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

Hello, today it won't matter that much, tomorrow you'll wish you had the faster one! 😉

The point is, which of the two is faster? See For home use would you recommend the new mini server, the plain mini or the imac?

I chose the 2.7Ghz because it also has a discrete GPU. Like you, I have 8GB of ram and a 512 GB Crucial SSD. The 2010 mini is going to handle the mail server, proxy server, jabber server, VPN server, web server and what not. I felt that the dual core faster and GPU will better address my situation.

I've seen no benchmarks on the quad-core i7 server Mini yet, but I'm buying one next week, simply because it is likely to be faster than the dual-core i7 version. I have computationally intensive software, but not the budget for a MacPro. I played with a Mini i7 dual-core at the Apple Store today, and I'm favorably impressed. The quad-core is likely to be even faster for my needs. I concur on the SSD and 8GB. Have fun!

Ridgecritter, can you do some benchmarking on the server when you get it? Would like to see the GeekBench results to decide between this and the dual 2.7.

Thanks in advance.

I ordered the quad core server edition too and coming on 4th august.

I will post the speed test results if it's not too late. :)

my dilemma is if i go 2.7ghz i5 with 8gb of ram and the 750gb (7200rpd), after i buy the magic mouse and the keyboard, i'm already into $1367.00....

where as if i got a imac for $1399.00 i'm looking at a 2.5ghz i5 quad core with 8gb ram and a 500gb hard drive, with the amd graphic chip. plus i'm also getting a 21.5" led screen. where as with the mini i would have to hook it up to my existing monitor or even share it with my existing computer.

i love the look of the mini, but it is really hard for me to justify spending that much money having to buy all the "extra's", just have a working computer. when i can just pony up $32.00 more and get a whole sytem...

please help me to justify buying a mac mini.

First of all the 2.7 is an i7. After that, you could save some money by getting 4GB of ram and a 500 GB HD and then ummm later upgrading it your self. Then Sell the ram on ebay and put the 500 in an external case. I did that to all three of my macs. Then I put the two 500 GB drives in a raid enclosure for a backup unit and the 320GB holds a backup untouched copy of the OS. Works goodman.jpg. I put SSD's in the macs They Fly now.

that's an interesting approach. thank you.

I bought a Crucial 8GB kit on amazon for 68 dollars. The ram is a simple swap. The hard drive on the 2010 was a little bit of work but the new one is simpler and highly doable.I put in SSDs the performance is outstanding, But the price is high. The Crucial 500GB and it cost 900 dollars. But looking on the internet I see this:

Western Digital WD Caviar Black 1.5 TB SATA 3 Gb/s 7200 RPM 64 MB Cache Bulk/OEM Desktop Hard Drive WD1501FASS For 75 bucks delivered. I hope I am not breaking any rules suggesting this. Because I love all my macs. Enjoy. I'll be interested to hear your decision.

Hi,

this is a 'normal' 3½" hard drive.

There aren't HDs over 1TB for laptops - yet.

MFW opps. I'll blame it on amazon's query results. haha. In any event the course of action I am suggesting remains valid. You can find a great hard drive spinning at 7200 with a big cache for a good price and you can pick the one that is going to give you the best balance of cost, size and speed. I went like Admiral Farragut "**** the torpedoes! full speed ahead.". I like to just cry once. Sorry for the crappy research!

OK, I just completed the build and I have the new mini 2.7Ghz i7 dual core updated to the crucial 512GB SSD and additionally to 8GB ram as I suggested earlier. It is running Lion Server right now and thats about it. I installed geekbench and I get a score of 7578. My MacMini 2.4 Ghz Core 2 Duo with a toshiba 128SSd and 8GB of 1066 achived a 3037. My 13" MacbookPro a 2.53Ghz Core 2 Duo and a 256 GB SSD sadly scored a 2838. There Might have been tasks running that affected these scores but it looks like the new mini is just shy of 2.5 times errr more gooder. About exactly where I expected. I hope this info is useful to somebody. That's it for now.

Thanks for testing the 2.7 i7 dual core here is the scores for anyone interested that has the i5 and the quad core i7 geek bench scores

For just base computing comparison, you may want

to google the comparison between the MBP 2.7 13"

2.7 GHz i7 vs. the 15" 2.0 GHz quad core.

If your focus is on computing power, comparing these

may help. Both have the same processors as the Mini's

in question. There are many tests done with many apps.

The reality is, if the apps you use most often do not

make use of multiple cores, and by nature, never will,

they will perform poorer on the quad core machine.

Photoshop is a prime example, as many of the filters

are not or don't lend themselves to multithreading.

However, video apps like Handbrake, will eat as many

cores as you can throw at it.