| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: U.S.A
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:02 pm Post subject: Mac mini: 1.5GHz Core Solo vs. 1.66GHz Core Duo |
 |
|
Mac mini: 1.5GHz Core Solo vs. 1.66GHz Core Duo
Tuesday March 7, 2006
Posted by: Brian
I finally had a chance to put together a few benchmarks comparing the 1.5GHz Core Solo and 1.66GHz Core Duo Mac minis. Last Friday, I posted some scores comparing the 1.42GHz G4 and 1.66GHz Core Duo Mac minis. Once again, I used Xbench, Geekbench, and Cinebench for testing the 1.5GHz Core Solo Mac mini. The scores for the 1.66GHz Core Duo Mac mini were carried over from the first round of testing. Both of the new Intel-based Mac minis were tested straight out of the box.
Go here for the scores...
http://www.123macmini.com/news/story/455.html
Last edited by admin on Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:29 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
picaman
Veteran Member
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1444
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting that the XBench disk scores went down for the Core Duo machine.
I'm also a bit surprised that the graphics scores for the Core Duo aren't that much higher than the Core Solo scores in some cases.
Jamie |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trustory
Veteran Member
Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 1316
Location: Cornwall/Devon, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| picaman wrote: | I'm also a bit surprised that the graphics scores for the Core Duo aren't that much higher than the Core Solo scores in some cases.
Jamie |
its probably because the integrated graphics has its own processor (so doesnt steal the cpu power) and the fact the same amount if ram was used, so theres not much between them. I think im rite in saying that, .
but the core duo blitzes the solo in the cpu scores
_________________
MacBook 1.83Ghz C2D, 2GB Ram, 160GB 7200rpm HDD, OS X 10.6.5
Harman Kardon Soundsticks II
Elgato EyeTV
iPhone 4 Black 16GB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
resuna
Member
Joined: 15 May 2005
Posts: 215
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would have hoped for a bigger difference between the solo and the duo for hardware lighting, since the duo should be able to emulate the lighting on one core while running the benchmark on the other. But...
| Quote: | | Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) 448 543 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Josh86
New Member
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| resuna wrote: | | Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) 448 543 |
That's almost 100 point difference. I'm not familiar with the Cinebench test, but wouldn't that represent over a 20% increase? What does like an iMac score? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yvan256
Veteran Member
Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 541
Location: Quebec, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:56 pm Post subject: Real-world benchmark? |
|
|
| Can we have World of Warcraft benchmarks, please? (between the three models - G4/1.42, Core Solo, Core Duo). All three with 1GB RAM would be a better test... (and maybe add a Core Duo/2GB test just for fun) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sunspot
New Member
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:40 pm Post subject: Re: Real-world benchmark? |
|
|
| Yvan256 wrote: | | . All three with 1GB RAM would be a better test... (and maybe add a Core Duo/2GB test just for fun) |
TOTALLY disagree, it's nice to see them being tested in the default configurations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iMav
Veteran Member
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 2173
Location: Columbus, WI
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:06 pm Post subject: Re: Real-world benchmark? |
|
|
| sunspot wrote: | | TOTALLY disagree, it's nice to see them being tested in the default configurations. |
I ALWAYS like to see benchmarks on the fully pimped out systems...Simply because that is how MINE will always be configured.
_________________
-=iMav=-
http://geekhack.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yvan256
Veteran Member
Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 541
Location: Quebec, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:50 pm Post subject: Re: Real-world benchmark? |
|
|
| sunspot wrote: | | Yvan256 wrote: | | All three with 1GB RAM would be a better test... (and maybe add a Core Duo/2GB test just for fun) |
TOTALLY disagree, it's nice to see them being tested in the default configurations. |
Default configurations are nice, but this is for a World of Warcraft test... And it doesn't run well with only 512MB. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Veteran Member
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 2639
Location: Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm actually surprised as to how much better the duo scored than the solo. I wouldn't have expected this because of memory limitation and the fact that the second processor frequently doesn't come into play in many tasks. This has me leaning towards the duo for an Intel Mini purchase. However, the big issue for me is performance in Rosetta because much of the software I will be using won't be in universal binary for awhile. I'd like to see some comparisons in real world operation with software that would run on Rosetta, including common office tasks. (Hint, Brian!) 
_________________
Mini 1: 2.3 ghz Core i5; 8 gb RAM, Corsair 240gb SSD, 500 gb Seagate XT
Mini 2: 2.26 ghz Core 2 duo, 8 gb RAM, 500 gb Seagate
Also a Cube, 13" MacBook Air, 20" 2.66 ghz iMac & 11.6" Acer 1810TZ running Ubuntu, Mint & openSuse |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slickrick
Senior Member
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 441
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Core Duo numbers look more impressive than the Solo, but some of them are closer than I thought they would be. I'm sitting on the fence waiting for the Revision B MacIntels. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bwanac
Member
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 72
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| slickrick wrote: | | The Core Duo numbers look more impressive than the Solo, but some of them are closer than I thought they would be. I'm sitting on the fence waiting for the Revision B MacIntels. |
Ditto. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
new_mac_guy
Member
Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 65
Location: Las Cruces, NM
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:26 am Post subject: Tests |
|
|
I'll be interested to see a test of MS Office 2004 running on either new Intel Mini via Rosetta. How it compares with my 1.5 MHz "old" Mac Mini....
_________________
Tom in New Mexico |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gobbo
New Member
Joined: 28 Feb 2006
Posts: 8
Location: Sheffield, England
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:37 am Post subject: Re: Tests |
|
|
| new_mac_guy wrote: | | I'll be interested to see a test of MS Office 2004 running on either new Intel Mini via Rosetta. How it compares with my 1.5 MHz "old" Mac Mini.... |
If its anything like it is on the iMacs, not very well! Slow to load up, but once the app is open and running in memory its fine.
_________________
Mac Mini 1.5Ghz Core Solo
1Gb RAM
Dell 2405FPW
Logitech Z-680 5.1 THX Speakers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
resuna
Member
Joined: 15 May 2005
Posts: 215
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| slickrick wrote: | | I'm sitting on the fence waiting for the Revision B MacIntels. |
Don't hold your breath.
I'm beginning to seriously consider an iMac, and I hate the all-in-one form factor (can't use a KVM with one, to begin with). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Photo Gallery
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
