[NewsPoster]

The refreshed Mac mini may offer a significant dip in performance compared to earlier iterations, a report claims. A blog post from the Geekbench benchmark suite suggests that, though the new Haswell-based systems may have slightly higher single-core performance scores than the Ivy Bridge-based counterparts from late 2012, their multi-core performance will apparently suffer considerably.

Primate Labs estimated the potential Geekbench scores by guessing the Intel processor choices based on the published Mac mini specifications, combined with benchmark data from other systems. Though they are estimates created before any benchmark results for the new Mac minis were submitted, the few results that have been posted since the blog post appear to correlate closely to the estimates, suggesting they are fairly accurate.

The scores for new Mac minis appear to be between 2 percent and 8 percent better than their 2012 equivalents for single-core performance, something which is to be expected when putting similar Haswell and Ivy Bridge processors side-by-side.

The main issue with the estimates relates to multi-core performance. Some of the late-2012 Mac minis had scores extending past 10,000, while the newer minis barely make their way past 6,000, something which can be attributed to Apple's decision to use dual-core processors across the board, rather than including quad-core options like in earlier models.

While it could be argued that the switch from quad to dual-core processors may purely be a cost or power-saving measure, there may be another, more technical, reason. Report author John Poole hypothesizes that, since Ivy Bridge and earlier processors used the same sockets for the dual and quad-core versions, this allowed Apple to offer the choice of dual or quad-core chips without any major changes to the Mac mini's design. With the current Haswell processors, the dual-core processors use different sockets to the quad-core versions, and that the expense of developing two different logic boards for a low-cost computer such as the Mac mini would have been prohibitive.

Using quad-core processors across the board may have been an option to work around the socket problem, but it would most likely have forced Apple to miss out on offering a $499 Mac mini.

[prl99]

This makes sense when you're comparing the multi-core scores from a dual core to a quad core. Of course the benchmark scores will go down. The single core scores are up. When the mini is used as a server (I know, Apple isn't selling it that way), how many server processes actually benefit from a quad core? This product isn't supposed to challenge an iMac or MacPro so a dual core might be enough for the majority of applications it would be running.

[DiabloConQueso]

Servers typically run multiple processes, so even if any given single process doesn't benefit from parallelization, the system as a whole does as separate processes can take advantage of separate cores.

[msuper69]

In practical, real world use this means zilch.

[bdmarsh]

depends on what you do, encoding video with just CPUs the old quad 2.6 Core i7 mini was almost as fast as the new Mac Pro (ignoring any hard drive speed limits).

It will take a few more real-world performance tests for me to decide if I'd buy one of the new models or not.
I took one of the Core i7 quads, bumped it up to 16 GB of ram, and added a 512 GB SSD (and fusioned) all for just over $1,000. So it is a pretty quick system for what I need for a home workstation and home server (video security, plex - which does on-the-fly conversion for iOS devices, web, sftp, app caching).

I had been initially excited with the 2x Thunderbolt 2 Ports and keeping the HDMI port - maybe it could handle 3 monitors now - although Apple's website says only 2, plus expansion through the thunderbolt, and the Iris Graphics might have been a bit of an improvement over the Intel HD 4000 for the occasional game like Civ 5, or upcoming Beyond Earth... also want to see about the upgrade options from the iFixit tear apart.

[macmediausa]

Most of the people I know benefit from having more cores. Even surfing on Safari is using multiple cores when you have many windows open. When you have a bunch of apps open (but in the background), there are lots of "phantom" processes are that are running in the background and that sucks up the processor.

I have a macbook with only 4 cores and an iMac that has 8. The iMac has a slower processor but everything runs much quicker on the iMac.

The worlds best weightlifter is no match against 4 weak people if you have a car full of beer cases to unload....