Hosted by site sponsor WebMate.
Aluminum "Unibody" Mac mini Q&A
Published November 10, 2012
All Mac Q&As >> Aluminum Mac mini Q&A (Home)
To be notified of new Q&As, sign up for EveryMac.com's bimonthly email list.
How fast are the "Late 2012" Aluminum "Unibody" Mac mini models compared to one another and to the "Mid-2011" models replaced?
Please note that the "Mid-2011" and "Late 2012" Mac mini models have been discontinued. However, this Q&A is up-to-date and can be quite helpful to anyone buying or selling one of these systems on the used market.
In the company press release, Apple formally declares that the "Late 2012" Aluminum Mac mini models -- the Mac mini "Core i5" 2.5, "Core i7" 2.3, "Core i7" 2.6, "Core i7" 2.3 (Server), and "Core i7" 2.6 (Server) -- are "up to twice as fast and have integrated graphics that are up to 65 percent faster" than the "Mid-2011" Aluminum Mac mini models replaced.
Official Performance & Analysis
With even a cursory review of the differences between the "Late 2012" Aluminum Mac mini models and the "Mid-2011" models replaced -- the Mac mini "Core i5" 2.3 (Mid-2011), "Core i5" 2.5 (Mid-2011), "Core i7" 2.7 (Mid-2011) and "Core i7" 2.0 Server (Mid-2011) -- it should be clear from the above that Apple is cheekily comparing one of the more expensive "Quad Core" Core i7 "Late 2012" Mac mini models to the slowest and cheapest "Dual Core" Core i5 "Mid-2011" discontinued model.
In fine print, Apple specifies that testing used "preproduction [Late 2012] 2.3 GHz quad-core Intel Core i7-based Mac mini units and [then] shipping [Mid-2011] 2.5 GHz dual-core Intel Core i5-based Mac mini units, all configured with 4 GB RAM." In other words, in a selection of tests, the high-end stock "Late 2012" model that costs US$799 is much faster than the previous year's entry-level model that sold for US$599.
The company also is comparing the slow and integrated Intel HD Graphics 4000 in all of the "Late 2012" Mac mini models to the also slow and integrated Intel HD Graphics 3000 in the entry-level "Mid-2011" model. Had the company compared the dedicated AMD Radeon HD 6630M graphics in the "Mid-2011" high-end models -- the Mac mini "Core i5" 2.5 (Mid-2011) and "Core i7" 2.7 (Mid-2011) -- to the integrated Intel HD Graphics 4000 in the "Late 2012" high-end models, no doubt the test results would not be something any company would want to use in advertising.
In fine print, Apple clarifies that graphics testing used "preproduction [Late 2012] 2.5 GHz dual-core Intel Core i5-based Mac mini units with Intel HD Graphics 4000 and 512 MB graphics memory, and [then] shipping [Mid-2011] 2.3 GHz dual-core Intel Core i5-based Mac mini units with Intel HD Graphics 3000 and 384 MB graphics memory, all configured with 4 GB RAM."
Although these officially provided results technically are accurate, they don't really reflect an "apples to apples" comparison, so to speak. For a more objective comparison separate from a company's marketing department, independent benchmarks and tests are required.
General Objective Performance Overview
For a solid general overview of the performance differences between the "Late 2012" Mac mini models and earlier models as well as other Macs, EveryMac.com's own Ultimate Mac Comparison makes it quick to compare side-by-side 32-bit and 64-bit Geekbench benchmark averages with all other G3 and later Macs for thousands of possible -- and objective -- performance comparisons.
The Geekbench benchmark shows that the stock entry-level Mac mini "Core i5" 2.5 (Late 2012), which only has dual cores, is a whopping 37% and 41% slower than the stock high-end quad core Mac mini "Core i7" 2.3 (Late 2012) and custom configured Mac mini "Core i7" 2.6 (Late 2012), respectively.
Geekbench benchmarks also show that the entry-level "Late 2012" model is 14% faster than the entry-level model replaced -- the Mac mini "Core i5" 2.3 (Mid-2011), the stock high-end "Late 2012" model is a massive 65% faster than the stock high-end model replaced -- the Mac mini "Core i5" 2.5 (Mid-2011) (6472) -- and the custom-configured high-end "Late 2012" model is an equally massive 63% faster than the also custom configured model replaced -- the Mac mini "Core i7" 2.7 (Mid-2011).
These overall performance results comparing the entry level to entry level, high-end to high-end, and custom configurations to one another still are quite impressive -- as one would expect when largely comparing Quad Core models to Dual Core ones -- just not quite as dramatic as the officially reported results.
Other Real-World Test Results
Other real-world test results also can be useful, particularly for application testing and graphics performance, as these tests tend to be more modest than the theoretical maximum performance that benchmarks represent.
As the "Late 2012" Mac mini models were outwardly different only modestly from the previous line, they did not attract a great deal of detailed evaluation across the blogosphere, but the industry-standard Macworld also hit the line with its Speedmark 8 test and found:
The new [US]$599 Mac mini was 31 percent faster in our Speedmark 8 tests than its 2011 predecessor. The new system was faster in all of our tests, but its processor-intensive test results were only slightly higher. . . The new [US]$799 2.3 GHz quad-core Core i7 Mac mini is 37 percent faster than its 2011 predecessor.
For graphics performance, specifically, Macworld uncovered:
The HD Graphics 4000 is much better at delivering high frame rates in games than the HD Graphics 3000 processor used previously, but it falls far short of the performance of the discrete AMD Radeon HD 6630M graphic processor. In our Portal 2 test, the new entry-level Mac mini was 27 percent faster than the previous low-end model. However, the previous high-end model with its AMD Radeon discrete graphics was 24 percent faster than the new high-end Mac mini with the integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics.
Performance Summary
Ultimately, the "Late 2012" Mac mini models are much faster overall than their predecessors and are a solid product. However, the integrated graphics -- in both the "Late 2012" and "Mid-2011" models -- while fast enough for most users, still leave much to be desired for those interested in 3D graphics performance. No company would want to run "This year's high-end model has 24% slower 3D graphics than the previous year's high-end model!" as advertising copy.
Consequently, for those interested in a Mac mini with dedicated graphics, the "Mid-2011" models still are well worth consideration on the used market. Likewise, the "Late 2012" models are well worth consideration on the used market, as well, but are a better choice for those more interested in overall performance rather than graphics performance, per se.
Mac mini Purchase Options
There are many places to purchase a used or new Mac mini. However, buying from a quality merchant with an extensive track record in the Mac market will provide the best experience and save you money and time, too.
In the US, site sponsor Adorama sells new Mac mini models with free shipping. Other World Computing sells used and refurb Mac mini models at bargain prices with free shipping, as well. Finally, if you need to sell a Mac mini, A+ BBB-rated Cash for Your Mac will buy your older Mac mini with an instant quote and prompt payment.
In the UK, site sponsor Hoxton Macs sells used Mac mini models with a one-year warranty and free next day delivery throughout the UK. Delivery across Europe also is available starting at just £9.99 for two-day delivery to France and Germany.
Please refer to the Ultimate Mac Comparison feature to dynamically compare the Geekbench performance of any Mac mini model to any other G3 or later Mac.
Permalink | Report an Error/Typo | Sign Up for Site Update Notices
Suggest a New Q&A | Sign Up for Bimonthly Site Update Notices
<< Aluminum "Unibody" Mac mini Q&A (Main) | All Mac Q&As
Established in 1996, EveryMac.com has been created by experts with decades of experience with Apple hardware. EveryMac.com includes, and always has included, original research incorporating detailed, hands-on inspection of packaging, computers, and devices as well as extensive real-world use. All information is provided in good faith, but no website or person is perfect. Accordingly, EveryMac.com is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind whatsoever. EveryMac.com, and the authors thereof, shall not be held responsible or liable, under any circumstances, for any damages resulting from the use or inability to use the information within. For complete disclaimer and copyright information please read and understand the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy before using EveryMac.com. Copying, scraping, or use of any content without expressed permission is not allowed, although links to any page are welcomed and appreciated.