Apple Mac mini Review (Mid 2010)
by Anand Lal Shimpi on August 9, 2010 3:37 AM ESTGeneral Performance
The original Mac mini was fast enough for the entry level Mac user back in 2005. Given that Apple’s iPad is fast enough for many users today, I don’t think it’s too difficult to understand that the 2010 Mac mini is sufficient for most needs.
There are two problems with the overall performance of the mini that will contribute to it feeling slow, particularly over time. The first is memory, and I’ll touch on this in more detail later, but 2GB of RAM is simply not sufficient for a computer running a heavyweight OS. Even light multitasking exposes this weakness. The second is the hard drive.
Apple ships the Mac mini with a 2.5” 5400RPM notebook drive. The drive keeps power consumption and noise down to a minimum, while being awful for performance. To Apple’s credit, OS X does a good job of caching frequently used data but without enough RAM this is a wobbly crutch.
The Mac mini is absolutely begging to have an SSD, and unlike the rest of Apple’s Mac lineup, one isn’t even offered on the mini. I’m going to take this opportunity to again plead for Apple to include a decent SSD in its customization options. These days the name of the game is SandForce. While that may change in another quarter or two, we still need Apple to take SSDs more seriously than it has been.
Now on to the numbers. I didn't have any previous generation Intel Mac minis on hand so the performance comparison is mainly to the MacBook/MacBook Pro. I did throw in some results from the early 2008 iMac I reviewed a while back.
General OS Performance
General OS usage is a difficult thing to quantify, but one measure of performance has always been the number of bounces an icon in the dock makes before an application loads. I decided to take it to the next level and write a quick script to launch 15 applications in a row, timing how long the entire process takes.
I launched, in order: Mail, Safari, Activity Monitor, iTunes, iCal, DVD Player, iPhoto, Photo Booth, Quicktime Player, Disk Utility, Preview, iMovie, Front Row, Garage Band and Aperture.
The entire process stresses both the disk and CPU, which is why we see a huge improvement when going to an SSD as well as differences between CPU speeds.
Application launch performance is slower than the 13-inch MacBook Pro because of the mini’s 2GB of memory. You’ll see this trend continuing as we go through our tests.
Adobe Photoshop CS4 Performance
The Retouch Artists Speed Test we use for our CPU testing under Windows also works under OS X. We're running the exact same benchmark here, basically performing a bunch of image manipulations and filters and timing the entire process.
Photoshop performance is decent, but again behind the latest MBPs because we’re swapping to disk. Not only does the mini ship with 2GB of memory but it has to share 256MB with the GeForce 320M.
Aperture 2 RAW Import
For my Aperture test I simply timed how long it took to import 203 12MP RAW images into the library.
Our Aperture test is heavier on the I/O and thus narrows the gap between the 13-inch MBP and the mini.
Cinebench R10
I’m a fan of the Cinebench test because it lets me show off both single and multithreaded performance in the same workload. First, the single threaded performance:
If we’re totally CPU bound, which is the case with Cinebench, you’ll see that the mini performs no differently than the 13-inch MacBook Pro. Compared to a mobile Core i5 you’re looking at roughly 70% of the performance. It’s fast enough, but not speedy.
Quicktime H.264 Video Encoding
Our final benchmark is more consumer focused. Here I'm taking an XviD and converting it to an iPhone-supported H.264 format.
Video encoding performance is once again where we’d expect it to be, roughly on par with the 13-inch MacBook Pro. The new i5 systems are 60% faster.
Maintaining Profit Margins: 2GB vs. 4GB RAM
The $699 mini is the only Mac that currently ships with less than 4GB of memory (except for the MacBook Air). For a $700 system, that’s unacceptable. For a machine that’s sold in 2010, that’s unacceptable. For something that’s not a nettop, well, you get the idea.
The performance gain you see from just adding another 2GB of memory to the 2010 mini is huge. Here’s our Photoshop benchmark before and after an upgrade to 4GB:
| 2010 Mac mini Performance | ||||
| 2GB RAM | 4GB RAM | |||
| Photoshop CS4 Retouch Artists Bench | 60.7 seconds | 42.1 seconds | ||
| Cinebench R11.5 CPU | 1.38 points | 1.39 points | ||
That’s a 44% performance increase! The Cinebench results don't show a similar performance improvement since we're fully CPU bound in an test that easily fits in main memory.
You can argue that not all Mac mini owners won’t be running Photoshop, and I’d even agree with you there, but the memory limits come into play as soon as you start running a couple of large footprint applications. The multitasking falloff is sharp on the Mac mini because you only have 2GB of memory and you’ve got a dirt slow 5400RPM notebook hard drive in there.
The Photoshop results are just to show you something quantifiable. The user experience of the Mac mini is noticeably diminished by only having 2GB of memory.
Upgrading the memory is pretty simple. Just twist the pedestal on the bottom, remove the cover and swap sticks:
Apple ships the mini with 2 x 1GB sticks and the GeForce 320M has a dual-channel DDR3 memory controller so you’ll want to upgrade in pairs as well. Apple charges $100 for the upgrade, which isn’t too bad but you’re better off buying the memory yourself and just eBaying what you get with the system.
You just need to buy DDR3-1066 SO-DIMMs, the same thing you’d put in a notebook.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
93 Comments
View All Comments
Casper42 - Monday, August 9, 2010 - link
I know you said you already sent it back, but I'm curious why you didn't toss in an 80GB Intel G2 SSD (or a SandForce as mentioned), upgrade the RAM to 4GB and run it through all the paces again?Sure it comes out to be a $1000 machine at that point, but it would have been nice to see what the total potential of the platform would be. And putting in the SSD would arguably reduce the power footprint slightly as well.
akatsuki - Monday, August 9, 2010 - link
I think Apple's SSD support is still a bit thin anyway. Once they add TRIM support, etc. I think it will be a much better time to benchmark.I can't imagine spending that kind of money on a Mini over an entry level Macbook or a dedicated HTPC device - especially since GoogleTV and AppleTV revisions are due soon and should revitalize that area.
cjs150 - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - link
Would have hit reply but for some reason locks my machine upNo way would I use this as a server. Far better is to pick up an Atom board with a PCI-E slot (for a nice raid card), 4gb of memory and use Ebox (free) as the server software. Would cost 50% of the Mac mini price.
Having just built one for a home server it is simply and just works without fuss
thunng8 - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - link
Some nice nostalgia with the Powermac G5 2.5Ghz. I enjoyed reading about it. I'm surprised at how well it holds up in the benchmarks. Just a minor nitpick, but the Dual 2.5Ghz model was released in mid-2004, not early 2005.aliasfox - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - link
Agreed - would love to have seen some "vintage" games, just to see if an ancient midrange graphics card can hack it against a modern integrated chip. Throwing in an old Northwood (or was it Prescott by the end of 2004?) system just for comparison's sake would be amusing, too.Ancient's relative, too - I'm running (and occasionally gaming!) on an 8-yr old Power Mac (with a Radeon 9700pro) and do "general" stuff on a PowerBook that's nearly as old...
I think one of the reasons that Power Mac G5s hold their value so well is that they are the only machines (pre Mac Pro) that could hold multiple HDs internally, as well as be upgraded (for a price) to a relatively modern GPU - ATI 3xxxx series, nVidia 8xxxx series, I think.
As for the mini... as much as I like Apple's products, I can't get behind the pricing of the Mac mini - sure, it's a great piece of industrial design, and I'd love to have a stylish, small, nearly-silent box in my home theater set up, but having to drop $800 before getting 4GB of RAM means this is far, far out of its price range. $499-599, maybe $699 with BD and 4GB of RAM... too bad Apple doesn't believe in BD. Or RAM. Or internal 3.5" HDs...
_gescom_ - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - link
Great machine, but definitely way too expensive at 760+ EUR.It should cost 450/500 EUR like the old one.
Why additional 250+ EUR? I know, we sheep, you bleep.
Setsunayaki - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - link
This is actually worse than a Laptop in a many ways...The scope of computers have changed and the public has proven the majority of people view email, write papers, use internet....or listen to music. Very basic things...
I find that netbooks are way better...considering you can buy an always-on internet connection with them and their battery life is good. When one looks at basic usage, i know people can talk about performance and other things out there....
But how many people out there who own computers as basic users end up using 30 - 40% of the processor on a dual core or quad core? I am still sitting here on a Quad Core and unless I am gaming or doing something heavy, I don't use it at heavy load. Once one eliminates the need for heavy servers or Heavy Gaming altogether...computers lose their grace..
I remember I bought a Laptop in 2005 for $300 on sale. I know by now every laptop outperforms mine, but I don't do 3D gaming on the laptop and I run on Ubuntu Linux. I am not even at the point where my processor chokes and most of the time I don't even use 2GB of RAM on the laptop.
Sorry, but with so many better offerings which include a monitor, keyboard and built in mouse along with portability, this MAC-Mini would have been great 4 years ago, unfortunately too little, too late.
hummerchine - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - link
Man, you guys are a tough bunch to please! I own over 20 computers right now, from a gaming PC me and my son built with top shelf parts, to 5 Dell PCs, to a Mac Pro running a 30 inch monitor, to my wonderful new MacBook Pro 17", to three Mac Minis (not the latest...and best...ones), and multiple other Macs and PCs. Jeez, for many uses the Mac Mini totally rocks! And for many uses, it is the best computer you can possibly buy.I just cannot get over the seething hatred of Apple I sense so often...usually from people who hate them so much that they never use any of their products, and thus really know nothing about what they are talking about.
I have not used the very latest Mac Mini, but since it's better than the two new ones I bought earlier this year that are awesome I'd have to guess it's awesome too!
Rayb - Wednesday, August 11, 2010 - link
I see you really bought into their marketing hype, line, hook and sinker.An ION1 box fully loaded can do exactly the same things, including BD playback wireless and remote for around $200 less. Do you see the irony now?
With people like you thinking this is cutting edge tech in a new shinny box, I rest my case.
aliasfox - Wednesday, August 11, 2010 - link
I for one don't hate it - I hate the price.Even without i3 or i5, it's a great box - but at $700 (or near $850 with a basic monitor, keyboard, and mouse), it's far, far too expensive - in fact, the 'on the road' price is so close to a white macbook (with screen, keyboard, trackpad, and battery), that one has to imagine that Apple doesn't really *want* the mini to sell in huge numbers.