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

64 replies

Loner T

Level 9

59,536 points

Oct 23, 2014 9:35 AM in response to tjk

If you have the opportunity/window to return the 2012, I will recommend the 2014 for the extra TB port. If you need FW, you can always buy a TB-to-FW adapter. Your activities would not see any perceptible difference between the 2012 or 2014 (if they both have an SSD component), but you will get more modern HW with the 2014. There is a 1TB Fusion drive (+200), which has a 120GB SSD (PCIe) + 5400rpm SATA HDD on a 6GB SATA. In the future, you can always replace it.

Also, please take a look at the 2014 Teardown at https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Mac+Mini+Late+2014+Teardown/30410.

Csound1

Level 9

60,063 points

Oct 23, 2014 9:43 AM in response to tjk

tjk wrote:

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?

Yup, the second instance should read 29014, thanks.

Csound1

Level 9

60,063 points

Oct 23, 2014 9:48 AM in response to tjk

I would say no, you don't need a quad core for your tasks. 3D rendering maybe, but not email and browsing.

And although the current frenzy (if it lasts long enough) should keep the prices of the old ones artificially high for a while they will decline

tjk Author

Level 9

51,192 points

Oct 23, 2014 9:49 AM in response to Loner T

Loner T wrote:

If you have the opportunity/window to return the 2012, I will recommend the 2014 for the extra TB port. If you need FW, you can always buy a TB-to-FW adapter. Your activities would not seen perceptible difference between the 2012 or 2014, but you will get more modern HW with the 2014. There is a 1TB Fusion drive (+200), which will more than likely have a 120GB SSD+5400rpm HDD on a 6GB SATA. In the future, you can always replace it.

Also, please take a look at the 2014 Teardown at https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Mac+Mini+Late+2014+Teardown/30410.

I know I don't need to TB2 ports right now, but that certainly could change in the future. I didn't include TB in my decision criteria (just cores/speed and graphics) because I could use the TB to FW adapter (most of my peripherals are FW, and I don't want to buy new TB backup drives at this time, especially for the price).

Not so sure about the setup of the Fusion drive. It says 128GB "flash storage" which could be an SSD or PCIe. I haven't seen a tear down for a model with the fusion drive yet, but ifixit did do one, as you stated, on the base model 1.4 and suggested there is only room for a HDD form factor and a PCIe blade SSD. We'll see for sure when they tear down one with fusion drive. I didn't include the drive in the comparison because I could always add an SSD in the future if the mini didn't seem fast enough. Thanks for the info.

Csound1

Level 9

60,063 points

Oct 23, 2014 9:52 AM in response to tjk

tjk wrote:

Not so sure about the setup of the Fusion drive. It says 128GB "flash storage" which could be an SSD or PCIe.

SSD is a storage medium, PCIe is a transport system, it is probably both (I assume you meant SATA rather then SSD)

tjk Author

Level 9

51,192 points

Oct 23, 2014 9:54 AM in response to Csound1

Csound1 wrote:

I would say no, you don't need a quad core for your tasks. 3D rendering maybe, but not email and browsing.

And although the current frenzy (if it lasts long enough) should keep the prices of the old ones artificially high for a while they will decline

I'm beginning to come to that conclusion.

I was wondering about the price decline. I actually go my 2012 new still in the box for $679.

Csound1

Level 9

60,063 points

Oct 23, 2014 9:56 AM in response to tjk

How much and when is not something that can be pinned down very accurately.

tjk Author

Level 9

51,192 points

Oct 23, 2014 9:56 AM in response to Csound1

Csound1 wrote:

tjk wrote:

Not so sure about the setup of the Fusion drive. It says 128GB "flash storage" which could be an SSD or PCIe.

SSD is a storage medium, PCIe is a transport system, it is probably both (I assume you meant SATA rather then SSD)

Sorry, I meant PCIe blade SSD. According to ifixit's tear down, there doesn't appear to be room for two 2.5" form factor drives.

tjk Author

Level 9

51,192 points

Oct 23, 2014 9:58 AM in response to Csound1

Csound1 wrote:

How much and when is not something that can be pinned down very accurately.

Agreed. That's why I'm looking for some educated opinions, to see what others with experience think.

tjk Author

Level 9

51,192 points

Oct 23, 2014 1:52 PM in response to Loner T

Loner T wrote:

even better without Yosemite. 😉

I agree. That's one I put in my plus column for the 2012 quad core, the ability to run Mavericks. I have no need nor desire to install Yosemite.

Csound1

Level 9

60,063 points

Oct 23, 2014 3:40 PM in response to tjk

Why?

It's faster than Mavericks on my Mcas

tjk Author

Level 9

51,192 points

Oct 24, 2014 1:36 PM in response to Csound1

Csound1 wrote:

Why?

It's faster than Mavericks on my Mcas

I don't like the overall look, especially the translucence in some places. The reading I've done on it suggests the biggest changes are for iOS devices, of which I have none. And Safari, which I don't use. Interesting that it works faster for you. May I ask in what areas you feel it's faster, and on what Mac? Right now I'm on an early 2008 MBP (hence it's new Mac time) and Mavericks is definitely slower than 10.6.8, which was the previous OS I was on. If Yosemite might be faster on that, it would be worth it.

Csound1

Level 9

60,063 points

Oct 24, 2014 1:43 PM in response to tjk

tjk wrote:

Csound1 wrote:

Why?

It's faster than Mavericks on my Mcas

I don't like the overall look, especially the translucence in some places.

That's a matter of taste, not a question of better or worse.

Loner T

Level 9

59,536 points

Oct 24, 2014 1:44 PM in response to tjk

tjk wrote:

Right now I'm on an early 2008 MBP (hence it's new Mac time) and Mavericks is definitely slower than 10.6.8, which was the previous OS I was on. If Yosemite might be faster on that, it would be worth it.

I would suggest either an SSD replace the HDD, or falling back to SL.

tjk Author

Level 9

51,192 points

Oct 24, 2014 1:51 PM in response to Loner T

Loner T wrote:

tjk wrote:

Right now I'm on an early 2008 MBP (hence it's new Mac time) and Mavericks is definitely slower than 10.6.8, which was the previous OS I was on. If Yosemite might be faster on that, it would be worth it.

I would suggest either an SSD replace the HDD, or falling back to SL.

I was thinking about an SSD, but I have only a 1.5Gbps HD interface, so I wonder how much good an SSD would do me. As far as SL, I'd love to stay on it. I think it's the best OS Apple ever offered. BUT, it's no longer supported by Apple, meaning no more security updates, which is what led me kicking and screaming to Mavericks. 😉

This thread has been closed by the system or the community team. You may vote for any posts you find helpful, or search the Community for additional answers.

Quad core vs Dual core, and Inel graphics