Filip Novotny Last week, Apple introduced two new generations of computers. The all-in-one iMac family has grown by the highest model with Retina display and the compact Mac mini then received a much-needed hardware update (albeit a smaller one than some would imagine). Benchmark results Geekbench they now show that not all change is necessarily for the better.
In the lower of the offered retina iMacs, we can find an Intel Core i5 processor with a clock frequency of 3,5 GHz. Compared to the previous model from the end of 2012 (Core i5 3,4 GHz), it shows Geekbench very slight performance boost. A similar comparison for the higher available iMac with Retina display is not yet available, but its 4 gigahertz processor from the Core i7 series should provide a more noticeable improvement over the current offering.
This subtle increase in performance is due to the higher clock frequency of the processors. However, it is still the same family of Intel chips labeled Haswell. We can expect greater improvements in performance only during 2015, when the new Broadwell series processors will be available.
The situation is somewhat different with the compact Mac mini. According to Geekbench namely, the expected acceleration did not come along with the hardware update. If the process uses only one core, we can observe a very slight increase in performance (2-8%), but if we employ more cores, the new Mac mini lags behind the previous generation by up to 80 percent.
This slowdown is due to the fact that the new Mac mini does not use quad-core, but dual-core processors. According to the company Primate Labs, which develops the Geekbench test, the reason for using fewer core processors is the transition to a newer generation of Intel processors with a Haswell chip. Unlike the previous generation labeled Ivy Bridge, it does not use the same socket for all processor models.
According to Primate Labs, Apple probably wanted to avoid making multiple motherboards with different sockets. The second possible reason is a bit more practical – the manufacturer of the Mac mini might not have achieved the required margins with quad-core processors while keeping the starting price of $499.
In transition, Mini did not have four cores in the basic $599 configuration, and no one expected it to be included in the $499 configuration.
So maybe the problem here is that even the more expensive variants don't have 4-core CPUs... so yes, the article (author) is right in that the new Mac Minis are significantly less powerful than their predecessors from 2012.
well, no one expected that instead of 2,5GHz there would be only 1,4GHz and the soldered-on memory, and if you take a mini with 8GB of RAM (that's because 4 are Apple-like small) then you're at $599 too and the performance is also rapidly less and I don't know whether the old model did not have two disk controllers and thus the possibility of expansion.
I'll answer myself, yes, the older minis had two controllers and, of course, the option of two disks. So, what else could Apple want for the new mini, totally robbed and crippled? Even $599 is too much for such a crippled machine
repair $499 and therefore
we wanted a new mac mini, so here we have it. really a shame :-(
Otherwise, I expect that the highest configuration of the iMac, on the contrary, will be much faster than all the ones sold so far. Unless there was a problem with cooling and the i7-4790K was just there for decoration.
the highest configuration of the imac will cost 120. I would have thought about that for the price tag.
In terms of CPU, it can be maxed out for me...
Otherwise, the iMac beats the Pro in singlethread and resolution, the Pro is of course in a different category in multithread, reliability and expandability.
iMac 5K, i7, 512SSD, R9 295X, 8GB RAM CZK 90. + CZK 000 for 4000GB of RAM
The speed of the 4790K 4.0GHz compared to the 4770K 3.5GHz is about 10% higher
What I can't find is the performance of the new graphics compared to the previous GF 780M. Didn't anyone find it?
Mac Pro is beautiful, but where to get a beautiful 5K monitor to go with it. Only from December will DELL start selling it for CZK 65000...
So for me, the clear choice is the iMac 5K.
But when there is a Thuderbold 3 that can handle a 5K monitor and Apple will offer such a monitor….
I can't feel the monitor. the resolution is wonderful, but in my opinion it is unnecessary. I have a retina macbook pro and I'm satisfied, but in my opinion the 27" resolution is so terribly large that it's unnecessary. 3840×2160 would be quite rich enough and it would be fine that the pixels would not be recognizable. moreover, there is simply no support for such a distinction. those who use parallels or bootcamp on windows have made a mistake because they will have to use a magnifying glass to see the icons at all.
Well, it was the MB Pro with Retina that led me to the iMac 5K. Every time I look at the iMac after working on the laptop, the monitor seems blurry. The worst thing is on reduced tables, my eyes could still tolerate smaller letters, but they simply don't fit on the monitor anymore due to the resolution. I'm curious how the windows will move smoothly on a computer monitor that has to control 14.7 million pixels, albeit with a great, but still mobile R9 M295X graphics.
The new graphics card is 8% faster compared to the GT 780M
Do you have a link to the source?