So you do have a good point and I agree with you, just doesn't pertain to this thread.
And the part isn't cheap. It is more expensive than your 3770K! And has more power per watt which makes it more power efficient with more power per watt. It is not quite as fast but a better built processor. So how is that cheap?
Update: I found your machine, either yours or someone with the same processor hackentosh.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1203281
Your machine isnt faster at all. Your argument went right out the window. Bye, bye. Cheap laptop CPU, i think not. Can you say owned?
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1198797
Last edited:
Hmm, maybe running to the edges of my understanding of processors.
I understand that they are almost, (or are), essentially the same chip, just clocked at different speeds. But the i7's in the iMacs can Turbo Boost to 3.9GHz, while the Mac Mini i7 Turbo Boosts to 3.6GHz.
Surely that means that the iMacs are faster than the Mac Mini, (though I don't know how much a 0.3GHz increase really is in real world perception)?
Clock speeds are less important than ever. Have you heard of this thing called iPhone? It's 2 x 1 GHz chip is considerably faster than a 2 x 1,4 GHz chip found in a S3 (not naming a brand here ...).
The numbers dont lie. You seen the benchmarks. The laptop CPU in the mini the 2.6 i7 has a more agressive turbo. Meaning the turbo ramps up quicker than its desktop counter parts. Even though it is overall 0.3Ghz slower. The 2.6 i7 has a wider range, 2.6 to 3.6. Or a range of 1Ghz.
The 3770 has half the range of 500 Mhz. 3.4 to 3.9. The 3770s has a range of 3.1 to 3.9. If you look at the passmark numbers the 3770S is faster than the 3770k!
I found Oracles machine or his same CPU hackentosh.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1203281
The 2.6 i7.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1198797
The numbers speak for themselves.
Last edited:
Great points!
In 2012, the lines have blurred and what used to be a notable difference between the faster desktop computer vs. the slower portable laptop has disappeared.
Right now the case could be made for the blurring between an iPad and a Macintosh. There are people right now who have the iPad as their primary computer and that number will grow as iPad evolves. I used to have the Power Macs and felt I needed what they offered for my needs over the iBook which I also owned. Today, my Mac Minis are sufficient with dual core Intel processors. There may come a time when the two actually merge into one product line. By then, they will be backseat products/concepts behind iPhone, iPod, iOS, and iTunes. This isn't your daddy's Apple Computer Inc.
Last edited:
I really like the design of the new iMacs (which I'm sure will be referred to as the "guillotine design") but I'm not sold on the idea of an all-in-one. If the computer fails, the screen is useless and vice versa.
I'm a huge fan of the Mac Mini though. I've bought 3 of them (the original G4, the 1.83GHz C2D which my wife now uses, and my 2011 server).
I've disassembled all of them for upgrades, too.
I'm a huge fan of the Mac Mini though. I've bought 3 of them (the original G4, the 1.83GHz C2D which my wife now uses, and my 2011 server).
I've disassembled all of them for upgrades, too.
Dude you absolutely right. this my frustration, why I have toi pay so much money and get underpowered desktop macs. some people just d***k heads, who has no logic, and also one was giving me lessons in politics (just no sense)
i got some cash, recently sold my mbp 17 2010, need bigger screen, but new is long way to release + not tested in real world,
shell buy refub imac 27 or their performance worth than new imac 21 (to small to upgrade after mbp 17), or just one of the tiny-funny mini + dell monitor?
There are other factors that limit a computer's lifespan, such as the ports available and OS support for old hardware (or application support for old OS's, if you choose not to upgrade). I'd say 5 years is the limit, and 3 is better, unless you're just doing word processing.