Quad core vs Dual core, and Inel graphics

Question

Level 9

51,192 points

Quad core vs Dual core, and Inel graphics

Hi all,

I’m trying to decide between a 2012 quad core 2.3GHz i7 and a 2014 dual core 2.6GHz i5. Yes, I wish they had a 2014 quad core Haswell with upgradeable RAM and a second HD bay like the 2012, plus a faster clock speed and Iris Pro graphics, but they don’t.

The main differences I see are listed below. I didn’t list the soldered on RAM in the 2014 because I’d be ordering it maxed out with 16GB of RAM. The same with the 2012; I’d be buying and installing 16GB of RAM. So in that respect, they’re even. And price comes out about the same, $900.

2012 Quad 2.3 i7 vs 2014 Dual 2.6 i5

2012 Ivy Bridge quad vs 2014 Haswell dual with slightly faster single core scores

Intel 4000 graphics vs Iris (5100)

FireWire vs 2^nd ThunderBolt 2 port

Mavericks capable vs Yosemite

802.11n Wi-Fi vs ac

I’m decided on 3-4-5. My main questions deal with cores and graphics.

Question 1 is about cores. I’ve read from some people on other sites that for my low level use (email, MS Office, browsing, Youtube) I won’t even be accessing the extra cores on the quad, and that the unmaxed dual cores with a faster clock speed and Haswell CPU should actually work faster in my situation. So that’s my question. Is that true? And is that likely to hold true in the future with the trend in apps related to my usage (the quad core should still be “unnecessary” in the next 5 years or so, given my usage)?

Question 2 is about the graphics. I’ve read wildly different estimates as to how much faster Iris is than the 4000 (anywhere from about 10% to 90%). Anyone know how much difference I’m likely to see between the two, given my usage? And is that likely to hold true in the future with the trend in apps related to my usage (higher graphics intensive apps playing that much better on Iris compared to 4000, again, given my usage)?

I’m trying to buy for now, but I tend to keep my Macs for 6-7 years, so I’m also trying to look at the future.

Any benchmarks, facts or educated opinions are welcome.

Thanks!

Posted on Oct 22, 2014 8:49 PM

Reply

Answer 1

Lanny

Level 6

13,225 points

Oct 22, 2014 9:00 PM in response to tjk

Left out of your comparison:

The 2012 MacMini's one Thunderbolt port is not a Thunderbolt 2 port, it's the original Thunderbolt.

The 2014 model is available with a Dual 3.0 i7

Reply

Answer 2

Kappy

Level 10

362,007 points

Oct 22, 2014 9:03 PM in response to tjk

All other things being equal 4-cores are twice as fast as 2-cores. This is regardless of what you are doing. The only way a 2-core processor would be as fast is if it were run at twice the clock speed. But the 2-core CPU is only clocked around 10% or so faster. Now, for all that you claim you will be doing the relevant question is do you need 4-cores. My answer is that you don't. But the 2-core machine will be slower - all things being equal.

Iris is a far better GPU than HD4 or 5000. But not as fast as a discreet GPU with better performance measures. Again, you don't really need high-power GPU. Iris should meet your needs adequately for now.

But remember you want to keep the computer for 6 or 7 years. No one knows what your needs will be then. You may find whatever you buy today that meets today's needs will be inadequate for tomorrow's.

Reply

Answer 3

tjk Author

Level 9

51,192 points

Oct 22, 2014 9:55 PM in response to Lanny

Lanny wrote:

Left out of your comparison:

The 2012 MacMini's one Thunderbolt port is not a Thunderbolt 2 port, it's the original Thunderbolt.

The 2014 model is available with a Dual 3.0 i7

Also left out the difference in L3 cache and the 2012 2.6 quad and 2.5 dual, and 2014 1.4, but your "left outs" and mine were on purpose, didn't want to make it any more complicated than it is. But thanks for pointing that out. 🙂 I've always bought PowerBooks and MacBook Pros, this will be my first mini, IF I can ever make up my mind. 😕 If not, maybe it'll be another MBP.

Reply

Answer 4

Lanny

Level 6

13,225 points

Oct 22, 2014 10:00 PM in response to tjk

All in all, the 5K 27" iMac seems to be the best bang for your buck.

Reply

Answer 5

tjk Author

Level 9

51,192 points

Oct 22, 2014 10:10 PM in response to Kappy

Kappy wrote:

All other things being equal 4-cores are twice as fast as 2-cores. This is regardless of what you are doing. The only way a 2-core processor would be as fast is if it were run at twice the clock speed. But the 2-core CPU is only clocked around 10% or so faster. Now, for all that you claim you will be doing the relevant question is do you need 4-cores. My answer is that you don't. But the 2-core machine will be slower - all things being equal.

Iris is a far better GPU than HD4 or 5000. But not as fast as a discreet GPU with better performance measures. Again, you don't really need high-power GPU. Iris should meet your needs adequately for now.

But remember you want to keep the computer for 6 or 7 years. No one knows what your needs will be then. You may find whatever you buy today that meets today's needs will be inadequate for tomorrow's.

Your comments on graphics pretty much confirm the majority of what I've been reading on other sites.

The conflict is with cores. About half the people are saying for low CPU intensive tasks 4 cores are totally unnecessary, while the other half says they'll make things faster no what the task (one thing all seem to have in common is they're totally against the 2014s).

So it seems I'm left with the decision between faster performance vs better graphics.

I appreciate your input.

Reply

Answer 6

tjk Author

Level 9

51,192 points

Oct 22, 2014 10:17 PM in response to Lanny

Lanny wrote:

All in all, the 5K 27" iMac seems to be the best bang for your buck.

Agreed, except for two things. One, I absolutely can't stand the glossy display. Two, I have a setup where my monitor is on a swivel and swings over/in front of my Lazy Boy chair and I don't think it would take the extra weight of an iMac, meaning I'd have to rebuild the whole thing, which I don't feel like doing, or buy ready made "swing arms" with the good, heavy duty ones being rather expensive. Again, thanks for your input.

Reply

Answer 7

Lanny

Level 6

13,225 points

Oct 22, 2014 10:19 PM in response to tjk

Have you ever considered the base model Mac Pro?

Reply

Answer 8

tjk Author

Level 9

51,192 points

Oct 22, 2014 10:21 PM in response to Lanny

Lanny wrote:

Have you ever considered the base model Mac Pro?

Cost too much and too big for what I want.

Reply

Answer 9

Loner T

Level 9

59,536 points

Oct 22, 2014 10:29 PM in response to tjk

I prefer Minis to iMacs. I have a couple a 2010 C2D with GT320m/SL, Mavericks on these two - 2011 - i5/AMD6630 and i7/AMD6630. I have two SATA disks, with DIY Fusion drives in the AMD ones. I can replace the monitor at any point in the future. The 2013+ MacPro cylinders are now available refurbished if you want to really scale up.

These have been very good machines and even better without Yosemite. 😉

Reply

Answer 10

Csound1

Level 9

60,063 points

Oct 23, 2014 4:12 AM in response to tjk

Apart from processing speed the 2012 is slower in all respects. It also lacks the fastest interface to the external world. It will become unsupported earlier than a 2012, and is likely to cost more for that shorter supported lifespan.

Hmm ..... such a deal.

Reply

Answer 11

Loner T

Level 9

59,536 points

Oct 23, 2014 6:25 AM in response to tjk

It would be good to know details of your usage. Otherwise the discussion will end up into hardware benchmarking and a discussion which will not help you make a decision.

All technology companies are selling upgraded hardware every year and want you buy something every year by luring you into speed traps.

You can do these type of benchmarks/comparisons all day using something like Geekbench which does not show any Usability information.

Reply

Answer 12

dwb

Level 7

33,256 points

Oct 23, 2014 6:45 AM in response to tjk

I'm of the opinion that specs and benchmarking are increasingly meaningless since few of us actually need the raw speed that benchmarks or specs reveal. For most of us the computer spends lots more time waiting for us than we do waiting for it. The new mini has a much improved graphics system and that (along with memory) are the two factors that are most likely to impact the longevity of the computer. Unless you are a programmer compiling a huge program (or involved in some other endeavor that needs raw horsepower) I suspect the new mini is your best choice.

Reply

Answer 13

tjk Author

Level 9

51,192 points

Oct 23, 2014 9:10 AM in response to Csound1

Csound1 wrote:

Apart from processing speed the 2012 is slower in all respects. It also lacks the fastest interface to the external world. It will become unsupported earlier than a 2012, and is likely to cost more for that shorter supported lifespan.

Hmm ..... such a deal.

I think you meant to use 2014 in one of the places you used 2012?

Reply

Answer 14

tjk Author

Level 9

51,192 points

Oct 23, 2014 9:22 AM in response to Loner T

Loner T wrote:

It would be good to know details of your usage. Otherwise the discussion will end up into hardware benchmarking and a discussion which will not help you make a decision.

All technology companies are selling upgraded hardware every year and want you buy something every year by luring you into speed traps.

You can do these type of benchmarks/comparisons all day using something like Geekbench which does not show any Usability information.

Mostly email, MS Office, browsing, Youtube.

Yes, I've seen one such benchmark: http://www.primatelabs.com/blog/2014/10/estimating-mac-mini-performance/

That's the question, how/where to find useability information. It's tough right now because the 2014 is so new, but I need to make a decision soon while I can still return the 2012 I purchased if I decide on a 2014.

Reply

Answer 15

tjk Author

Level 9

51,192 points

Oct 23, 2014 9:29 AM in response to dwb

dwb wrote:

I'm of the opinion that specs and benchmarking are increasingly meaningless since few of us actually need the raw speed that benchmarks or specs reveal. For most of us the computer spends lots more time waiting for us than we do waiting for it. The new mini has a much improved graphics system and that (along with memory) are the two factors that are most likely to impact the longevity of the computer. Unless you are a programmer compiling a huge program (or involved in some other endeavor that needs raw horsepower) I suspect the new mini is your best choice.

That's a question I was asking about the quad, do I really need it for my light usage (mostly email, MS Office, browsing, Youtube). RAM is equal, with both maxing out at 16GB, but graphics definitely favor the 2014. I think I may have spent too much time reading things from power users who really need the four cores. Thanks for your insights.

Reply