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 

Primate Labs Posts 2014 Mac mini Benchmarks

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    123Macmini.com - Forums Forum Index -> 123Macmini.com News and Reviews
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
admin
Site Admin


Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Posts: 2191
Location: U.S.A

PostPosted: Sun Oct 19, 2014 11:08 pm    Post subject: Primate Labs Posts 2014 Mac mini Benchmarks Reply with quote

Primate Labs Posts 2014 Mac mini Benchmarks
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Posted by: Staff

John Poole of Primate Labs has posted a series of estimated Geekbench benchmarks for the new 2014 Mac minis. His estimated single-core performance scores for the 2014 Mac minis show an improvement of 2% to 8% over the 2012 Mac mini. Multi-core performance scores, on the other hand, are down significantly. We're talking down 70% to 80% over a 2012 Mac mini with a quad-core processor. That's disappointing to say the least, but not totally unexpected.

Unlike single-core performance multi-core performance has decreased significantly. The "Good" model (which has a dual-core processor in both lineups) is down 7%. The other models (which have a dual-core processor in the "Late 2014" lineup but a quad-core processor in the "Late 2012" lineup) is down from 70% to 80%.

So you might be asking yourself, with that kind of drop in performance, why isn't there a quad-core option with one of the new models? Mr. Poole goes on to speculate that Apple was probably unwilling to produce two logic boards for the new 2014 Mac minis. The previous generation 2012 Mac minis with Ivy Bridge could use the same socket for both dual-core and quad-core processors. Therefore, they could use same logic board. With Haswell, a different socket on the logic board is required for either dual-core or quad-core processors. That means Apple would have needed to go with quad-core processors across the line, but it would have been harder for them to hit the $499 price point.

He recommends if you're looking for great multi-core performance, track down a 2012 Mac mini. Otherwise, the improved Iris graphics, 802.11ac Wi-Fi, and improved single-core performance make the 2014 Mac minis worth considering. Rounding out that picture, we would also mention the additions of Thunderbolt 2 and PCIe-based storage options.



http://www.123macmini.com/news/story/2134.html


Last edited by admin on Mon Oct 20, 2014 2:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
RickB
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 88
Location: Vegas

PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I for the life of me will never understand why Apple continues to treat the Mac mini like a bastard stepchild. They always change course with it. They are never full in or full out. The upgrades are far and few in-between. They axe the server model. It's just crazy. This thing is right on the cusp of being great and they always hold it back. They do realize that some people will never want an iMac, right? Nor rich enough to afford a Mac Pro. I'm not saying the new models are complete trash, but come on now. You can do better than this!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grover Time
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 06 May 2007
Posts: 353
Location: Californication

PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 1:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's sounding like they won't even have the possibility of adding a quad-core down the road. Perhaps they should have just waited on Broadwell.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WahWahWatson
Junior Member
Junior Member


Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 41

PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not making excuses for Apple, but the new Mac minis don't sound that bad to me.

13" MacBook Pro with Retina
2.6GHz dual-core Intel Core i5
Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz
8GB 1600MHz memory
Intel Iris Graphics
$1299

2014 Mac mini
2.6GHz dual-core Intel Core i5
Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz
8GB 1600MHz memory
Intel Iris Graphics
$699

There are no quad-core options for either machine. Both have soldered on RAM. One is marketed as a "Pro" machine, but has the same basic specs as the Mac mini. I think the moaners out there are just "Pros" wanting more on the cheap. Give me more or I'll build a Hackintosh. I say go build your Hackintosh. I've been there and done that and it's not a great experience. I'm sure as hell not a Kool-aid drinker, but I say the Mac mini is still a fine machine. It even supports 4K displays now. I plan on ordering one soon.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aleson
New Member
New Member


Joined: 21 Oct 2014
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 1:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grover Time wrote:
It's sounding like they won't even have the possibility of adding a quad-core down the road. Perhaps they should have just waited on Broadwell.

As far as the socket goes, I'm wondering how many changes to the motherboard are required for Broadwell? Does the socket for Broadwell go back to working with either dual core of quad core chips? It was obviously working that way for Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
castaway
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 21 May 2005
Posts: 474
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 3:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I could live with the soldered on RAM at 16GB with all of the other improvements, but I'm so dissapointed about processor selection. It deserves the same quad-core treatment as the last generation.

It looks like Apple might have dumbed down this generation to protect the Mac Pro and American jobs. The quad-core models from the last generation were really taking it to the Mac Pro on the dollar versus perfomance scale. Im now thinking the 2012 Mac mini might just be the last great Mac mini.

Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MJL
Member
Member


Joined: 28 Jun 2011
Posts: 57

PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WahWahWatson wrote:
I'm not making excuses for Apple, but the new Mac minis don't sound that bad to me.
.....
I think the moaners out there are just "Pros" wanting more on the cheap. Give me more or I'll build a Hackintosh. I say go build your Hackintosh. I've been there and done that and it's not a great experience. I'm sure as hell not a Kool-aid drinker, but I say the Mac mini is still a fine machine. It even supports 4K displays now. I plan on ordering one soon.


You mean ... armchair "Pros" who do not have a clue about technology.

As I wrote on the Apple forum when a quad core is working flat out for extended periods then the temperature gets too high. Manufacturers of parts specify a temperature range and for e.g. the CMOS battery, memory and SSD this normally has a maximum of around 65C ~ 70C. It is due to Apple's excellent engineering that it still works at 90C but for how long? Reliability and life expectancy goes out the window at those temperatures.

CPU's and memory have to be soldered in because the lower voltages required by the energy savings create contact potential problems.

The connectors to the drives have a piece of metal over them with a fastener so they do not work loose. This was a problem especially after the connector had been out a few times.

The new metal "inside" base is just extra shielding so that the USB 3 does not interfere with bluetooth. I suspect that there were some thoughts for the security screws in order to try to stop some from leaving the base off and directing a fan to the bottom to obtain more cooling (but disrupting the cooling flow and blowing more dust inside).

The mentioning of another socket for the CPU is nonsense - they already have different logic board versions because of the memory.

All in all it is engineering improving reliability and they can not be faulted for that.

Regarding spec's: Apple has introduced a new "base" model for light use or media centre use. So the base model of 2011, 2012 cannot be compared to the base model (1.4 Ghz) of 2014. The 2.6 Ghz is the replacement of the 2012 base model. And the quad core models have been dropped, presumably because they had too many returns by those cheapskates who use it as a cheap alternative to the Mac Pro.

The new models are misunderstood and under rated. They will be still humming along long after the quad core mini's have died.

I am looking forward for my 2.8 Ghz with 256Gb SSD to arrive.
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 -> 123Macmini.com News and Reviews All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
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.