123Macmini.com
FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   GalleryPhoto Gallery   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Assembling the worlds fastest Mac Mini DualCore i7 2011/2012
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    123Macmini.com - Forums Forum Index -> Mac Mini Upgrading
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
AT0MAC
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 185
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

After running Rember most of yesterday, failing the first few tests with same strange error as the Corsairs I finally figured out how to run the real memtest in Single User mode!
Feels like going back to the old days when I started as a computer enthusiast (ca. 1991):



The new Kingstons passed with flying colors!

A small minus regarding the Kingston compared to the Corsair is the look, they just don't look as good :(not that you will ever open up and look, but just to know that they look awesome is a nice thing)

Kingston:



Corsair:




------------------

After benching GeekBench I had quite a surprise!
CPU test are very similar between the two RAM kits:



But memory benchs on the 8GB Kingston kit are a whole lot better:




Gave me a 7.918 total score in 64bit!!



Sorry the pics are so small, they are also on my Flickr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
eks
Junior Member
Junior Member


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 39

PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AT0MAC wrote:


A small minus regarding the Kingston compared to the Corsair is the look, they just don't look as good :(not that you will ever open up and look, but just to know that they look awesome is a nice thing)



I feel your suffering.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AT0MAC
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 185
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

eks wrote:
AT0MAC wrote:


A small minus regarding the Kingston compared to the Corsair is the look, they just don't look as good :(not that you will ever open up and look, but just to know that they look awesome is a nice thing)



I feel your suffering.


Laughing Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
AT0MAC
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 185
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The SSDs are installed and the first test have been running on one SSD - will post more later but from now on you can at least sneak peak at my flickr

One sentence about the results so far: AWESOME to cold boot in just 18 seconds!!!!

Atm I am downloading the newest image file from App store of OS X Lion to install in RAID0 and bench some more, stay tuned... Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
AT0MAC
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 185
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Final results have just been uploaded to Flickr.
I don't have time now to sort them out and explain them, but you can sneak peak until I return.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
AT0MAC
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 185
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:06 pm    Post subject: The final score Reply with quote

The final scores have been sorted out and counted and have now ended up in easy to read graphics.
Lets start...


GeekBench 32bit:



As expected the GB score kept climbing until it reached it's max of 7.250 points wich is a lot in 32bit as far as I can tell!


GeekBench 64bit:



Same story goes for the GB 64bit scores wich tops out at 7.939 points!


An interesting fact is that the 8GB Kingston 1867MHz kit scores higher than the 16GB Corsair 1600MHz kit. Seems that GB really likes fast RAM and don't care much about the amount.
Another interesting detail is how close the SSD scores are, GB don't utilizes the read/write speeds of a RAID0 very well apparently...
For short, it's a true synthetic benchmark that only gives a faint hint of how powerful a machine really is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
AT0MAC
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 185
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DiskSpeed read/writes:




Aboslute AWESOME read/write speeds this little machine have now when it is in RAID0 = 520MB/s write!
Thats half a GB! It's like the usual amount on a a Music CD written in 1 second (if just there was a CD burner that could write that same speed...)
870MB/s read speeds!
Thats about the same read speeds as the OCZ Z-Drives have in four way RAID (whatever that is?)!


A strange thing here is that the fast Kingston 1867MHz 8GB kit scores the slowest read/write on the stock Apple 5400RPM drive.
The 16GB 1600MHz gave it a good overall speed improvement of a few MB/s more.


NovaBench:




NB looks a lot like GeekBench like a real synthetic benchmark, wich it is.
It favors a lot of RAM and a speedy disk compared to a flying speedy RAID0 system and a lot faster set of RAM.
If you find the schematics/results I screen dumped to my Flickr you see that the 16GB and 8GB kits have one mayor difference in their scores - the RAM test.

CPU test are almost similar with 459 and 467 in favor of the 8GB set, Graphics score similar 116 and 115, hardware test in favor of the speedier 8GB set with 19 compared to 21. But RAM score is 221 and 180 - only because of the amount! The speed it self the 16GB scores 8756MB/s were the 8GB scores 8886MB/s and still gets a smaller total score because the amount is smaller.

Not fair!

MKBHD scores in his YouTube video of "Fastest Mac Mini in the World" a score of 834:
RAM 219
CPU 442
Graphic 115
Hardware 58

Mine would be with the RAID0 and the 16GB 856 points:
RAM 221 (taken from 16GB RAM scores)
CPU 459 (taken from 16GB RAM scores)
Graphic 116 (taken from SSD RAID scores)
Hardware 60 (taken from SSD RAID scores)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
AT0MAC
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 185
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

XBench:




XBench is also a synthetic benchmark but it looks like it's more accurate than both GeekBench and NovaBench as it favors speed above anything else.
The faster Kingston RAM gets higher score than the Corsair and also the total winner is the RAID0 system. Nice Smile


CineBench OpenGL:




It is practically identical no matter what configuration I used, except for the old Mac Mini Server C2D machine I started with.
I had heard a rumor faster RAM should give higher FPS, don't work that way on the MM with AMD graphics - maybe on the Intel HD graphics edition were it uses a portion of the system RAM?
Decided to not test on the SSDs as it didn't seem to change anything.


CineBench CPU test:




Same story goes for CineBench CPU test, same CPU all trough so no difference what so ever.
Didn't test it on the SSD setups.
A funny thing though, the stock MM 2011 gave higher scores, maybe because I later on had SMC upgraded and a few OS X updates from Apple?
The rest of the tests are made on exactly the same system with only the changes as described.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
AT0MAC
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 185
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Handbrake 0.9.5 video encoding test:




One of the guys over at Mac Rumors Forum suggested to try his Handbrake video encoding test, so I did...
It faired pretty good - quicker than a Mac Pro with dual Xeon quad-core processor (that one scored 24.3 FPS in 9:51 minutes)!


Handbrake 0.9.6 video encoding test:



But there have been released a new edition of Handbrake since that guys thread started, so decided to give it a go in the new version also.


The old version favored more RAM (Corsair 16GB kit) were the new version favors faster RAM (Kingston 8GB kit 1867MHz).
None of them however seems to care about read/write speeds on your harddrive.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
AT0MAC
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 185
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Digital Lloyd Photoshop Benchmark - Speed1:




I found a benchmark for Photoshop performance by someone called Digital Lloyd. Apparently a very well respected Mac Bench test.
Their quick test called Speed1 shows that there is a funny fault in Photoshop CS6 - it favors a speedy disc and good RAM more than an even speedier disk with the same RAM. Didn't care much about my RAID0 but liked the single SSD.





Their Medium test shows that it's faster than a MacBook Pro Quad Core 2011 2.3GHz using 80% of it's memory (mine was set to use 100% wich apparently was a bad idea, can according to digilloyd get better results with only 70-80% RAM usage?!).
It is testing on a 20.000 pixel wide picture wich is 15.7GB in memory size! A pretty demanding bench...
Speedier disc or more RAM seems to be favored equally here.
Didn't care much about RAID0 and faster RAM.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
AT0MAC
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 185
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Clubofone Photoshop Speedtest:




Found a more "underground" Photoshop test that shows the same result as DigiLloyds Speed1 test. Faster RAM and faster disc is good, RAID0 no difference.


Duke Nukem FPS Game Test:




I tested the same theory that faster RAM would give more FPS in a real game, using a screen recording app that shows the average amount of FPS over a given time, in my case 5 minutes 15 seconds.
Didn't do any real difference so didn't test it on the SSDs.
The SMC and Apple OS X upgrades have might had an impact on the scores here because the original MM 2011 config scored higher?!?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
AT0MAC
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 185
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How fast can you copy/move 1GB data from Desktop to Documents:




A real world test of how fast I can now move/copy 1GB of data from my Desktop to my Documents folder.
Answer is really speedy!!!!


Boot time:




A few of the benchs will come as videos on YouTube whenever I get time to edit it. This one is a really amazing real world task - booting the computer in just 16 seconds to login screen and just below 18 with auto login!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
AT0MAC
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 185
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:45 pm    Post subject: Final TOTAL score Reply with quote



The final total score is that in 16 tests the final build is the fastest I could do with these building blocks in a Mac Mini.
Intel 520 Series SSD drives and Kingston HyperX PnP 1867MHz DDR3 SODIMM is an EPIC combination!!!!




Remember you can always see pictures of the whole build over at Flickr. There are A LOT of pics I didn't show in the thread.


There is no doubt I beat MKBHD wich claims to have made the worlds fastest mac mini.
Mine have better CineBench scores, NovaBench boss scores was within reach if I wanted and my read/write DiskSpeed scores blows his machine away - so stop lying.


Btw, I chose the Kingston RAM because they in the tests that matters most for real world performance looks quickest and best performing.
I have very little reason to utilize 16GB of RAM, it's at the moment still a waste of money. If there ever come a 16GB 1867 or higher kit - for a reasonable price - then I though might buy it Wink



What do you say, have I assembled the worlds fastests Mac Mini 2011/2012 dualcore i7 monster machine?



//btw there is an error in the text on the pic, HIGHER is better!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
idave
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 24 Jan 2005
Posts: 464

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 2:00 am    Post subject: Re: The final score Reply with quote

AT0MAC wrote:
An interesting fact is that the 8GB Kingston 1867MHz kit scores higher than the 16GB Corsair 1600MHz kit. Seems that GB really likes fast RAM and don't care much about the amount.

That's because GB lives in a world where you never have PS, Aperture or FCX running at the same time. Wink

Nice job on putting everything together. It looks like you've built a serious little speed demon. I'm not surprised to hear about it beating the Mac Pro either. I know a couple professional photo/video editors that have moved away from the Mac Pro towards the iMac and Mac mini.
_________________
14" 1.25GHz G4 iBook (died)
1.42GHz Mac mini (almost dead)
1.66GHz Core Duo Mac mini (sold)
2.0GHz Core 2 Duo Mac mini '09 (sold)
2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 Mac mini
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MJL
Junior Member
Junior Member


Joined: 28 Jun 2011
Posts: 44

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AT0MAC wrote:
...... (and a good part hate also) but that will not let me stop Smile


Do not let some armchair wannabees who have little or no real experience get under your skin - just ignore them.

Had the same issue from the bunch of "nothing is wrong with the temperature" armchair "experts" (yeah right, NOT!) when I was posting on bringing the temperature down by adding some holes in the bottom and raising the computer on four small feet.

Anyway - you had a note on your Flickr account that the antenna grille did not sit proper. Hopefully you got it to fit again but otherwise: This is because the grille has two plates and they sit on both the inside and outside of the housing. It is stamped material and can have some rough edges making sliding in a bit tricky. There is a gap of about 2-3 mm between them. This needs to slide over the housing but that can be tight and I used a spudger to "lift and push" one side of the grille up about halfway at the edge (where the round antenna sits close to the housing). You'll have to wiggle it a bit, hard to describe, and it is normally stuck in only one spot. Be carefull not to over tighten the screws, it is easy to strip the thread off the holes in the aluminium housing.

Thanks for these tests however be aware that these are only "peak performance" and that you might have difficulty with temperature if you're wanting to run the computer at a 100% CPU rate for extended periods. I for one would not be comfortable to run the machine 16 hours a day , 7 days a week at 100% as I've done in the past with a Pentium 4 laptop and the temprature never got much above 60C. (and the fan was not loud either, an IBM Thinkpad A31)

I do like the small form factor and that it is so self contained. As I've mentioned before it is in my case preferable above a laptop and just about as easy to travel with. (using a HMDI TV of a hotel as monitor). Lament the loss of the DVD/CD though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    123Macmini.com - Forums Forum Index -> Mac Mini Upgrading All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



      

Shop:  Apple Store  |  Refurbished Macs  |  Refurbished iPads  |  MacConnection  |  Mac Mini Vault  |  Other World Computing

MK 1 Studio Mac mini Racks  |  Crucial Mac Memory  |  Top Free Mac Apps  |  Top Paid Mac Apps



123Macmini.com is an independent publication and has not been authorized, sponsored, or approved by Apple Computer, Inc.
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owners.
Copyright © 2011 123Macmini.com. All Rights Reserved.