View Full Version : XBench Mini Scores comparable/higher to MP

06-25-2009, 09:37 AM
a person on another board has posted what he says is his mac mini's xBench scores...some are in excess of 200, whereas the average MP score is 161. Part of his secret is using an intel solid state drive, which can obviously boost disk-related chores, but in terms of raw CPU crunching, isn't the "nehalem" supposed to be the most powerful chip on the mac platform right now?

to me, it's confusing, but also bears examination.

thanks for any thoughts!


06-26-2009, 01:17 AM
It depends what you are using the computer for.

LW is CPU first & foremost. Photoshop if I am not wrong is still on 2 cores. Video editing is all about hugh & many hard drives & 2 fast cores will be enough.

If you are using all sorts of programs, & you have a limited budget something has to give.

If you donít have to do it on a Mac you can use a 920 & over clock it to over 4 Ghz if you are keen & are lucky to have a good chip. Iíve got my 940 12gb ram running on the standard heatsink @ 3.657 Ghz, & over 3.8 Ghz but not with 12 gb (the experts will have this running @ 4.2 or higher)

On a per box price a 950 is only a few $ more per Ghz than a 920. (I can put a box together for about AU$170 per Ghz @ 3.6 Ghz per box)

Itís better to look at real tests with the Programs you are going to use.

If you are doing 3d on a Mac & only want one box the 2.26 V8 will give you the most Ghz per $. & these things are the same chips as the i7s. Unfortunately they are a bit dearer per Ghz.

I would rather spend money on a faster CPU/more cores. If the computer turns on 10 second quicker with SSD Iím not overly excited. If I can finish a render an hour sooner then its a different story.

You could upgrade a Mac V8!