I must be misunderstanding these results

[MikeFromMesa]

I spent some time trying to decide between buying a new Mac Pro, base model, and a new Mac Mini, well configured model. In the end, due to the difference in cost, I bought the Mini but always felt some regret that I did not spend the extra money for the extra power. However I was browsing the GeekBench test results and what I found truly surprised me. The Mac Mini (dual core i7, like mine) generated a test score of 3079 while the Mac Pro (Xeon 6 core) generated a test score of 3211. The difference does not seem all that great.

I have always thought of the Pro as a very powerful machine. I understand that there is more to the power of a desktop than just the benchmark figures, the Pro has dual graphics cards and is expandable, but still ... Is not the Pro much more significantly powerful than the Mini? Why the small difference in benchmark scores? In fact the iMacs score much higher than the Pro and that also surprised me. What am I missing?

 

[pigoo3]

The Mac Mini (dual core i7, like mine) generated a test score of 3079 while the Mac Pro (Xeon 6 core) generated a test score of 3211. The difference does not seem all that great.

Is not the Pro much more significantly powerful than the Mini? Why the small difference in benchmark scores? In fact the iMacs score much higher than the Pro and that also surprised me. What am I missing?

I believe what's being missed is the benchmark scores mentioned above are "per core" scores. The Mac-Mini has 2 cores…the Mac Pro has 6 cores. Thus the total benchmark score for each computer (taking all cores into consideration) is:

- Mac-Mini (2 cores) = 7308
- Mac Pro (6 cores) = 20654

If you're doing computing tasks that utilize all available cores…the 6-core Mac Pro is going to be MUCH faster. Plus the Mac Pro has much better graphics hardware. But if you're doing CPU intense tasks…and only 1-2 cores are used (email, internet browsing, etc.). Then there won't necessarily be a lot of difference.

- Nick

p.s. Depending where each of us got our benchmarks scores…there may be some small differences.

 

[Slydude]

Some go the guys spend more time with these scores than I do but some of the difference, particularly in real-world day-to-day terms, may be in the software. I seem to recall reading something when the new Mac Pros (a.k.a trash cans) first arrived that much of the software typical users have did not really take full advantage of the extra power in the Pro models.

I can tell you from experience that nothing I have done so far really pushes my 2015 iMac.

 

[pigoo3]

I seem to recall reading something when the new Mac Pros (a.k.a trash cans) first arrived that much of the software typical users have did not really take full advantage of the extra power in the Pro models.

Exactly! Not many apps are written to take advantage of all available cores. A lot of folks do email and internet…don't need a 12-core Mac Pro for this! But if using apps that are written to use all available cores…the projects will fly!

But with the Mac Pro's…you do get better graphics hardware. So even if all CPU cores are not being used…the video hardware may be kicking in…and helping out.

Still…a well equipped iMac is probably a much better value than a Mac Pro for most users.

- Nick

 

[harryb2448]

Mike if you download a little utility called Mactracker it supplies information for all Macs.

For instance the i7 Mini gives a GeekBench2 test score of 8,295 compared to the Mac Pros 6core 25,159. Quite a substantial difference. I have never personally been struck by the Minis, but enjoy. The only reason a Mac Pro would be worth the money over an iMac is if you were heavily into photos, graphic design, architecture etc.

 

[MikeFromMesa]

I believe what's being missed is the benchmark scores mentioned above are "per core" scores. The Mac-Mini has 2 cores…the Mac Pro has 6 cores. Thus the total benchmark score for each computer (taking all cores into consideration) is:

- Mac-Mini (2 cores) = 7308
- Mac Pro (6 cores) = 20654

If you're doing computing tasks that utilize all available cores…the 6-core Mac Pro is going to be MUCH faster. Plus the Mac Pro has much better graphics hardware. But if you're doing CPU intense tasks…and only 1-2 cores are used (email, internet browsing, etc.). Then there won't necessarily be a lot of difference.

- Nick

p.s. Depending where each of us got our benchmarks scores…there may be some small differences.

Ah. Read the small print!

That explains everything. Thank you for pointing that out.

 

[MikeFromMesa]

Still…a well equipped iMac is probably a much better value than a Mac Pro for most users.
- Nick

Undoubtably true but my eyes have problems with high gloss screens and I had to put a matte mesh in front of my old MacBook Pro Retina screen to be able to use it without severe eye strain. I would have bought an iMac if it had a matte finish display.

 

[MikeFromMesa]

Mike if you download a little utility called Mactracker it supplies information for all Macs.
...
The only reason a Mac Pro would be worth the money over an iMac is if you were heavily into photos, graphic design, architecture etc.

Thanks. I will download it.

As it is the main use for my Mini is digital photography and that is the reason I was looking for something with a fast multi-core chip. The iMacs would have been perfect except I can not use the high gloss screens for any length of time without suffering eye strain and so ended up having to get a desktop with matte external monitors that would not give me trouble. I am currently using a Dell 24" matte finish monitor but am not sure the Mini could handle a 4K or 5K monitor and that is the reason I started to look at benchmarks.

Thanks for the information.

 

[pigoo3]

Undoubtably true but my eyes have problems with high gloss screens and I had to put a matte mesh in front of my old MacBook Pro Retina screen to be able to use it without severe eye strain. I would have bought an iMac if it had a matte finish display.

I was talking from a performance standpoint. Glossy display issues is a totally different thang.

- Nick

 

[ferrarr]

When I bought my 2011 Macbook Pro on ebay, it was listed as a anti-glare matte screen, however, when it arrived, it was a glossy screen. I contacted the seller and the took $200 my winning bid of $1100. So, I immediately ordered an anti-glare screen protector for $20, I believe. Then I ordered a 240gb SSD for my new MBP.

Check these out, http://www.kuzyproducts.com/collections/screen-protectors

 

[MikeFromMesa]

When I bought my 2011 Macbook Pro on ebay, it was listed as a anti-glare matte screen, however, when it arrived, it was a glossy screen. I contacted the seller and the took $200 my winning bid of $1100. So, I immediately ordered an anti-glare screen protector for $20, I believe. Then I ordered a 240gb SSD for my new MBP.

Check these out, http://www.kuzyproducts.com/collections/screen-protectors

I also bought an anti-glare screen for my MacBook Pro but did not see one for the iMac. The link you posted contains anti-glare screens for a lot of machines but only seems to have a screen protector for the 27" iMac.

If there is an anti-glare screen for the 27" iMac I would certainly buy that before the Pro as it (the Mini) is far more machine than I need and would save me the trouble of buying a larger monitor for my Mini now. In fact, since I use dual monitors, I could use my current 24" as a second monitor for the iMac if there was an anti-glare screen that worked for it.

 

[pm-r]

Mike if you download a little utility called Mactracker it supplies information for all Macs.
… … …

As great as Mactracker is, I had to google where it hides its GeekBench2 scores, and I dare say for that info, the info is much easier to find and more extensive at the http://www.everymac.com site.

 

[harryb2448]

Google? Just click on the CPU information in blue.

 

[pm-r]

Google? Just click on the CPU information in blue.

And that's why google was needed, as there was no indication to click on any "blue", which BTW is very minimal GeekBench2 numbers compared to http://www.everymac.com

And BTW: I did also manage to find the instructions in the Mactracker Help under "Looking up model details", so google could have been avoided. And I don't have access or equipment to use Siri to just ask….

 

[ferrarr]

DuckDuckGo found this, http://www.apple.com/us-hed/shop/pr...ketmobile&fh=3345%2B440b%2B31f3%2B32e8%2B31eb. I put in the search term "anti glare 2015 27 " iMac" and it was one of the results. Then I clicked on the Apple link for the 21.5 inch model.

 

[pm-r]

DuckDuckGo found this, http://www.apple.com/us-hed/shop/pro...B32e8%2B31eb.

Hmmm…??? Interesting and possibly helpful "Ratings & Reviews" user comments… ;P

 

[ferrarr]

Strange, but when I put the link in, it brought me to Apple Education Discount Store and they had a 3m Privacy filter for 27" iMac., http://www.apple.com/us-hed/shop/pr...ketmobile&fh=3345%2B440b%2B31f3%2B32e8%2B31eb

 

[pm-r]

Strange, but when I put the link in, it brought me to Apple Education Discount Store

Your original URL took me to the same store, so something just changed the URL so it doesn't work after I used the 'quote' thing for some reason… anyway, not exactly complementary user comments… and avoidance may save wasting some money…

 

[MikeFromMesa]

Your original URL took me to the same store, so something just changed the URL so it doesn't work after I used the 'quote' thing for some reason… anyway, not exactly complementary user comments… and avoidance may save wasting some money…

From the comments this appears to be more of a privacy screen than an anti-glare screen. It reminds me of why I ended up buying a Mac Mini as I could not find a good anti-glare screen for the 27" iMac.

I guess most people don't have glare issues with the iMac.

 

[pm-r]

Hmmm…?? I'm not sure what qualifies as a "good anti-glare screen for the 27" iMac" but there sure seem to be some available, and I even came across some non-commercial suggestions:
http://www.provideocoalition.com/ma...ending_money_or_applying_any_screen_protecto/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSF84EoQBvk&ab_channel=HBT

I have and use a 2011 27" iMac and it does have some reflection glare, but sure not bad once I changed my layout and lighting arrangement around and I could do more if I was really fussy, but it's minimal for my use and liking.




- Patrick
======