2.7GHz Dual-Core Intel Core i7 vs 2.0GHz quad-core Intel Core i7

Here is a link to GeekBenchs Mac comparisons page. http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/ Additionally, My mid 2009 13" 2.53 core 2 duo scored a more respectable 3590 jupii! I wish xbensh ran on my lions. So I could see the rresult of my SSDs. I agree with the observation on the types of applications being run and the number actually running as shown in the terminal using top for instance. In my case the older mini sits in the back doing all the mundane work while the Macbook can run a remotedesktop and handle the mail and money. Leaving the MaxMini(2.7 2core) for fun. The other thing to rmember with the 2.Ghz quad is it does not have the discrete GPU since along with the quad core the machine is marketed as a server. I am very happy with "the feel" for sure.

Ok, a little confused now, this graph says the mini got a 9573 score on GB. But Hokahay said only 7578, and on the GB site, the mini is giving 9456 for the quad and 7758 for the 2.7. Guess the results are nominally different. Still that quad score is pretty smoking! Really wish that AMD was in there, im needing some GPU power for live webstreaming, and not sure this Intel will cut it...

wicht one should i use to run Pro Tools 9?

just recieved my mini core i7 quad server and in the free mode of geekbench 32bit it scored 8799 will the score go up in the 64bit mode ?

For a fresh cocmparision, I ran Geekbench 64 again on my 2.7GHz dual-Core i7 mid 2011 mac mini sporting 8 GB 1333 ram and a 512GB Crucial SSHD with Lion and it scored 6909.

A fresh run of XBench with the thread test disabled yeilds 378.82.

dmule

One perspective on a macmini vs a "complete system" ...

My MacBookPro (I needed a *portable* system, not stationary) has a nice 1680x1050 display (antiglare) and the funky backlit keyboard.

Pretty, portable.

Bu screen replacement is likley in the neighborhood of $1000 (just guessing). And is never upgradeable.

With iMac it is the same ... non-upgradeable display.

MacMini focuses on the core system, and you get to swap display and keyboard at will, and cheaply.

It would be wise for you to go with the mac mini 2.7ghz with the AMD gpu. Thats gonna make everything run smoother. Also keep in mind that Mac OS X is a graphical operating system that requires a great GPU. The HD 3000 is an intergrated video card that uses the systems memory and it will not be a good as the AMD.

Sure the serve has a quad core i7 but with no video card its not a well balanced system.

I bought a mac mini 2.7ghz and I've added both 8gb and a 7200rpm hdd and it scored a solid and strong 8200 on geekbench. If I'm correct the server will score about 1,200 higher but thats with out a dedicated video card.

Also I do a ton of video editing and video converting and this core i7 flies through them. Keep in mind that I'm comparing it to late 2008 macbook with 2.4ghz duo core.

mac mini 2.7ghz would convert a 1.5gb movie file into a different format in about 20 mins. System remains smooth.

macbook 2.4ghz would convert the same file in an hour and 20 minutes and the whole system would bogggg down.

So i say go with the top of the line mac mini and make sure you get the core i7 to get that extra horsepower and you'll be happy with the AMD instead of the hd3000. Trust me !

As another point of reference, I recently purchased a Thunderbolt

display and also the Mini Server quad core i7. Now, my application

is primarily an engineering work station. I use Parallels quite often

running Windows7 Pro. With 2 cores assigned to the virtual machine

and 2 for OSX, I have no system slowdown whatsoever when moving

back and forth between environments. The hardware simulations

that I do in Windows flies while I do CAD work on the Mac side.

There is also no video lag on the Windows side when I am doing

schematic or PCB layout.

I also, use Photoshop on it for processing my photos and sharpening

and and also Neat Image processing is almost instantaneous.

(34-35 meg images)

I have also done some Handbrake conversions of DVD level

video and have had conversion frame rates of 35-40. Settings

were High Profile, Constant Quality of 17.

Also, I have 8 gig of RAM installed which allots 512 meg to the

graphics card. I also, have server functions turned off.

64 bit Geekbench score of 9250.

There was some hiccup when I wanted to edit

my above comment, but in my opinion the

bottom line is:

GPU intensive -> i7 dual core with 6630M

CPU intensive -> i7 quad core, with server functions

functions turned off

If you need both, you need the top of the line iMac!!!

well i have had my mini server for 2 months or so and it has been great very fast no problems at all i would recomend getting one and i dont use it as a server

I had the top of the line iMac and loved it when it worked. I purchased it in June, and from September till now it kept on freezing up and just about every hardware componet in the unit failed. I have had great luck with Macs since 2003, but after they tried to repair it 3 times and 2 logic board later I said no to iMac's for now. I went with the Mac Mini i7 with SSD Drive and hardrive combo, and 8gigs of memory along with the Thunderbolt display. With this combo, I don't notice too much difference for what I am doing which is more with pictures/music and HD video. I will in the future, go back but for now I think Apple needs to look at a better supplier for there logics boards etc..

SSD Failure first time

Memory replacement second time

SSD Drive second time, Logics board etc

Logics board second time around, and then Apple said it couldn't be fixed. Apple gave

me in store credit, so I bought a decked out Mini, wanted the Quad Core i7 but they should allow

a better video card option, so I went with Dual Core and better video card for now, as I was told

it would look better on the Thunderbolt display.

get the iMac!

I just replaced my 2007 iMac with a 2.5 GHz i5 mini after the iMac's LCD panel started sporting lovely blue pinstripes. It's a shame to have to dump a perfectly good computer just because it is not cost-effective to replace its display. As to performance, at least the new mini is faster with my software development tools than the older iMac (which wasn't slow), so I've actually gained something on the performance side over what I had.

The bottom line is, if you need more system power than you can get from a mini, then you would need an iMac (be sure to get the extended protection plan). Otherwise, if you don't really need an expensive disposal computer, you might consider a mini if it will perform to your requirements.

if you don't care about smooth graphics the mini is OK. but if you do want a powerfull machine the iMac or the Mac Pro is the only option.

The mac mini is really a compromise. you can either choose to have OK graphics and a slow CPU or slow intel graphics with a fast CPU. you can't have both unfortunately.

with the iMac you get fast CPU and good graphics but the downside is that it's an all in one so if one part fails you have to replace the whole unit. Still, at 1800,- bucks that's not too bad even if you don't count the screen that's worth 999,-

the only other option would be a mac pro 🙂