When are 6 cores better than 4 cores for home, non-pro use?

[dmsea1]

I've owned both an i5 and an i7 2018 mini. RAM use tends to expand with the RAM available.

Right now, my i7 has 8GB of RAM pending a change to 32GB later this week. I have two Safari windows open, one with seven tabs and one with five. Activity monitor says that I am using 5.81GB of RAM.

Interesting, that makes sense. I did notice a couple of the tabs I had open had hi res pics and video and were resource hogs - still a bit shocked as that was the first time really looking at each site and it's use of RAM. To see a site use 1GB on it's own was a bit eye opening.
[doublepost=1543949916][/doublepost]

If not never then what is your argument?

I don't use the word Never, especially in Technology and Computing. Adequate is also a useless word in computing - all of my adequate machines became inadequate at some point, some sooner than others. Maybe when talking iphones, I would tend to look for adequate - I am still using an iphone 6, and it is doing the job, barely, but still hanging on. At the time, the storage was more than adequate, it has been horribly inadequate going on 2 years now, and I have to manage storage in the cloud, which is not my favorite option. Adequate is short sided - plain and simple, and especially when considering buying a high end modular computer with parts that are not upgradeable later. But again, go live an adequate life, and keep your sites low and short sided if you prefer. Your choice.

 

[Cheapassmac]

No, they're not. The decision was between a solder on CPU and SSD for both systems. I put more weight on a larger capacity SSD compared to a faster processor. The exact situation being discussed above.

My issue isn't with those who advocate for the i7. My issue is with those who feel it's either the i3 or the i7 but never the i5. People's situations are different. To say the i5 is a no go for everyone is extremely arrogant.

I'm going to have to agree with dmsea1, nobody said never in reference of getting an i5. Even I said the i5 wasn't bad, but the i3 and i7 were better choices for the market. The i5 isn't defective or something, and sorry you seem to think I said that?

Also, the mac mini is a desktop and the macbook is a laptop. They are fundmentally designed for different case scenarios. I'm not going to lug my mac mini to the airport. Saying that because a processor is soldered doesn't make it a laptop. It's not up for debate as Intel themselves classify the 8100,8600,8700 processors used in the mac mini as desktop processors.

 

[pl1984]

Interesting, that makes sense. I did notice a couple of the tabs I had open had hi res pics and video and were resource hogs - still a bit shocked as that was the first time really looking at each site and it's use of RAM. To see a site use 1GB on it's own was a bit eye opening.
[doublepost=1543949916][/doublepost]
I don't use the word Never, especially in Technology and Computing. Adequate is also a useless word in computing - all of my adequate machines became inadequate at some point, some sooner than others. Maybe when talking iphones, I would tend to look for adequate - I am still using an iphone 6, and it is doing the job, barely, but still hanging on. At the time, the storage was more than adequate, it has been horribly inadequate going on 2 years now, and I have to manage storage in the cloud, which is not my favorite option. Adequate is short sided - plain and simple, and especially when considering buying a high end modular computer with parts that are not upgradeable later. But again, go live an adequate life, and keep your sites low and short sided if you prefer. Your choice.

You took a binary position: An i3 or i7. That's about as never as it gets. If you can't think of a reason why someone would want an i5 that too is about as never as it gets. You may not have said the word never but that's what I inferred from your argument.
[doublepost=1544046490][/doublepost]

I'm going to have to agree with dmsea1, nobody said never in reference of getting an i5. Even I said the i5 wasn't bad, but the i3 and i7 were better choices for the market. The i5 isn't defective or something, and sorry you seem to think I said that?

Which is effectively never.

 

[Cheapassmac]

You took a binary position: An i3 or i7. That's about as never as it gets. If you can't think of a reason why someone would want an i5 that too is about as never as it gets. You may not have said the word never but that's what I inferred from your argument.
[doublepost=1544046490][/doublepost]
Which is effectively never.

Um, no. That does not mean never. Stop putting words in other people's mouths, making it your binary position, and then accusing others of what you did.

Just because it's a better choice, doesn't mean no i5 models will be sold. In fact, in the long run, I'm sure there will be more i5 mac minis out there then i7, simply because it's not a default option. And just because the i3 or i7 might be better for the user at current price points, you might get an i5 if it was on sale at a deeper discount than the other two models (or if they can't wait for the BTO to ship). Someone could be unaware of an i7 model. Someone could have gotten one as a gift, or the only model allowed for work. Several reasons why it would happen, and certainly not never as you claim.

 

[dmsea1]

You took a binary position: An i3 or i7. That's about as never as it gets. If you can't think of a reason why someone would want an i5 that too is about as never as it gets. You may not have said the word never but that's what I inferred from your argument.
[doublepost=1544046490][/doublepost]
Which is effectively never.

Wrong again. I have a 7th Gen i5 PC - I use it for work. No gaming, no video editing, no music production, only for work. At the time, upgrading to the i7 included a much larger drive than I needed and was about $500 more. I knew I was getting an updated iMac or Mac soon - when they upgraded to 8th gen, and that was going to be my heavy lifter. i5 was adequate, for that machine and the cost to go higher was a waste of money. This whole argument is value - if you need a simple machine for web browsing, i3 fills that gap. If you need more power and are considering the i5, the i7 is $200 more. A lot of Mac users have Macbooks, Ipads, old Mini's, and another machine is just a waste, even an i3 and getting the highest spec machine, doesn't make any sense. But, if you are going to use this machine for many years, don't have several computers that overlap each other, then grabbing the best chip available - for a reasonable extra cost of $200 - is a damn no brainer. Doesn't mean the i5 doesn't have a place - it does, but Apple rarely gives you an easy decision on upgrades - they usually make you break the bank to upgrade and they did in this case for Memory and Storage, but they gave everyone a nice gift - the ability to upgrade from the i5 to the i7 for only $200. Memory and storage can be added later. Take it - this machine may never get another refresh.

 

[pl1984]

Um, no. That does not mean never. Stop putting words in other people's mouths, making it binary position, and then accusing others of what you did.

I am by no means attempting to put words in your mouth. But when I read the following statement of yours:

I'm advocated against the i5 exactly because it doesn't meet the wants/needs/requirements as well as either the i3 or i7 for people and their situations.​

I cannot reach any conclusion other than you see absolutely no use case where the i5 should be purchase. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding that statement in which case I would like you to explain what you meant by it. The way I view your position is summarized as:

• Core i3 for those who need low cost
• Core i7 for those who need high performance

Where do you see the Core i5 fitting in?
[doublepost=1544098161][/doublepost]

Wrong again. I have a 7th Gen i5 PC - I use it for work. No gaming, no video editing, no music production, only for work. At the time, upgrading to the i7 included a much larger drive than I needed and was about $500 more. I knew I was getting an updated iMac or Mac soon - when they upgraded to 8th gen, and that was going to be my heavy lifter. i5 was adequate, for that machine and the cost to go higher was a waste of money.

We're discussing the Core i5 as it relates to the new Mini, not some other random PC.

This whole argument is value - if you need a simple machine for web browsing, i3 fills that gap. If you need more power and are considering the i5, the i7 is $200 more. A lot of Mac users have Macbooks, Ipads, old Mini's, and another machine is just a waste, even an i3 and getting the highest spec machine, doesn't make any sense. But, if you are going to use this machine for many years, don't have several computers that overlap each other, then grabbing the best chip available - for a reasonable extra cost of $200 - is a damn no brainer. Doesn't mean the i5 doesn't have a place - it does, but Apple rarely gives you an easy decision on upgrades - they usually make you break the bank to upgrade and they did in this case for Memory and Storage, but they gave everyone a nice gift - the ability to upgrade from the i5 to the i7 for only $200. Memory and storage can be added later. Take it - this machine may never get another refresh.

The way I read the highlighted section boils down to:

• Core i3 for those who need low cost
• Core i7 for those who need high performance

Where do you see the Core i5 fitting into this scenario?

 

[dmsea1]

I am by no means attempting to put words in your mouth. But when I read the following statement of yours:

I'm advocated against the i5 exactly because it doesn't meet the wants/needs/requirements as well as either the i3 or i7 for people and their situations.​

I cannot reach any conclusion other than you see absolutely no use case where the i5 should be purchase. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding that statement in which case I would like you to explain what you meant by it. The way I view your position is summarized as:

• Core i3 for those who need low cost
• Core i7 for those who need high performance

Where do you see the Core i5 fitting in?
[doublepost=1544098161][/doublepost]
We're discussing the Core i5 as it relates to the new Mini, not some other random PC.


The way I read the highlighted section boils down to:

• Core i3 for those who need low cost
• Core i7 for those who need high performance

Where do you see the Core i5 fitting into this scenario?

If you already have a high end power computer that would overlap the i7, and where an i3 is just not enough.
And if you upgrade computers often and are planning to pick up the next Mac Pro or iMac, and still need/want a Mini for some reason. I don't upgrade computers often and there is a lot of value in the i7 upgrade is speed and your time matters - all boils down to usage and overlap between other machines. The i7 for me on this Mini, was the easiest of the decisions when building it out. Best value and considering again that we may not see an upgrade for years, if ever on the Mini, a no brainer if you are looking at your workhorse machine.

 

[pl1984]

If you already have a high end power computer that would overlap the i7, and where an i3 is just not enough.
And if you upgrade computers often and are planning to pick up the next Mac Pro or iMac, and still need/want a Mini for some reason. I don't upgrade computers often and there is a lot of value in the i7 upgrade is speed and your time matters - all boils down to usage and overlap between other machines. The i7 for me on this Mini, was the easiest of the decisions when building it out. Best value and considering again that we may not see an upgrade for years, if ever on the Mini, a no brainer if you are looking at your workhorse machine.

Your explanation appears to be at odds with what you were arguing before. Previously you were arguing it was a value proposition, now you're arguing a requirements based position.

 

[dmsea1]

Your explanation appears to be at odds with what you were arguing before. Previously you were arguing it was a value proposition, now you're arguing a requirements based position.

In this case, it is. It can and has to be both. You start with what is required, and go from there. This is actually very simple. In this very specific situation, the value proposition is too strong to ignore.

[Mod note: Removed some bickering]

 

[deviant]

i5 is the sweet spot. especially considering that Macs don't get changed often. and in a couple of years you'll be glad you chose the i5. plus, ssd size. win win. the difference is not that big in terms of price. but the i5 smokes the i3

 

[Cheapassmac]

i5 is the sweet spot. especially considering that Macs don't get changed often. and in a couple of years you'll be glad you chose the i5. plus, ssd size. win win. the difference is not that big in terms of price. but the i5 smokes the i3

Why is the i5 the sweet spot? Given your own rational that macs don't change often and the difference is not big in terms of price, the i7 seems to be what you would like. It's 10-30% faster and you could get one for the same price as an i5 config, albeit -128gb hard drive. Apple charges a crazy premium for hard drive space. A 128gb ssd goes for $20 for example.

If you were going to use an external hard drive anyway, the i7 is free.

 

[deviant]

Why is the i5 the sweet spot? Given your own rational that macs don't change often and the difference is not big in terms of price, the i7 seems to be what you would like. It's 10-30% faster and you could get one for the same price as an i5 config, albeit -128gb hard drive. Apple charges a crazy premium for hard drive space. A 128gb ssd goes for $20 for example.

If you were going to use an external hard drive anyway, the i7 is free.

128 is not enough , even for basic stuff, and the 256gb is faster.
I don't need hyperthreading, and the i7 is not THAT much faster than i5 in other cases, apart from encoding video.
6 cores will really age well, similar to how the 3core iPad2 aged SO MUCH better than EVERYTHING before it did.
6 cores + 256gb is the sweet spot in terms of future performance and price.

also, 128gb ssds don't go for 20 bucks, and ESPECIALLY not those kinds of ssd that the Mac mini has.

 

[Cheapassmac]

128 is too few, even for basic stuff, and the 256gb is faster.
I don't need hyperthreading, and the i7 is not THAT much faster than i5 in other cases, apart from encoding video.
6 cores will really age well, similar to how the 3core iPad2 aged SO MUCH better than EVERYTHING before it did.
6 cores + 256gb is the sweet spot in terms of future performance and price.

also, 128gb ssds don't go for 20 bucks, and ESPECIALLY not those kinds of ssd that the Mac mini has.

That just sounds like rationalizing how the i5 choice is okay. I'm not debating that. How is it the sweet spot when the i7 is faster at the same price, or just literally $20 more if you need same ssd space. Considering that the i7 is at least 10% faster even on single thread tasks, that's seems like a good value for free or literally $20 (not a typo, though $200 if you want Apple internal).

 

[pl1984]

128 is not enough , even for basic stuff, and the 256gb is faster.
I don't need hyperthreading, and the i7 is not THAT much faster than i5 in other cases, apart from encoding video.
6 cores will really age well, similar to how the 3core iPad2 aged SO MUCH better than EVERYTHING before it did.
6 cores + 256gb is the sweet spot in terms of future performance and price.

also, 128gb ssds don't go for 20 bucks, and ESPECIALLY not those kinds of ssd that the Mac mini has.

Micro Center sells their house brand (Inland) 128GB SATA SSD for $20. I've never used the 128GB model but the 512GB model was well worth the $60 I paid for it.

 

[Juggar]

Micro Center sells their house brand (Inland) 128GB SATA SSD for $20. I've never used the 128GB model but the 512GB model was well worth the $60 I paid for it.

You cant compare a SATA SSD to the NVMe/PCIe SSD that the mac has, to be fair.

 

[pl1984]

You cant compare a SATA SSD to the NVMe/PCIe SSD that the mac has, to be fair.

I wasn't.

 

[Juggar]

I wasn't.

You absolutely indirectly did. Otherwise why bring up some irrelevant SATA SSD that microcenter sells?

 

[pl1984]

You absolutely indirectly did. Otherwise why bring up some irrelevant SATA SSD that microcenter sells?

The person I responded to said 128GB SSDs could not be had for $20. They can.

 

[Spectrum]

Pl1974 and cheapassmac are making a good point. For work I've ordered a i7/1TB internal, because I am not directly paying the cost, and want to to last a good long time.

But if I was buying a 2018 mini for home, I think I'd get the i7/128 and then repurpose some old SSDs in a USB3 enclosure. The performance will be fine, and would have saved £500.

 

[Juggar]

The person I responded to said 128GB SSDs could not be had for $20. They can.

He said not the kinds that the mac mini have, and that would be true.

 

[Ploki]

He said not the kinds that the mac mini have, and that would be true.

600gb/s write? not all that uncommon.

you can get 128gb nVME drives for 30$* that have 1500mb/s write speeds. (Transcend)

 

[pl1984]

He said not the kinds that the mac mini have, and that would be true.

No, he said:

"128gb ssds don't go for 20 bucks, and ESPECIALLY not those kinds of ssd that the Mac mini has."

The follow on with "...ESPECIALLY not those kinds of ssd that the Mac mini has." takes the highlighted statement further by applying it to those drives used in the Mini.

 

[Juggar]

No, he said:

"128gb ssds don't go for 20 bucks, and ESPECIALLY not those kinds of ssd that the Mac mini has."

The follow on with "...ESPECIALLY not those kinds of ssd that the Mac mini has." takes the highlighted statement further by applying it to those drives used in the Mini.

Yes, but I feel it was implied what he was stating.

 

[pl1984]

Yes, but I feel it was implied what he was stating.

That's fine.

 

[Cheapassmac]

No, he said:

"128gb ssds don't go for 20 bucks, and ESPECIALLY not those kinds of ssd that the Mac mini has."

The follow on with "...ESPECIALLY not those kinds of ssd that the Mac mini has." takes the highlighted statement further by applying it to those drives used in the Mini.

I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with you on this one, and that you addressed the one point I forgot to.

That said, I acknowledge the internal mac mini hard drive has faster sequential read/write then an external SSD, but for most applicable uses (excluding extreme circumstantial pro use) , it's the same difference as tasks are bottlenecked elsewhere and the IOPS specs are comparable.