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.
When are 6 cores better than 4 cores for home, non-pro use?
- Thread starter pinkoos
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For home use i.e. web browsing, youtube videos, mail, numbers, pages, is the i5 an overkill?
I think it is. Until recently I was using a 2007 Windows PC to do those types of tasks and it performed just fine. I'd still be using it today if I had not come across a great deal on a Z440 system.
well. That's not good.
i was hoping for a 4K ultrafine... and only eGPU that works with it straightforward is the over-expensive Blackmagic.
Even the 4-core i3 is overkill for such usage. I do it with the 8-year-old 2-core i3 iMac.
I wish Apple would support my 2012 Mini with OS upgrades for a few more years but I fear that Mojave is the end of the line for my 2012 Mini.
that depends on what is a satisfying experience for YOU.
I love doing things VERY quickly, opening, closing etc etc and when I have to wait for more than a couple of seconds for excel to open I hate it. that's just how I am, and there are people like me. smoothness and speed is a must.
nowadays, old computers choke even on facebook page, with all the videos and stuff. internet browsing is not that stupid and simple that it once was. there are people who love having 30 tabs open.
While I very much agree we have to be careful with our own subject usages, I think that might be missing the point, which is that for those basic computing tasks, at a certain point, a faster CPU is simply not perceivable in day-to-day usage... it's only perceivable in sustained CPU loads (like encoding).
I'm not saying that literally an 8 year old computer isn't noticeably slower in even basic usage, but the point being made is that even the i3 2018 Mini is an insanely fast CPU for basic "home" usage. Word and Safari aren't going to open perceivably faster on a 2018 i7 than it will on a 2018 i3. That's true today and that's going to be true 5 years from now.
That doesn't mean one shouldn't get the i5 or i7 for "basic" usage, but if cost is a constraint, it's a shame to see people get pressured into spending money for performance that they won't perceive or value.
As I previously mentioned before I was using a quad core, Windows 10 PC from 2007 until just a couple of months ago. That system worked great for the every day types of tasks for which the inquiry was made. Internet browsing wasn't an issue nor was opening and using software. Though I have to say that much of the software I was using on it was period specific software (for example Office 2007) so that may be part of the reason.
I built a custom pc for a friend around 2010 using a core 2 duo 3ghz (8400). I recently reinstalled Windows 10 on that same machine with an ssd and Office 2016 I think it was and a spare cheap discrete gpu I had around. I was surprised how well that machine still runs, usually a good test on older systems is testing ‘heavy’ sites like youtube, and it ran great.
The truth is for non-pro use, considering the fact there hasn’t been as much breakthroughs in CPU tech as there has been in GPUs in the past 10 years, I’m not surprised hearing these stories of 7-10 year old machines still running great for casual use.
My mistake. Yeah, for a casual user that doesn't want more than 128GB internal, but thinks they do or may want an eGPU, then the i3 seems like a good system. It is more or less equivalent to i5 iMac performance. Those $300 could go a long way to the cost of an eGOU and an external USB SSD, and or some RAM.
It is a shame Apple don't permit BTO i5. Based on the pricing structure it would only be a $100 upgrade. Which points out how wonky the upgrade prices are. Skewed by the rodiculous $200 fee to go from 128 to 256 SSD. The move from i3 to i5 is much more significant in my view than the i5 to i7 upgrade.
[doublepost=1544387645][/doublepost]
Agreed. Until a pair of ageing 2008 Core2Duos finally bit the dust this summer (gpu failure I guess sadly), they were perfect machines for web browsing and basic Word doc stuff.
I’m currently running 2 of my macs from external ssds and loving it. So I really like the idea of saving money by keeping base ssd configs on the mac mini, and then storing your user folder on the external ssds.
If you don’t mind the external ssd which by the way it’s small and silent, I think it’s by far the best value.
Not all software was period specific. Likewise period specific software doesn't take into account changes to information that occurred during that time. Image, video, and data file sizes increased and the web became more complex. Likewise I suspect more current software would run acceptably on such systems.(for example Office 2007) WELL NOT SH... WATSON
[doublepost=1544388924][/doublepost]
I like to avoid external things if at all possible. I would rather purchase a small / medium sized tower than a SFF system and connect external devices to it. In the end the footprint consumed by a number of external devices is equal, or possibly more, than that of a small / medium sized tower without all the clutter of cabling. Unfortunately this is not an option for Apple users.
I decided to keep the i5 Mini because i'm doing a 12 month payments plan with zero interest with Amazon so it's only $23 more per month, ($61 vs $83)
Nice discussion beginning at 22 minutes regarding the different 2018 mini CPUs. The gist is to either go for the i3 or i7 and to skip the i5 (I'm just passing on this info):
https://overcast.fm/+Kai18inSw
https://overcast.fm/+Kai18inSw
Thanks, just listened to it. The discussion about the CPUs actually starts at the 27 minute mark.
He doesn't really start talking about it until 27 minutes in (though the mini is first mentioned at 22 minutes). Funny enough, you can hear him in real time realizing that he could get an i7, 8gb RAM, 128gb SSD for the same price as the i5 256gb SSD (and says "I'd take the i7 all day long"). He also mentioned the i3 is a very capable processor for most people otherwise.
[doublepost=1544493613][/doublepost]At the 34 minute mark, he recommends skipping the i5 all together (with the only exception if there was a sale on the i5 config).
Oops sorry about that - 27 mins
[doublepost=1544494678][/doublepost]I think this has left me more confused than ever - I had basically decided on the i5 base model with the thought of buying it with the RAM already upgraded to 16GB, but now I’m not so sure what to do.
Base model i3 and just boot/run it off an external SSD? Though then I won’t be able to take advantage of the internal SSD’s increased speed.
Or base model i3 with Apple upgrading it to 16GB RAM? But then still have the SSD issue.
Or base model i3 with Apple upgrading the SSD to 256GB? But then I would need to add RAM on my own sometime in the future (if I feel that 8GB is not enough).
Or base model i3 with Apple upgrading the CPU to the i7? But then have RAM and SSD issues.
I had a 2015 21.5” retina iMac for the past almost 3 years (8GB/512GB) - I looked at Geekbench to compare it’s single and multi core scores with the different mini models and it seems that the base i3 would be around the same as that 2015 iMac. Would just feel weird getting a brand new computer that really isn’t any faster or better than what I had been using previously.
But, I don’t think I really need the i7 - in my original post, I noted that my main uses are pretty basic and non-professional. So, the i7, though helping in future resale value, doesn’t seem like the smartest use of any upgrade money I may want to spend if I decide to go with the base model.
Apple doesn’t make this easy..... ;-)
[doublepost=1544494678][/doublepost]I think this has left me more confused than ever - I had basically decided on the i5 base model with the thought of buying it with the RAM already upgraded to 16GB, but now I’m not so sure what to do.
Base model i3 and just boot/run it off an external SSD? Though then I won’t be able to take advantage of the internal SSD’s increased speed.
Or base model i3 with Apple upgrading it to 16GB RAM? But then still have the SSD issue.
Or base model i3 with Apple upgrading the SSD to 256GB? But then I would need to add RAM on my own sometime in the future (if I feel that 8GB is not enough).
Or base model i3 with Apple upgrading the CPU to the i7? But then have RAM and SSD issues.
I had a 2015 21.5” retina iMac for the past almost 3 years (8GB/512GB) - I looked at Geekbench to compare it’s single and multi core scores with the different mini models and it seems that the base i3 would be around the same as that 2015 iMac. Would just feel weird getting a brand new computer that really isn’t any faster or better than what I had been using previously.
But, I don’t think I really need the i7 - in my original post, I noted that my main uses are pretty basic and non-professional. So, the i7, though helping in future resale value, doesn’t seem like the smartest use of any upgrade money I may want to spend if I decide to go with the base model.
Apple doesn’t make this easy..... ;-)
This would be a really bad value, if you really needed 256gb ssd, then the $1099 i5 base is the best value there, there is even a discount on it right now for $999 at bhphotovideo.com.
I think that podcast's assesment between i3 and i7 makes sense if you compare the base config i3 vs the cheapest i7, the minute you try to upgrade ssd on the i3, it's a bad value, you should go with i5 if you really wanted that 256gb.
What I did personally was, I chose the i7 and went with 128gb, which is enough for the OS, and then use an external SSD for your home folder.
Sure, the 128gb doesn't have ridiculous speeds, but who cares? I personally can't notice it, and you won't either for non-pro use.
Here's the issue with going nuts with configs and mac mini, the minute you start building up into an i7, more ssd, etc, the cost is so high that you'd have to really think about why you'd choose a mac mini when you can go iMac. You'd need a very justifiable specific reason.
This is one of the reasons I strongly believe the i3 stock with 128gb would be the best value, because you keep costs down, you get nowhere near iMac territory in terms of cost, and yet you still get a great system.
Resale value on that stock i3/128gb should be pretty good, a lot of people like to use these as htpc and/or home servers, so the cheapest stock config would be the ideal candidate.
Last edited:
Yes drag and drop and then you need to specify the new location in system preferences, here's a nice guide about it:
https://www.lifewire.com/move-macs-home-folder-new-location-2260157
I recommend that you create a second user as well (administrator level), that second user would have the home folder on the mac mini's ssd, and then your home folder would be on the external one. The reason for this is is that any troubleshooting that you need to do, like going into recovery or if you need to unplug your external drive for any reason, so that you still have a working user on your mac.
Last edited:
The podcast guy basically advocated what I was preaching. Either i3 or i7 for the value aspect unless the i5 was on sale. There's no point for a regular user to spend extra for the larger Apple SSD over just getting an external SSD. A user won't even perceive the difference in speed 99% of the time.
Faster consecutive read/write just isn't going to do much for most people (and regular SATA rates of 600mb/s is fast enough). It's the IOPS (input output per second) rating and low latency that gives the "snappiness" that a regular HD can't deliver.
Don't believe the mb/sec hype. The IOPS rating and latency of larger Apple SSDs are basically the same as other SSDs (relatively, might be ever so slightly higher, but not to the point of being appreciable).
I would advocate paying Apple the $200 for the 16GB RAM config if you aren't tech savy or don't want to deal with the hassle. Apple isn't charging too much of a premium for the installation (about $50, and selling the OEM RAM isn't advisable if you ever want it serviced by Apple). Even a casual user will benefit from upgrading from 8 to 16 (but 8 will work well enough, albeit a small performance penalty under certain circumstances). For home, non pro use, you don't need to consider anything beyond 16GB.