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 

Mac mini: 1.5GHz Core Solo vs. 1.66GHz Core Duo
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
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: 2187
Location: U.S.A

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:02 pm    Post subject: Mac mini: 1.5GHz Core Solo vs. 1.66GHz Core Duo Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
picaman
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1444
Location: NYC

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.

Confused

Jamie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
trustory
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 1316
Location: Cornwall/Devon, UK

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.

Confused

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, Confused .

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
View user's profile Send private message
resuna
Member
Member


Joined: 15 May 2005
Posts: 215

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Josh86
New Member
New Member


Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Yvan256
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 541
Location: Quebec, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:56 pm    Post subject: Real-world benchmark? Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
sunspot
New Member
New Member


Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:40 pm    Post subject: Re: Real-world benchmark? Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
iMav
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 2173
Location: Columbus, WI

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:06 pm    Post subject: Re: Real-world benchmark? Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Yvan256
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 541
Location: Quebec, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:50 pm    Post subject: Re: Real-world benchmark? Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Fox
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 2672
Location: Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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!) Smile
_________________
Mini 1 (2011): 2.3 ghz Core i5; 8 gb RAM, Corsair 240gb SSD, 500 gb Seagate XT
Mini 2 (2009): 2.26 ghz Core 2 duo, 8 gb RAM, 500 gb Seagate used as HTPC
Also a Cube, 13" MacBook Air, 20" 2.66 ghz iMac & 11.6" Acer 1810TZ running Ubuntu & Crunchbang
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
slickrick
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 442

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
bwanac
Member
Member


Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
new_mac_guy
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 65
Location: Las Cruces, NM

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:26 am    Post subject: Tests Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
gobbo
New Member
New Member


Joined: 28 Feb 2006
Posts: 8
Location: Sheffield, England

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:37 am    Post subject: Re: Tests Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
resuna
Member
Member


Joined: 15 May 2005
Posts: 215

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
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
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
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.