VII. Testing the Mac mini

you may see the results of the Macworld Lab ’s tests in our full inspection . Since my personal aim was to learn as much about the Mac mini as potential , I sought out extra trial run tools to add to what the Macworld Lab test told me .

Geekbench benchmark : Impressed with the relaunch speeds of applications , I went looking for a benchmark psychometric test that would measure the raw calculation force of the Core Duo chip in the mini . With some help from Google , I foundGeekbench , which runs in the Terminal and runs a whole slew of bit - crunching test ( and works on Windows and Linux , too ) . I ran Geekbench on all three Macs . One interesting feature of Geekbench is that there ’s a Rosetta interlingual rendition as well as a native reading , so you may see just what variety of carrying out impact Rosetta makes .

Geekbench is , well , quite geeky , so dig into the table below only if you want to see all the gory details .

Article image

Testing by Rob Griffiths usingGeekBench.

Rob’s Geekbench Results

note results take issue significantly from native exam , suggesting a potential bug in the test course of study .

Testing by Rob Griffiths usingGeekBench .

If you just want the sum-up rendering of the results , here it is :

intelligibly the Core Duo is a brawny chip , base on its naked number - mash abilities . As more applications go Universal , we ( consumers ) will see the benefits in terms of improved operation .

Cinebench bench mark : The freeCinebenchbenchmark uses the Cinema 4D railway locomotive to test the graphics carrying into action of your Mac . I test all three of the Macs here , and then , for an added data point , also quiz my homebuilt Windows XP microcomputer ( which literally had n’t been powered up in month ) . Here ’s how the machines perform :

The first thing that stands out , quite glaringly , is that the Windows XP box kicked some serious Cinebench butt on the OpenGL benchmarks — it was over twice as truehearted at the hardware accelerated examination ! Now Maxon ’s OpenGL railway locomotive implementation may not be the best , but the fact is that Cinema 4D ’s OpenGL engine will run double as quickly on my homebuilt Athlon - base single - core CPU as it will on my Dual G5 . That just does n’t seem right-hand .

Also obvious from the charts is that the 12 - column inch PowerBook is really not a great car for Cinema 4D work . It was considerably behind the mini on all test .

What do these results mean to you , if you do n’t work in Cinema 4D all day ? Not needs a whole lot , other than to put the relative performance of the machines in view , and to note that the miniskirt ’s onboard graphics fleck work much better than the PowerBook ’s separate video recording circuit card .

Xbench : This is one of the older Mac benchmarking applications , and it too is now uncommitted in Universal mannikin . I ran all three machine through the received trial run , and here are the outcome :

Rob’s Xbench Tests

test by Rob Griffiths .

Xbench is designed to riposte a score of 100 on a 2.0GHz Dual G5 , which just pass to be my desktop motorcar . As you may see , my system did better in some areas like graphics ( where my XT800 card is quicker than the caudex card ) , but much pathetic in others — I completely die the disc test , for example . I ’ll have to look into that at some point !

The interesting figures here are the three tests where the mini beats the Dual G5 . The Thread and memory board results do n’t storm me , give the much faster RAM and the Intel chip ’s capability . The OpenGL results , though , I have no account for . My Dual G5 is clearly much faster than the mini at anything using OpenGL , but these resolution suggest otherwise . And yet , in something like the iTunes visualiser , run at the same resolution on both machines , the Dual G5 is about 50 percentage quick than the miniskirt . I really do n’t have an explanation for this issue , and welcome any thoughts from others on the bailiwick .

Three takeaway points :

These test results are more for general interest than specific comparability aim , especially as they miss any comparative info for the anterior - generation miniskirt . Still , they do show that the mini has a powerful CPU and not - too - shabby graphics chip , both of which should help it well fulfill its role as Apple ’s entry - stratum Mac .

VIII. Rosetta and Intel transition issues

I ’ve touch on on these topics in other department before , but I thought I would also consolidate the topic here for easy access .

Rosetta : Rosetta work , and in my opinion , work amazingly well . The fact that something like Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2005 can be converted on - the - fly ball to draw with an satisfactory ( if slow ) framerate on the Intel miniskirt is just amazing . And in more typical usage , such as in Word or Excel , the functioning reach from Rosetta is n’t really obtrusive unless you ’re pushing the limits of these program ’s capabilities . The most seeable mansion of Rosetta are boring scrolling , and perhaps a bit of lag in screen redraws .

Now , if you seek to do something like edit a multi - megabyte TIFF figure in Photoshop CS2 on the mini , you ’ll definitely feel the Rosetta impact . In lick on this article , I used Photoshop Elements extensively , and at only one clip did I really notice the slowdown . I had opened four 1 MB pettifoggery for rebirth to PNG , and it took a few seconds to start the “ Save for Web ” duologue for each one . Not a adult deal , time - wise , but notably different than either the PowerBook or the G5 .

For most typical drug user , who spend their sentence in east - mail , on the vane , and working on simple letters and spreadsheet , I do n’t think Rosetta is hold up to be notice much , if at all . If , on the other mitt , you ’re a world power user who works on massive Excel spreadsheets , vast range - laden Word documents , or monstrous 20 megabyte advertizement layout TIFFs in Photoshop , you ’re go to want to wait for native versions of your app before you switch .

Intel transition issues : At the end of the day , the miniskirt is really just another Mac , regardless of what ’s power it . If nobody told you , you would n’t know there ’s anything different under the hood . The machine is a Mac , just one with a dissimilar locomotive engine powering it than we ’re all used to . That affright some people , myself included . But after having used the thing for a very - intensive seven days , I can see that my fright were mostly unfounded . The miniskirt is a Mac , through and through , regardless of what it see like inside .

That pronounce , there are some things you ’ll want to be cognizant of before you switch . If you use hardware or software system that require a kernel extension or similar equipment driver to go , it wo n’t work until that equipment driver is converted to exploit on the Intel - powered Macs . If you use a MacBook Pro , for instance , that means you ca n’t yet utilize the wonderfulSideTrackto supply functionality to your trackpad . And for me , it means that I ca n’t useSnapz Proto capture screenshots and moving-picture show , which is why the two movie in this article calculate so ugly , despite my efforts with the tripod and digital camera .

On the positive side of the transition government issue , native app work really well . They tend to launch more quickly than their counterparts on likewise - powered PowerPC machines , and performance within the software is snappy . On the games I test , the oecumenical versions had amazingly adept frame rates , at least compared to the PowerBook ’s version of the same game .

If you use Java applications , you ’ll be thrill to see that these ( usually ) do n’t require any spiritual rebirth to track down natively on Intel … and they runfast . jEdit on my G5 feels obtuse than jEdit on the mini , which is quite the effort for a “ humble end ” Mac .

I really think Apple has done a good job with Rosetta . Yes , there ’s a carrying into action hit , but really , it ’s not that obvious unless you ’re really stressing the motorcar . Many people in all likelihood wo n’t even realise something ’s running under Rosetta unless they ’re tell ; it ’s a very seamless technology .

And I ’ve been thrill with the speed of the native app , particularly the Finder ! I keep having to remind myself that I ’m using the secondly - cheapest mack you could purchase , and not something near the top - last of the food Ernst Boris Chain . Yes , my Dual G5 is still quicker in most things , especially gaming and diagrammatically - intensive diligence . But for everything from eastward - mail to web browse to work in the Finder to iPhoto to iTunes , etc . , the mini feels at least as tight , if not much faster ( Finder ! ) than the Dual G5 .

IX. Conclusion

If you ’re still read this , you ’ve got an incredible amount of longanimity , pursuit in the miniskirt , or you just jump down here to get to the in effect material first . Whatever the reason , here are my reason out thoughts after a foresighted , busy week working intently with the Modern Intel Core Duo mini — persuasion on both the mini itself , and the Intel transition . Because my finger’s breadth are nearly run aground down to stumps , I ’m going to represent the conclusion as a bulleted list …

The final question is … would I buy one of these myself , and/or commend it to protagonist ? That ’s a tougher interrogation ; it would really depend on who the user was and what their need were .

For first - clock time Mac buyers , I do n’t think the machine makes a mint of sense , unless they already have a keyboard , shiner , and monitor from a PC system . If you order a 1 GB Core Duo , that ’s $ 899 up front . Add a keyboard ( $ 20 ) , mouse ( $ 10 ) , and monitor ( $ 150 ) , and you ’re up to $ 1079 . For an extra $ 300 , you could have an Intel - establish iMac with a faster central processing unit , twice the hard campaign space , and an include iSight television camera . The iMac has a better video card as well , and shit a good gambling machine . Unless budget was “ absolutely no more than $ 1100 , ” I would probably seek to convert a starter that the iMac was the salutary value proposition .

Yes , you’re able to knock the mini ’s price down by $ 200 by getting the Core Solo , but I ’m not sure that newcomers will be as impressed by the public presentation of that machine , base on our review and research lab tests … and it wo n’t play back HD video , so it would n’t work on as well in the home entertainment center .

For those who already have the appurtenance , however , I would n’t hesitate to urge the miniskirt , particularly the Core Duo . Even power users may be surprised at how well the mini does some things — just do n’t expect it to be a Photoshop - in - Rosetta powerhouse ! As an tote up - on organization , it ’s amazingly fast , very subdued , and can be come in almost anywhere . It ’s also a great way of life to get familiarize with the Intel processors , and perhaps screen the waters before diving in with a new high - death Intel tower later this class . And as a centerpiece in a nursing home amusement organisation , it would execute laudably .

And now , I really am out of thing to say about both the Intel conversion and the Core Duo miniskirt . I trust you ’ve discover this information utilitarian , and thanks for read along !

[ Rob Griffiths is a senior editor program atMacworldand runsMacOSXHints.com . ]