advertisement
Forums

The Forum is sponsored by 
 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the Tips and Deals forum
Curiosity on difference in performance on "apparently similar" 2011 hardware
Posted by: SKYLANE
Date: December 11, 2019 02:12AM
My Subject Hardware:

2011 MacMini5,3 (Server) 2.0GHz i7 Quad Core
macOS 10.13.6 High Sierra

2011 MacBookPro8,2 2.4GHz i7 Quad Core 15"
macOS 10.13.6 High Sierra



It's possible I may have to disable the dedicated GPU soon in MBP, maybe (I successfully did this on another 2011 MBP). The two machines above have the same integrated GPU - the Intel HD Graphics 3000.

Just for curiosity sake...

Both these machines have i7 Quad Core running at close to similar speeds, MBP has a 20% faster clock speed. Are the machines somewhat similar in performance being similar CPU? I would expect the MBP to be slightly faster due to the clock speed, but does the MacBook Pro have other architecture that gives it additional performance over the MacMini?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2019 02:14AM by SKYLANE.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Curiosity on difference in performance on "apparently similar" 2011 hardware
Posted by: jdc
Date: December 11, 2019 02:32AM
just the numbers. Day to day tasks, if they both have SSDs and same ram... I bet you never could tell.

But prob cunching some things... MBP has better numbers.







Edited 999 time(s). Last edit at 12:08PM by jdc.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Curiosity on difference in performance on "apparently similar" 2011 hardware
Posted by: p8712
Date: December 11, 2019 06:03AM
I doubt you'd see much difference. MBP might run a tad bit slower off battery power - do CPU's still throttle like that?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Curiosity on difference in performance on "apparently similar" 2011 hardware
Posted by: pdq
Date: December 11, 2019 09:07AM
FWIW, you might be able to put two SSDs inside the mini and do a RAID0 to double memory bandwidth.

I did this in my 2012 Mini “server” i7 quad. It might take some doing now, since I think newer versions of Disk Utility won’t let you do this anymore, but it might be possible.

Anyway, the numbers in a benchmarking app like Blackmagic show the improved read/write speeds - in terms of real-world, I can’t really say. Mine still feels pretty snappy. Of course, a RAID0 with two disks is twice as susceptible to failure as a single SSD, so I back mine up in Time Machine pretty much continuously.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Curiosity on difference in performance on "apparently similar" 2011 hardware
Posted by: Filliam H. Muffman
Date: December 11, 2019 10:29AM
If these are computers that don't get frequent OS upgrades, have you considered a hackintosh...



In tha 360. MRF User Map
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Curiosity on difference in performance on "apparently similar" 2011 hardware
Posted by: space-time
Date: December 11, 2019 01:06PM
Quote
pdq
FWIW, you might be able to put two SSDs inside the mini and do a RAID0 to double memory bandwidth.

I did this in my 2012 Mini “server” i7 quad. It might take some doing now, since I think newer versions of Disk Utility won’t let you do this anymore, but it might be possible.
...

I don't like the new version of Disk Utility and I didn't even realized they moved the options to make RAID volumes. What a shame.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Curiosity on difference in performance on "apparently similar" 2011 hardware
Posted by: space-time
Date: December 11, 2019 01:08PM
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
If these are computers that don't get frequent OS upgrades, have you considered a hackintosh...

it's not about the frequency of OS updates. The frequency was too high since they started releasing yearly updates.

both if them are End of Life, there will be no more OS updates for these machines. The "frequency" is now ZERO.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Curiosity on difference in performance on "apparently similar" 2011 hardware
Posted by: Lew Zealand
Date: December 11, 2019 02:00PM
Quote
SKYLANE
My Subject Hardware:

2011 MacMini5,3 (Server) 2.0GHz i7 Quad Core
macOS 10.13.6 High Sierra

2011 MacBookPro8,2 2.4GHz i7 Quad Core 15"
macOS 10.13.6 High Sierra



It's possible I may have to disable the dedicated GPU soon in MBP, maybe (I successfully did this on another 2011 MBP). The two machines above have the same integrated GPU - the Intel HD Graphics 3000.

Just for curiosity sake...

Both these machines have i7 Quad Core running at close to similar speeds, MBP has a 20% faster clock speed. Are the machines somewhat similar in performance being similar CPU? I would expect the MBP to be slightly faster due to the clock speed, but does the MacBook Pro have other architecture that gives it additional performance over the MacMini?

I had the 2011 2.0 Mini server in the past and I have the 2011 2.3 15" MBPro now. They "feel" the same with a similar SSD installed. You won't need to kill the dGPU in the Mini as you said, IMO that's an advantage. My impression is that the cooling in the Mini is better than the MBPro and I find the fan sound and the heat itself less obtrusive in the Mini as it's separated from you. The Mini does 2.6 GHz all-core Turbo while the MBPro does 3.2 GHz all-core Turbo, a notable performance difference, also contributing to the heat when using all cores.

I have found no architectural differences which contribute to their performance nearly as much as the processor speed so it's a clear choice if that's your intent. FYI these shipped with 1333 MHz RAM but if you have 1600 or 1866 MHz RAM around, they will utilize that faster RAM. There aren't many things which will take advantage of that extra bandwidth but that small performance boost is there if you want it.

I have 5 2011 machines knocking about here and have swapped out parts here and there, and 16GB 1600 MHz RAM with a 512GB WD 3D Blue SSD is just as killer in the 2.3 Dual Core i5 Mini as the 2.3 Quad Core i7 MBP and the 2.7 GHz 27" iMac.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2019 02:01PM by Lew Zealand.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 102
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020